Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
4 <br /> Elements of both the proposed ordinance and resolution where there was little or no disagreement <br /> between staff and task force proposed language or intent included: a) overall energy savings goals; <br /> b) energy savings features and strategies; and c) architectural design consultant selection criteria. The <br /> overall energy savings goal was to ensure that any new building consumes thirty percent less energy than <br /> the maximum allowed under the standards set by the NC Building Code in effect as of 1 February 1997. <br /> The preferred energy savings features and strategies, which were explicitly specified in the proposed <br /> ordinance and resolution, included solar orientation(building layout), daylighting, use of special glass, <br /> use of insulation in excess of code requirements, use of renewable energy for heating air and swimming <br /> pools and cooling, water conservation, landscape shading and wind block strategies, use of energy <br /> efficient motors and lighting, use of energy management systems, location of parking areas to minimize <br /> heat absorption, and the use of materials and colors which will decrease cooling loads. The architectural <br /> consultant selection process required that an architect (or firm)must demonstrate expertise in energy <br /> efficient building design by means of a previously designed building incorporating the energy savings <br /> strategies and techniques listed above. The ordinance and resolution also required that the project <br /> architect show justification for failing to incorporate any of the listed energy savings techniques and <br /> strategies in the building design. <br /> It was suggested by the Energy Task force that Orange County would benefit by adopting a similar <br /> ordinance or resolution to guide design of its own buildings as well as those of both the Orange County <br /> and Chapel Hill-Carrboro school systems. The school systems, by virtue of their ongoing programs of <br /> constructing large buildings(far in excess of anything proposed by the Town[s] and County combined) <br /> and potential for significant energy use and conservation,were deemed an important domain for the <br /> imposition of mandatory energy design requirements. <br /> The draft energy efficiency ordnance and resolution have not been reviewed in any detail by County staff <br /> other than the County Engineer. Nonetheless, it would appear to be a reasonable expectation that <br /> County staff could have much the same concern as that of Chapel Hill staff relative to the choice of using <br /> a resolution or an ordinance as an instrument of strategy to achieve energy efficiency. A specific example <br /> relative to consultant selection comes immediately to mind: in selecting a consultant for design of a new <br /> or expanded jail, should a consultant be selected on the basis of experience with jail construction or <br /> energy efficiency design. Under the requirement of the draft Chapel Hill ordinance, it would be required <br /> by law that a design consultant having the requisite energy efficiency expertise but no jail design <br /> experience be selected over a consultant having jail design expertise but little or no track record for <br /> energy efficient design and construction. There may be other issues of concern which would need to be <br /> analyzed and evaluated by the BOCC and County staff. County staff will, of course, review the proposed <br /> and adopted ordinance and the proposed resolution and provide comments to the BOCC as per the <br /> Board's instruction. If I may provide any additional information or clarification, please advise. <br />