Agenda - 09-29-2004- - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Governments meeting, the activities needed to development a GHG plan were outlined by staff, and the three elected boards agreed to work together on a joint plan for reasons of both consistency, comprehensiveness and economic efficiency. Subsequently, at the September 29, 2003 Assembly of Governments meeting, Chapel Hill, Orange County and Carrboro formally agreed to work together to develop the comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions inventory and action plan, and staffs were asked to work together to develop a Request for Qualifications and a joint Memorandum of Agreement for the project, with evaluation of potential firms and a recommendation to follow. Orange County's Environment and Resource Conservation Department was proposed as the lead agency for project coordination, working with the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Planning Departments. During 2003, another air quality issue arose in terms of public awareness. The impending designation of the Triangle region as non - attainment for ground -level ozone (03) was announced by USEPA, and a potential joint Durham County- Orange County Energy Audit grant application was submitted (but not funded). Both of these activities commanded the attention of elected boards and staff in late 2003. It should be noted that while the compounds that contribute to ground -level ozone and those contributing to GHG are somewhat different (nitrogen oxides versus carbon dioxides), the issues are similar in terms of source and potential solutions or strategies (reduction in vehicular emissions, for example). Status Report In the fall of 2003, the joint staff work group began meeting to develop a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Scope of Work for the GHG Inventory and Action plan (Attachment 2). An initial RFQ yielded a limited number of responses, so a second RFQ was developed and released to a broader range of potential firms. During this time, the beginnings of a draft Memorandum of Agreement was also developed to outline the roles and responsibilities of each jurisdiction in working with the selected firm, and the funding portions for the project. Five proposals were received to the second RFQ and reviewed by the Work Group. Our Joint Staff Work Group met on several occasions in the spring and summer of this year to review the RFQ's, evaluate them, and ask follow -up questions of each firm. After completion of our evaluation, the Joint Staff Work Group recommends that ICLEI Energy Services (IES) of Toronto be selected as the consultant for the