CFE minutes 091415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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.