Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
17 <br /> 1 own amendment, she wanted to make sure there was a reporting process to ensure fidelity to <br /> 2 the mission of climate mitigation, but did not want the schools to have to go through the same <br /> 3 vetting process because they are already at capacity with responsibilities, and she does not <br /> 4 think they should have to compete with other entities. She reiterated that some agencies <br /> 5 applying for the funding have their own taxing authority, so funds are being given away while the <br /> 6 County and schools are not getting anything to make operations more climate friendly. <br /> 7 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that under Commissioner Fowler's proposal, the schools <br /> 8 get the money and then have to report back to the County about how it was used, as opposed <br /> 9 to the current process where projects are vetted in advance before money is provided, so they <br /> 10 can be evaluated for the significance of the impact. <br /> 11 Commissioner Fowler said she envisions the sustainability coordinators from the County <br /> 12 and schools working together to achieve greater projects, and would trust them to report usage <br /> 13 and that the funds would be used for sustainability purposes. <br /> 14 Commissioner Dorosin said by having the vetting process up front, everything is <br /> 15 evaluated in advance, in an objective way, based on criteria designed to maximize the impact <br /> 16 on climate change. He said both of the schools got projects funded, and he does not believe <br /> 17 they were disadvantaged. He said climate change does not stop at jurisdictional lines, so he <br /> 18 does not mind that Towns receive money if the projects meet the objective criteria that were <br /> 19 determined to have a significant impact. <br /> 20 Commissioner Fowler said she would be open to the project review happening up front, <br /> 21 but does not like the County and schools having to compete with outside entities. <br /> 22 The Presentation skipped to slide #23 to review Commissioner Greene's amendment. <br /> 23 Commissioner Greene said her proposal is similar to Commissioner Fowler's but does <br /> 24 require upfront vetting. She said she likes this current process because entities can team up for <br /> 25 large proposals. She said the County has an interest in making sure all projects measure up <br /> 26 against same scoring criteria so that it is fair, and she feels strongly about vetting projects at the <br /> 27 beginning. She said her proposal does not give a percentage to school districts, but requires <br /> 28 them to apply competitively for projects that best support climate change mitigation according to <br /> 29 the County's criteria. <br /> 30 Chair Price said she understands both Commissioner Fowler's and Commissioner <br /> 31 Greene's points. <br /> 32 Commissioner Bedford asked Commissioner Greene if any of the money would be <br /> 33 allocated for County projects under her amendment. <br /> 34 Commissioner Greene said she would be open to County projects being able to apply. <br /> 35 She said the current process came about because the Commissioners wanted to get away from <br /> 36 County staff driving everything. She said she wants it to be competitive so that the money goes <br /> 37 to the best projects out there. <br /> 38 Chair Price said there was excitement when the funding opportunity opened up to the <br /> 39 community, but she also sees Commissioner Fowler's point about putting money to the <br /> 40 County's sustainability. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 The presentation was returned to Slide #22. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 <br /> 45 <br /> 46 <br /> 47 <br /> 48 <br /> 49 <br /> 50 <br /> 51 Slide #22 <br />