HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE minutes 091415
1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
Meeting Summary
September 14, 2015
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building, Chapel Hill
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Lynne Gronback, Loren Hintz, David Neal,
Bill Newby, Jeanette O’Connor, Rebecca Ray, Gary Saunders
ABSENT: Sheila Thomas-Ambat, Peter Cada, Tom Eisenhart, Lydia Wegman, David Welch
STAFF: Tom Davis, Brennan Bouma
GUESTS: Terri Buckner (OWASA Board of Directors), Pat Davis (OWASA Sustainability Mgr.)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. Call to Order – Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
II. Ad ditions or Changes to Agenda – Sassaman said he would like to add a brief update
and discussion on the status of CFE membership and appointments. He said he would
insert this item between Items IV. and V. on the agenda.
III. Minutes – Hintz motioned to approve the August 10 minutes as written; seconded by
Saunders. Sassaman pointed out a typo on Page 2. Approved unanimously.
IV. Energy Conservation / Management Forum – Terri Buckner (OWASA Board of
Directors) and Gary Saunders reported on the first two meetings to plan for a community
forum on energy conservation and management. Buckner said the meetings have also
included representatives from Carrboro, Chapel Hill, UNC, and OWASA.
Buckner reported the group decided that a community forum is not desirable at this time
after all. Instead they will identify projects of mutual interest where there are
opportunities for collaboration among the different entities. Buckner said the group might
want to hold a public forum after identifying one or more projects. She noted the Town of
Carrboro held a public forum on climate change and did not get adequate public
participation. The plan is to have something specific for members of the public to
consider and react to in the future.
Bucker said the group developed an initial list of potential projects that also included
metrics on how each group would measure and report on energy conservation and
management. It also included metrics on social value. Bucker said the next task is for
people to review the list and prioritize projects of interest to the entity they represent.
The group will consider those prioritize and decide where to go next.
Bucker said the next two meetings will be September 30 and October 28, during which
the group will identify the projects of mutual interest and to determine what is necessary
to make them happen. She noted this is different from what she had presented in August
and hopes this new idea will also be of interest to the CFE for further participation.
Sassaman asked Saunders what he wanted from the full CFE. Saunders asked CFE
members look over the list of potential energy conservation collaboration projects and
provide comments to him in time for him to report to Mary Tiger of OWASA by Sept 18.
2
Saunders commented on the list of potential collaboration projects. He agreed with
Buckner that this initial approach would be better than a public forum.
Buckner noted that some of the potential projects are short-term projects and others are
relatively long-term. She said Chapel Hill has been talking with a consultant about
compiling an inventory of roofs that could support solar energy production in advance of
future capital improvement planning for roof replacement. She said another project is the
potential for the University of North Carolina to utilize methane gas produced by
OWASA’s wastewater treatment plant. Neal asked what happens to the methane
currently. Buckner said the methane is burned by flaring. Pat Davis said OWASA
generates 110,000 cubic feet of methane gas daily (61 BTUs). He said a portion of the
gas is captured and used to heat OWASA’s digestion process and a portion is flared off.
Pat Davis discussed some of the other potential projects being considered by OWASA.
He offered to provide more details on projects to CFE members.
Buckner noted that the CFE gave tentative approval of this concept in August. Buckner
and Saunders asked if the CFE remained favorable of this new collaboration moving
forward. Sassaman asked members if they wished to continue the involvement. The
consensus was that the CFE wishes to continue its collaboration in this effort.
Bouma described some of the other potential projects on the list for CFE members to
consider and respond to. Sassaman asked Saunders to send the list of potential
projects to CFE members. Saunders noted the list of 11 potential projects was only
released to the working group on Friday and he would send it via email.
O’Connor reported on a project by the Town of Carrboro’s climate task force. Becker
asked whether the inventory of roofs for their solar energy potential could also include
privately-owned homes and buildings. Buckner noted that public funds can’t be used to
solarize private buildings. Neal and Bouma discussed a project by the City of Raleigh to
support and expand solar energy production.
CFE members thanked Buckner, Davis, Saunders, and Bouma for their report.
CFE Membership (Unscheduled item) – Sassaman noted that several CFE member
appointments will expire at the end of December, and also that he will need to resign
from the CFE because he and his wife are relocating to Chatham County. He said
Donna Lee Jones’s position remains vacant following her resignation this past June.
Sassaman said the terms for Neal and Saunders will December 31 and neither is eligible
for reappointment. He said Ray’s and Gronback’s terms also expire December 31, but
both are eligible for reappointment and both are interested in continuing on the CFE.
Sassaman said there will be four vacancies to fill shortly. He asked CFE members to
contact people they feel would be good candidates for serving on the commission and to
encourage them to apply. Bouma reported that at a recent BOCC meeting he heard
strong interest by commissioners in filling all vacancies on their advisory boards. CFE
members expressed interest in finding candidates from diverse racial and social
backgrounds, especially given the CFE’s interest in environmental justice issues.
V. Green Building Incentives – The CFE continued its discussion of potential incentives
for energy-efficient construction. Bouma reported on his and Rich Shaw’s recent
meetings with James Baxter, chief commercial building inspector with the Orange
3
County Planning & Inspections Department. Bouma noted that Baxter is a long-time
member of the staff and is very familiar with the state building and energy codes.
Bouma said he also spoke with Gordon Dively, who was formerly with the Solid Waste
department and was recently hired to be the County’s capital projects manager.
Bouma reported the County established a green building committee in 2007-08, but that
it was dissolved when the recession took hold in 2008-09. He said the committee
included representatives from around the county, and they tried to identify incentives for
green building. They considered potential changes to the fee schedule and helping to
publicize businesses that employed green practices, but the committee stopped meeting
before anything resulted from those discussions.
Bouma suggested it is a good time to resume these discussions. He said Orange
County uses the international energy code as a minimum standard, and James Baxter
was a member of the large commission that developed the energy code. Bouma said
the code was developed because green building was conflicting with the standard
building codes that were in place around the country. He said the energy code is
actually out in front of what is being done in practice. Bouma gave an example of the
intent of the energy code to improve the energy efficiency of HVAC systems; however in
practice the practice of installing new systems is out of synch with the process needed to
calibrate those HVAC systems properly.
Bouma said Baxter and Dively have ideas for green building incentives that could be
discussed further. He said alternatives to reducing permit fees or providing rebates
should also be considered because permit fees are needed to generate revenue for
staffing the inspections division. Bouma noted decreasing the size of a house can
usually improve energy efficiency, so increasing property taxes for larger houses with
energy inefficient construction is another potential option. He cited the example of
OWASA’s increased water and sewer fees for larger residences that use more water.
Sassaman said most residents would not consider higher property tax as a disincentive
because they may not recognize the higher fee embedded in the escrow portion of their
mortgage payment. He found that was the case with the County’s $120 recycling fee.
He said only three residents objected to the fee. Hintz and Neal questioned the legal
authority and acceptability of a tax surcharge for larger, inefficient residences.
Gronback, Newby, and Bouma discussed the costs and benefits of “tiny homes.”
Bouma reported that Baxter is interested in continuing this discussion and determining
what ideas can be generated for County consideration. He said Baxter is interested in
learning about Chapel Hill’s experience with its pilot project of permitting development in
the Ephesus-Fordham district. Neal asked Bouma whether he had a chance to contact
the Chapel Hill town staff for an update on that pilot effort. Bouma said he had not.
Neal suggested that once we learn from the Chapel Hill experience how many
commercial builders are willing to pursue the rebates the CFE could work with Planning
and Inspections staff to develop a package of potential incentives that would apply in
certain locations, conditions, and circumstances. The package might go then go to the
Planning Board and BOCC as draft amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance.
Bouma said he would work with the Air and Energy Committee on next steps.
Neal noted that a rebate for commercial building construction is likely to be more feasible
than for residential buildings, particularly when dealing with retrofits. He suggested the
County could appropriate a certain total amount of rebate funds available annually, and
once those funds were spent there would be no more rebates for that given year.
4
VI. CFE Outreach / News Articles – The CFE reviewed news articles intended to educate
and inform the public about issues highlighted in the State of the Environment report.
Sassaman thanked Hintz for his work on the article that was published featuring news of
the emerald ash borer and other invasive species. Sassaman asked if there were
comments on the article by Tom Davis on hydraulic fracturing. Hintz asked whether the
article should mention potential adverse health effects. Davis said the article is intended
to cover the potential effects of fracking on Orange County. Sassaman suggested the
potential for health effects is captured in language about potential water contamination.
Gronback said some deeds to property relinquish the landowners’ mineral rights.
The CFE approved of sending the fracking article as written to area newspapers.
Sassaman thanked Davis for is work on preparing the article.
CFE members then considered an updated list of potential topics for new articles
(Attachment 6). Davis said he would ask Cada to work with him on an article about
water conservation, based on narrative from the SOE report. The CFE discussed
producing an article or two on solar energy generation in Orange County, and to include
language in the article that advocates for restoring state tax incentives for solar energy.
The CFE decided to prepare an article about solar energy issues for October, an article
about water conservation for November, and an article on barriers to solar development
for December. Draft articles will be reviewed by the appropriate committee and then
shared with the full CFE for a final scan prior to being submitted for publication.
VII. Orange County Bond Referendum 2016 – The CFE reviewed the letter it had sent to
the BOCC in June asking the Board to consider reopening the bond referendum process
and providing a full opportunity for public and County staff comment. The CFE
discussed sending a representative to the September 15 BOCC meeting to thank the
BOCC for this opportunity and to provide comments pertaining to the County’s proposed
2016 bond referendum. Bouma mentioned that he heard that as many as 200 people
were expected to show up at the meeting to speak on this issue. Hintz suggesting CFE
members communicate their interests to the BOCC by email rather than at the meeting.
Sassaman said he would send an email to BOCC members and attached a copy of the
CFE’s June memo for reference. He suggested other CFE members could do the same.
VIII. Updates and Information Items – Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were discussed: a) Chatham County’s temporary
fracking moratorium, b) hydrilla treatments in the Eno River, c) Chapel Hill’s pollution
prevention video, d) Bolin Creek trail, e) Orange County’s social justice goal, f)
OWASA’s wastewater/biosolids report, g) OWASA’s new sustainability manager, h)
County brochure on tree harvesting, i) Duke Forest deer management, j) NC's response
to EPA's Clean Power Plan, k) Making Energy Work Conference – Oct 6.
Newby reported the US EPA’s Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
(BenMAP) program has added to its component for social justice considerations.
Bouma reported County staff are identifying subjects for public service announcements
to be aired on WCHL Radio. He asked CFE members for any ideas for future topics.
IX. Adjournment – Sassaman asked for a motion to adjourn. Hintz motioned to adjourn;
seconded by O’Connor. Sassaman adjourned the meeting at 9:35 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff