ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 1
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
First Ward Park/Parking Update
Update on Development Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement
negotiations and outstanding issues.
II.
Subject:
Action:
FY2010/FY2011 ED Focus Area Plan
Deferred to next meeting.
III.
Subject:
Action:
Utilities Capital Improvement Program Policies
Review and discussion of regulations, policies and assumptions that drive
Utilities Capital Improvement Program.
IV.
Subject:
Action:
North Tryon Streetscape
Review the status of the North Tryon Streetscape and preparation for budget
deliberations.
IV.
Subject:
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date is scheduled for March 4, 2009 at 12 Noon
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Council members John Lassiter, Nancy Carter and Patsy Kinsey
Anthony Foxx and James Mitchell
3:30pm – 5:15pm.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
PowerPoint presentation: First Ward Park and Parking Update
PowerPoint presentation: Capital Improvements Program Planning
PowerPoint presentation: North Tryon Redevelopment Study and Recommended Streetscape
Handout: Small Business Resource Event
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I. Subject: First Ward Park and Parking Update
John Lassiter, Chair:
We do have a couple of Committee Members that are struggling with family illness;
Mr. Foxx and Mr. Mitchell will not be here today. There is nothing that requires a vote
today, just information. The first item is an update on the First Ward parking deck
partnership. Tom are you going to talk to us about that?
Flynn:
You have in front of you an overview of the First Ward parking deck partnership. We
are going to go quickly over some of the outstanding issues and where we are on
some of the cost estimates. We pushed the schedule back just a little bit due to our
continuing to work through some of the outstanding issues that we are going to be
talking about. First of all, we are really working hard on understanding the financial
gap. We will have an answer, pending the review within the next two weeks. However
the second deck we do not have as much information around. We have talked to the
developer about it. If the second deck is not started within three years from the
signing of the Development Agreement, we would come back and do another financial
gap analysis. Market conditions are changing, costs are changing and so that is the
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 2
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
position that we are talking with them about.
Does that effect their performa at all?
No. You still would have that $26.1 million dollar tax. If the deck is not built in five
years, we want to go back and look at that $26.1 million dollar tax. Do we need to
contribute as much as we would had market conditions changed? That’s what we are
saying. The County and developer have exchanged appraisals, there is a land swap
involved here. So they are reviewing those appraisals and having those discussions,
that is outside our partnership, but I wanted to let you know what is going on. Also
there is a major change, given the County budget conditions, they are clearly
indicating that they do not have money to fund this park in the foreseeable future.
Their staff is with working with the developer and other parties on a possible leased
land exchange. That would provide a way to fund least a portion of the park.
However, that may take some State enabling legislation, and the County Attorney and
the developer and the developers’ team are working through that. It’s going to take a
little time to work through some of those issues because of that.
Is that a County/developer issue and the City is not engaged?
Yes. it is a County/developer issue. The City is not engaged we are just an interested
party.
So our ledger is not exposed here?
No our ledger would not be, thank you for asking that qualifying question.
What happens to that land? What goes on that property while we are waiting to see
if the County secures the money to improve the property?
Because it will be used as a place to spread out soil excavated from the parking deck
construction. We’re going to dig an underground parking deck, so we’ll level some of
it out in that area. One option that the developer and County is looking at is, do you
seed it and let it sit there for a couple of years until money is available? Are there
improvements that the developer can make and get paid back in some way? Those
are the types of things we are looking at in that regard. Does that answer your
question?
If the land is cleared and it is graded and now prepared for park use, we would not
have any water or facilities use there. But would it be a grassed field suitable for
something like soccer I am thinking of just open space, you have a place for youth
activity. All the improvements would not be there, but is it useable in its raw sense as
green space? Then when the formal park plan is completed you can reopen it.
That is one of the options that they are looking at.
Does that upset in any way our decisions for 8th Street and the plaza? If the park
land isn’t completed, what do we do, relative to improvements along 8th Street?
Because that is a function of how the park is ultimately going to act.
Workforce housing. We are talking regular housing at this point. Based on our last
presentation to you, that would be a commitment that would last for twenty years.
We are still waiting for the developer’s proposal numbers and timing of when
workforce housing would come on to the market. So that is still a work in progress.
There is a piece of land that has to be purchased in order to push 10th Street through.
The developer would purchase that, only part of that land would be needed for the
10th Street Right-of-Way. We would reimburse that developer by adding that to the
City’s part of the Synthetic Tax Increment Financing. Finally we are working on MW
and SBE goals we are looking at road construction project and sub-contracting
opportunities there as well as subcontracting opportunities in building parking decks.
We are working with the County to set that goal and get that information out.
Costs to the Synthetic TIF, funds that take up a percentage, over 45% obviously?
It would be added to the $26.1 million, it would only be reimbursing at 45% the
developer would at risk of, “do we get that”?
Still keeping it at that percentage?
Yes, still 45%. Cost estimates we are continuing to refine these; our current
estimates are $4.5 to $5 million dollars. That would include about $150 million that
would come from the Storm Water Fund a the storm water project along 9th Street
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 3
Kinsey:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
that they were already planning to do. That is a piece of that; the $4.5 to $5 now
includes putting the utilities underground. We have refined it to that point, we have
been working with the developer and the developers’ team and we think this is a good
number that gets the utilities underground. What is not in this number is the upgrade
of 8th Street through the park. For exactly that reasoning if there is not going to be a
park there we are probably good to just put a regular street through there and make
those changes and improvements in keeping with whatever the ultimate design of the
park is, so that is the number we are looking at now. The payment date on that
number for reimbursement would be after the developer builds all of this, which would
not come due until fiscal year 2011. Currently, we have been talking about using
excess proceeds from the NASCAR landfill to do that and other potential options.
Will we still have to raise the street?
Yes, we will have to raise the street. We have decided that is the best thing to do.
We want to pass along our appreciation to Duke, AT&T and the folks working on that
to get the number within a range that begins to make sense.
The solution to this is a creation of a duct bank that would allow their wires to be
pulled and placed in that duct bank. It’s a great partnership and we will pass along
the thanks that you just expressed.
We have other places around town where we have just a ball of wire sitting below the
street, we can’t even open it up. This is a bit more long term so we can resolve those
issues in redevelopment.
In terms of the schedule, we will be coming back to this Committee for consideration
of the Development Agreement in late March, then in to Council consideration in mid
April then to the County for their consideration.
As we are presenting this to the full Council, could we please bring forward that
statement that you have about our TIF money, Synthetic TIF money and percentages
as we run through this?
Good point.
Thank you very much. We need to get the project underway and get UNC Charlotte
downtown. It’s a good platform for what we need to do in going forward.
II. Subject:
FY2010/FY2011 ED Focus Area Plan
Lassiter:
Next item on the agenda is the review of the ED Focus Area Plan. Two members are
not here, we need to defer that to full Committee and come back to that.
That next to the last paragraph is astounding and very well done, both the last and the
next to last paragraph. Thank you all so very much for reconvening on this. I just
heard on NPR, I think it was Richard Porter, talking about Charlotte. How well
positioned and that we have done things right. It was amazing to hear that on a
national broadcast.
If we can, make sure this is electronically distributed to all members by the time of
our next meeting.
Yes, we will. We made no changes to the Focus Area Plan yet. It is reproduced to you
the same way as it was in the Retreat and here are the notes from the Retreat. So
when we get a full Committee together, we can decide on what items you think need
to be tweaked at that time.
Carter:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
III. Subject: Utilities Capital Improvement Program Policies
Lassiter:
Bean:
This is an item referred to us by Council; we will take a look at Utilities Capital
Financing. Doug Bean is here, from Utilities, to begin walking us through this.
Based on last year’s budget, there were three things we talked about in the Capital
Improvement Program Planning. One is the drivers of Utilities Capital Program, we
will get into that later. Another is Capital Policy considerations and lastly the financial
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 4
Lassiter:
Charles Teal:
Bob Linkner:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Carter:
Bean:
Carter:
Bean:
Carter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
implications of CIP. Today we are going to talk about what goes into it and how we
get to those projects and we finance it.
I see we have members of the Advisory Committee, if you would please introduce
them to us.
Charles Teal with CMUD.
Bob Linkner.
Thank you for what you are doing.
They spend a lot of time with the developers. I want to talk a little about the schedule.
There are number of drivers, these really are in descending order: increase capacity
for growth, maintain existing infrastructure, meet annexation requirements, meet
regulatory requirements, support public projects and operations and serve existing
customers. What I would like to do is run through each of those to let you see what
the policies are and what the drivers are that bring about the programs and projects.
Starting first with the growth area, which is by far is the biggest. This area takes about
half of the CIP, about 46% about half of that is for new plants, the other half is for
lines. The regulation we have say in order for us to approve to have any new
development, our engineer has to certify that there is capacity in the plant in the line.
That can be something called paper capacity does not mean actual flow, but once you
approve the project, that is the capacity. You must certify the capacity before you can
approve additional development. N.C. requires that once we reach 80% capacity, we
have to report to them how and when we will increase capacity. We are at 80%, we
have a plan, we will fulfill that obligation. Before you reach 90%, you must have
construction plans in place before you go to bid, otherwise you can’t certify any new
developments. We are now working toward that 90% to have that plan in place
before we reach that 90%, it takes five years to get plans in place. On the water side
looking at capacity, there are regulations that we get from the State of North Carolina.
The minimum low in terms of pressure and the amount, fire protection, if you don’t
have minimum fire protection you have a real problem. Some of the big lines you see
like the south west line provides some of those minimum lows because of sustained
growth. So there are number of regulations that drive the process.
Mr. Lassiter has been focusing on that area, for good reason, the decrease in demand.
We are going to show some specific slides on the demand.
That would affect your 90% capacity?
It would, except the 90% has to do with waste water. The waste water is not as
impacted by the drought or usage as water. When you have a drought the usage goes
down so if it starts raining the usage goes back up.
Your paper presentation is that plans or future?
Plans. Our extension policies and policies adopted by Council and by our Advisory say
that we are responsible for maintaining our capacity. Developers develop subdivisions
and donate their systems to us. If someone needs an extension on their line, we have
to reimburse them for that cost over a five year period.
Your expenses are primarily the cost of delivering water and sewer and the cost to
maintain that capacity.
About 50%.
What I am trying to understand, if there is a cost in the amount of new construction
that you have built into your model? Then what protection or changes in the spec
model are taken into account? That would put less pressure on the rate?
We will get to those and what the changes in the economy have done to our
projections, in just a second. You are right because our Capital Program this year, we
are going to spend $60 - $70 million dollars less. We have reduced spending and next
year it will be about another $20 million dollars. Then we will see how that debt model
flows during the rates during the next several years.
I think I know that answer, we see a rate reduction or flattening, because of
decreased capital assumptions. I am trying to understand each of these big buckets
we are working in and the growth bucket drives the expansion of the system. It
includes the absorption of private plans and other kinds of capital expenses that were
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 5
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Carter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Bean:
incurred before you got to that particular problem. Things are going to slow down
because when we get through the current crunch, there is not much help there in
2010, which means there will be very little construction in 2011, 2012.
We are going to show this curve in what has changed and what has not changed. We
will talk about that growth, so you can see in the models that our waste water
treatment capacity is adequate now. We do not need to address water treatment at
all. Maintenance is just maintaining an infrastructure that’s all that is. We have
regulations in the fact that we have a permit to operate a waste water treatment
plant. If we don’t operate correctly and out of permit compliance, we can be fined and
have a moratorium. Our collection system has a permit that requires us to maintain
our collection system.
About 17% of what we do is to maintain the existing
infrastructure so that it does not fall apart. A lot of that is in Charlotte, in the Central
Business District, where we have a lot of lines and where we have a lot of the older
public system. That is where the majority of our money is actually contained.
Where are we on the $5 million dollar identification and location of all of our systems?
We are about 75% done. But the data we do have is being used on a daily basis on
laptops out in the field.
Could you highlight what we are targeting for the Economic Stimulus program?
We could use the entire State of North Carolina allocation for our projects. We used
some smaller projects to have some chance of being funded. We are not showing you
projects that small here. Annexation policy means we have to supply all of the
services in that area within that area within two years. One driver not only do we have
to provide basic services which are fire protection, and waste water treatment capacity
in the line, we also provide our extension policy. The extension policy provides that if
you are within 1000 feet of our existing service line, we will extend that at no fee so
that you can hook on. That is 10% of the total CIP, you can see the cost, $3 million
dollars plus the lines in that annexation. Within the next five years that will be over
$100 million dollars. We have had many sewer overflows, we are trying to reduce
those. One way is to build new capacity in the Briar Creek line; Briar Creek and
McAlpine are both designed to increase capacity so that we don’t have overflow. Part
of this that you don’t see is the heavy maintenance cost. We need to continue to
maintain, if we are not out there continually cleaning the lines on a regular basis, you
will still have overflow. We have an administrative order that we are the only large city
in the southeastern United States that the EPA has come in and done a review. They
have agreed to sign an administrative order with us as opposed to suing us in Federal
Court, taking over the operation and imposing a heavy fine. We want to continue to
cooperate with the administration in order to clean these lines. Public projects,
anytime that NCDOT moves a road and our line is in that road, we have to pay 100%
of the cost to move that line. There is an encroachment agreement that says we shall
pay the cost, whatever that cost will be.
Why?
That is the way that the statues read, that we are in the public roadway.
We do the same thing on private property; we have to move their stuff.
That is what the law reads and it has been for many years. We do the same thing
with City streets. When City streets are built, we have to move lines.
If we protest it we will get streets as well as the rest.
I think it’s a legitimate question. We are in many cases doing the construction as well
as the maintenance under the street. Then this entity finally shows up to widen the
road in an intersection. I don’t know why we have to pay a lot of money to move our
stuff.
Why don’t we get you some information on when that occurred, when did the law
change, when did policies and regulations change and get that back to you? It is a
situation and I think we can do a little bit of research on it. My assumption is if it is a
State law, it is a law for every municipality across the State in N.C. We don’t disagree
with the reason you are asking the question.
There are some other things we do in the City of Charlotte. South Corridor, we spent
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 6
Lassiter:
Bean:
Carter:
Bean:
Carter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
$10 million dollars in the South Corridor to upgrade lines because we anticipated
additional growth and development. We did not want to go into developments that
were inadequate and start breaking things up. When there is a neighborhood project
to do sidewalks, storm water, those types of things; we also then direct our money to
those areas for improvement. That also helps to drive where we put money to support
infrastructure. These maps and IT that help us to run our operation, these are
examples of those types of things. NCDOT and CDOT projects in the next five years
will run $23 million dollars.
Where is the field operation center?
We have four operation centers, four zones. West Tyvola we need to move out of that
pretty quickly it’s falling apart. Hold the sewer property and sell the other property for
the revenue, but we have put that on hold. If you are within a thousand feet of an
existing line, we will extend that line at no cost, as long as you agree to tap on and
pay the connection fee for your service. If there is a failed well or septic tank, we will
do that and that moves to the top of the list. Any policy that applies to the City also
applies to the County and small town within the County. Our policy says we cannot
differentiate between cities, county or any other towns, all the policies are the same.
Did you have a greater percentage of failure of wells during the drought?
I don’t know, we don’t permit wells, the Health Department does that. I know we got
a lot of additional requests from public servants, I can check on that.
Just curious.
This map shows taps and extensions everywhere, it’s all over the County, it seems like
there is work going on every day.
Those yellow dots are tap-ons? Can you project that for next year based on this chart?
We may be able to project knowing the growth in those areas, I don’t know.
It’s interesting data, most folks would assume the taps would be on other areas. But
this shows significant amounts in unexpected areas.
The majority of what you see are those areas that have been annexed. It’s not
indiscriminate growth or areas that you have target for growth management. Most of
those extensions are attached to the annexed areas.
Independence and Monroe have a fair number and a high concentration between I-85
and Fairview Road.
$1.75 billion dollar program that we have; the majority of that is for growth and
capacity of plants, waste water treatment plants. Some of the lines that are used to
serve the already developed areas such as the water line to the east side is a big
capacity line. We worked with the Planning Commission to develop a population
projection book.
I will be talking about the population forecasting, we have a lot of information on this
slide. I will try not to go into a lot of detail; this graph shows population projection in
numbers and also in years. Most of this is population projection 2000 – 2035, we
have couple of sources of information.
The State Demographer projection for
Mecklenburg County is showing countywide projections. The projection from the Utility
Department based on their utility service shown in the MUMPO, and MUMPO revised.
Then you have an anomaly here that I asked my staff, to do in terms of projections.
This yellow line incorporates and looks at reduction in building activity. All of these
lines and projections starting out in 2008 population, everybody is at 800,000. All of
the projections have the same theme, of population around 2,000,000 people, except
for the original MUMPO projection. 2006 -2007 we thought we were low.
So the most recent is the yellow line?
Yes, a somewhat quick projection.
Based on this application?
Activity and specialty rates, considering plans from 2008 and existing building plans
we have today for 2009.
It’s interesting to hear all the optimisms that broadcast nationally and to hear that
Charlotte is in a position not to suffer and continue a growth rate. I am interested to
see your projections from a very reasonable national basis.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 7
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Bean:
Carter:
Bean:
Kinsey:
Campbell:
Bean:
I think what we will see is that we may not be growing as fast as we were in the past,
but we will continue to grow. In 2012, we can come back and adjust to where we
actually are according to latest census and see how these numbers look.
Do we have an actual?
An actual? Starting out in 2000 this would be the actual.
I know we will have a hard actual when we get the census numbers. But you get a
fairly close number that will tell you if your projections are wrong. All of those
projections are on the same line between now and 2008. Is one of them actual or are
all of them just projection lines?
Actual you can see they are real close.
2006 the difference 780,000 to 880,000. What is the real number?
We can do that. The other thing is in 2010 we will know what that actual number is.
The point is that there is never an actual real number, we can put up there what we
think is the real number.
The Chamber has a number, the County has a number and they are within a range,
not 100,000 or 15% but within a 2% or 3%.
In a former life, I lived through a county that disagreed with the numbers and actually
conducted a special census at a large cost, just to prove they were right. Only to have
the census done two years later that proved everybody was wrong. It’s a moving
target with all these different numbers. You never know the real number until the
census is done and even the actual census is not the real number.
We are looking at projections anticipating future use, what are we relying on in terms
of growth?
I think you are asking for how close we think the actual number is?
Yes, a line or red number of what our best guess is.
I am certain that you all have seen this document, “Utility Planning A Comprehensive
Model”, at least I hope you have. We think this document is important in providing
utility services almost the same way as the 2025 transit plan. The information that
went into this document helps with the delivery of utility service with land use
planning and planning framework. This is a utility document talking about transit
corridor and revitalization. This framework can be used as a basis for utility planning
and the ever changing nature of our community from a development prospective. We
are able to meet each one of these very different types of development patterns,
annexations, the transit corridors, revitalization and the traditional setting.
In the way that Planning has done a unique and outstanding job of combining
planning, land use and transit, would make a parallel with this.
I think it is definitely a starting point to move us in that direction.
It has definite environmental implications to me.
Yes, we have taken in environmental concerns as well as urban growth.
The issue back several years was that we need to look out for land use issues and see
what is going on and how we integrate with that with the utility plan. That is when we
did this and included regional partners. You can see the issues that we dealt with; the
environmental issues that we are dealing with now, reorganization, our inter-basin
transfer was a big issue. So those issues that we have been dealing with are
integrated into our plan due to our forward looking approach to utilities several years
ago. This document has been used by a lot of different people, even regionally.
Could this be a model? Could we send this to the National League of Cities?
We have had a lot of requests not only for copies of that, but also we have also done
presentations to other people on how to integrate utility planning. We actually
changed some of those CIP, with minor changes to accommodate what the new
growth was and not just the old growth.
How old is this? Is it still relevant?
I think very relevant. I think it is a very thorough document.
We use population numbers as well as the planning document. Waste water system
flows are based on population and secondly on usage. On the water system flow
graph, the purple is the actual and the two lines the red and green are the projections.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 8
Carter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
The red is the oldest projection, still based on the MUMPO numbers. We then did for
sensitivity analysis, this let’s us show two or three year’s flat growth and how would
that change the curve. The green line shows the reduced, not going up as fast. What
it also shows is that in the next five years CIP, we have not had to program in any
new expansion for plants or water. In the northern part, the Duke plant runs flat out
to capacity. We did a cost effective way to drive water to the north. We decided it
was not to expand plant capacity, but simply pump it to that area. What we are seeing
is that there is no reason to plan for plant expansion based on growth until 2018.
That gives us plenty of time to plan and not disrupt the CIP. The only thing in there is
to move waterlines to specific areas, for instance east side when you do the
annexation and the south west line where all the growth and development is taking
place. The basic capacity issues are moving it around to get it to the right areas to
reinforce Center City, not to provide additional capacity because of population. Even a
small population change over one or a period of time, because it takes so long to get
capacity online, you have to look it on the long haul. It takes five to eight years so as
it slows down you still have to be ready. Waste water is a whole different situation;
here is what happens on waste water. It is not nearly as dependant on population for
water usage, it is more dependent on weather. The max month usage of any year is
what you report to the State. If that max month ever goes above that blue line, you
have a moratorium. What they are saying is if you don’t have the capacity to treat it,
you cannot hook anyone else on it.
You can’t even approve any additional
development. In 2003, it rained like the dickens, and that was the year with all the
rain. Waste water responds more to rainwater than it does to actual growth. Waste
water system is not under pressure, but ground filtration water going in goes up. The
drought is reflected there if you looked at this now you would think we have plenty of
capacity. But we are in a drought so the waste water flows are actually down but you
know when it rains that goes up. What is interesting is that the number years ago
when we did our waste water master plan, at that time looking at population, it said
we needed to add capacity in 2014. All of the waste water plants, the $100 million for
Long Creek and the ones I just showed you, we are trying to get all of those plants online by 2014. It takes five years, two years to design and three years to build, so
when growth starts back, we can’t wait until it happens, we have to plan for waste
water. So those big bucks in the plan are really for waste water capacity, we don’t
want a moratorium. That is the way we planned for growth and population in usage
for water.
What is the practice for the moratorium, is it six months period or until you get
capacity?
Until you can certify that you have the capacity fulfilled.
We have had one
moratorium, in the Huntersville area, the State held up our permit for two years. So
we could not get online we had a moratorium. But Huntersville said that was o.k.,
that they did not want any growth development. So everything in that part of the
County stopped. We did get the permit when we began construction, so everything
was alright.
If I were to extend that red line it would actually start at a max monthly flow of 40
million? Which is 30% less than where it was, if you take the average as it’s going
toward growth. It’s dramatically lower that what that red line shows.
I am not sure we went back and projected it up. There was a point in time where we
said this is where we are and project that forward.
That is why we are here; the model appears to show growth at significantly higher
rates than we had in 1989 and 2000, twenty years. I think most folks believe that we
are not going to have the go-go speed, because we have become fully urbanized.
What we are saying is when you look at the max month when you project that.
If you take out 2003, the max month is going to be at that maybe at that 80 number,
because you have not exceeded 80 any year since 1999. Only the 2003 was inverse,
looking at the other chart against water usage, possibly because you had people
watering their yard. You took one year were building at a rate that is significantly
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 9
Bean:
Shearin:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Shearin:
Kimble:
Carter:
Kimble:
Bean:
Cater:
Shearin:
Bean:
Carter:
Bean:
Shearin:
Carter:
Bean:
higher than we are going to need based upon what appears to be a more modest
curve.
The red line certainly does.
The red line really did start about 2005. It took the population projection from that
date.
Which of those lines?
MUMPO, the white line.
The white should be running comparable, in terms of increase, to this red line?
You’re, right of this is looking at the risk. It is a risk issue.
And the issue is how many consecutive ten year rains or a fifty year rains what about
a hundred year rain, what is the maximum that you can get hit with in any one year?
That is the risk factor that can go wrong and it’s the range that caused the blip in the
graph that can get you in trouble real fast.
1989 was the year of HUGO right? And that was not appreciably larger, but there was
plenty of rain.
I lived through the five hundred year flood in Eastern North Carolina. We have not
had the five hundred year flood in Charlotte.
My thought is to be in lock step and not ahead of growth, get out and put lines where
we don’t want those. The inverse of that is that we never want to be in a position
where we have a moratorium. Never have we had to ask should growth stop because
of the lack of utilities. The question is, is there a point in time with the size of
annexation and the size of things we should look at should business utilities govern
how fast residence are scaled? As opposed to the way we have been looking at it; as
we provide for the growth that policy makers want. We build whatever that growth
rate is. The second thing is annexation, we provide the lines or whatever that is. That
drives 2% percent of the Capital Improvement Plan. If we delay because that line
changes by a year or two, it takes five years out before we have that flood with three
more years of moratorium. Our water plants, we treat to a level that is greater than
the standard. We were part of a national study that said the risk of water born
disease is less because we treat better than the standard. We make clean drinking
water and take dirty water, treat it and put it back in the river so that it does not harm
the environment. What we try to do is insure that the water is clean. And that the
water put back into the river doesn’t hurt people downstream. Those are the risks
that are the highest for economic development and risk for public health, and yes we
are conservative with those numbers.
I think you may have to layer one more issue on top, and that is inter-basin transfers.
That is becoming more important as we go through each provision we need to make.
If inter-basin laws change and we cannot do it, your cost of these plants would go sky
high, because we would have to get all of our water from a different agency.
The other part of this slide, local policies and practices are specific to this that you
asked questions about. The policies that the Council has adopted that impacted as we
went through this presentation, I think I enumerated what they all were and how
much money they were. Those are things we can certainly look at, are they correct or
not correct? What we talked about today was what goes in it and how it goes in it.
The next thing will be how it is funded and how that then flows into the reorganization.
That last word, reorganization, you will find that those costs are not covered.
What we are doing in the Capital Improvements Program, because of urbanization, we
are having to address that.
The downtown rehabilitation is almost done, the South Rail Corridor, the money that
will be used to finance the Northeast Corridor all of those are projects that the Capital
Improvements Project was designed to support.
The cost of the urbanized area and the increase of income from those areas is
comparable. Is there a percentage?
I can tell you the differences and where the cost savings are for each. There are
pluses and minuses on each side. I think they come out pretty much the same, I
don’t know.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 10
IV. Subject:
North Tryon Streetscape
Lassiter:
The last item on the agenda is an update on the North Tryon Street Streetscape Plan.
Tom Warshauer is here along with Daniel Gallagher and Tom Flynn.
This is an update to answer some of the questions and issues that were brought up at
our last meeting on January 28. Developers suggested that this isn’t the right time to
release an RFP for development at the Catalyst Sites, preferring infrastructure
improvements along North Tryon to prepare the area for redevelopment when the
market returns. E.D. requested a $10 million budget for North Tryon streetscape.
North Tryon Study began in 2006. Phase 1 from Brookshire to Sugar Creek was
completed in November, 2008. The purpose of the study was to develop data on
demographics, market trends and land use. We want to develop a new vision for
North Tryon by identifying public sector improvements, action and funding. We also
want to leverage private sector investments in the corridor. Just to let you know a
little bit about what will be happening there in the coming year. What we have is a
North Tryon Study which we turned into the North Tryon Plan from Brookshire to 36th
Street. That process will be going forth and presented to Council for adoption in FY
2010. We have had quite a bit of public input by interviewing forty businesses,
property owners and developers in the area. We held two Public Hearings on March
20th and June 19th in 2007. The stakeholders listed many key issues with the existing
corridor. May of their concerns were of safety for the pedestrians, it’s hard to cross a
four lane highway, as well as esthetics such as lighting, sidewalks, overhead utilities,
no transit shelters as well as others. The sidewalks are on the back of the curb and
they really do not fit the kind of development that we want. We want to have the
utilities removed from the back of the curb, we want to have trees, a pedestrian
friendly sidewalk, this is not what is happening out there. This area does not perform
as others we have worked on such as Wilkinson Boulevard, Central Avenue, and
Statesville Avenue. We have been working with CDOT to come up with a plan to
improve the aesthetics and provide a green element to the corridor. It will create a
destination corridor rather than the pass through the corridor that it is today. There
are pedestrian walkways, bike lanes as well as planting medians on the sidewalks and
in some areas trees also in the center median. The plan will make it safer for motorist,
bicyclist and pedestrians to connect with both sides of North Tryon. Pedestrians will
have a safe area to walk and cross the street. There is in your handout an illustration
of the median idea at Dalton and 30th Street and a no median idea for the Dalton to
Brookshire strip. Both concepts are attractive, not only adding to the greening of the
area but also the safety. In the area from Brookshire to Dalton, we are proposing no
center median. We have a lot of truck traffic there that needs continued access to the
industrial buildings on each side. The medians make it more challenging for the trucks
to get around, they have to make the turns, they really can’t do that. So in this area
we do not want a median to be installed. As we got farther out into the area of
Rockwood, we think there are opportunities for a median as well as widening. We
have revitalization occurring in this area where people are buying houses and
renovating homes. They want to have access to a more attractive street and a place
where they can walk. This area in here is all railroad property, so this could be a part
of our plan to acquire and widen the road in this area before redevelopment, where we
probably don’t have any buildings that are standing in our way. This may be an easy
place to make some real improvements.
Medians and left turns?
Yes, medians and left turns here and here.
Is there access to the railroad area? There does not look like there is a turn into
there, if you were coming south on North Tryon?
We recognize from working on Freedom and Wilkinson Boulevard putting in a median
is really important. We will not be able to bury the utility lines so putting in an
attractive median, people will tend not to notice the utility lines, because they have
Warshauer:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Warshauer:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 11
Carter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
something else to look at. North Tryon has always been a real challenge for us
because on the other streets we had sufficient Right-of-Way that we could install a
median without disturbing the side streets. So, on Freedom and Wilkinson we had
sufficient room to install medians. On North Tryon, we do not have sufficient room in
order for us to do anything with medians or sidewalks. We are going to have to rebuild
for it and fine tune some of these medians.
We are reworking some of the
intersections so that we know we can get pedestrians across safely. We can’t have
pedestrians crossing at every intersection, but where we did, we have spent a lot of
time working through just how it would work with pedestrians and left hand median
turns. This is a Catalyst area that needs additional study. We may not be able to have
a planting strip adjacent to the sidewalk; we may just be able to barely sweep by the
building. Our request today is to be able to move forward and give you more detail.
Potential costs for the Streetscape for Catalyst Area 3 include $20 to $25 million for
the entire corridor. Construction costs only there are no ROW or design costs
included. The construction will be done in phases with partners and ROW dedications.
The FY2009 CIP includes $1 million to begin the design this is on hold for the time.
E.D. has requested $10 million in FY2010 to begin the implementation of the
streetscape design. The implementation criteria for selected areas will include private
sector contribution. We need specific suggestions from you all as to what you believe
to be the most urgent or important. How much of that area we would be able to do
and then we would be working with property owners to figure out where we could go.
What is the shelf life of such a plan? I am concerned about Federal funding and our
State funding. I am wondering, are we going to have to postpone some of the light
rail? So my question to you is what is the validity of this plan for this area and will
have sustainability over these times?
We recognize that the market conditions have really changed. We when we do our
Land Use Plan we really are taking a look at when the development will begin. We
think the plan that we have developed in regard for land use are plans that will carry
us forward for quite some time. Despite changes in the market, there was a market
study that we looked at when developing these plans. There are areas that you plan
for the future that are not right for a development cycle, and you are just positioning
them to be available in the next redevelopment cycle. I think that fits with what is
happening with North Tryon. People have settled and understand what is happening
with NODA. They have really settled with what is happening along Statesville Avenue.
This a future look at what North Tryon can do. We see people investing in that, so I
think our plan has some good shelf life. There is an opportunity now to develop and
implement. If we wait, the market returns on property may be so expensive that
people may be less willing to help us.
I do think, that even though you are taking a relatively small stretch, that it does have
catalytic value. With development may stimulate and be attractive to investment to
that and will work its way out to the next place potentially can match with the same
kind of impact. Then you would hope that private investment will come for a more
traditional partnership that will give you improvements as part of planning.
The potential is there for redevelopment according to the plan. The added
enhancement and stabilization of the surrounding neighborhoods will further promote
the area. The internal team consisting of E.D., Planning, CDOT and CATS have made
several recommendations. In the area of Dalton to 30th Street, there is substantial
private sector interest.
There are large underdeveloped sites that make land
acquisition and road widening easier at this time. Making these changes will improve
the edge of Lockwood and Tryon Hills as well as further stabilize these neighborhoods.
There is an additional study to determine the specific areas for improvement; these
improvements will be done over time in phases.
Mr. Mitchell is not here to discuss the last item which was the Small Business
symposium. This is a great opportunity for folks to get information on how to get their
business going. Staff has come up with a proposal, you have a copy here in front of
you. That is about a two hour program one morning in mid-March, that would include
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for February 18, 2009
Page 12
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Kinsey:
Flynn:
Jamie Banks:
Lassiter:
Banks:
Lassiter:
Banks:
Lassiter:
Banks:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
several components. We can walk through it to see what is there, you are going to
have a number of resources available, from within the business community as well as
the financial community and a variety of educational resources. I presume all of those
have committed their wiliness to participate.
Yes they have.
Were you asking for us to give you the go ahead on this?
We wanted your input on this as well as some feedback on those dates. We don’t have
the Mayor locked down on those dates, so we wanted to see if those dates would be
acceptable to you.
We need someone from the Council making sure that we are not out here on our own,
and moving ahead without your approval.
How much is this going to cost?
It is already within our budget and will still make our reduced budget project.
We are going to do a mailing to all of our corridor people as well as our SBEs. We are
looking at $8,000 dollars. It is essentially rental of facilities and equipment. We are
not feeding people coffee and granola bars.
Eight thousand dollars for a two hour breakfast? I do a lot of mailings to people every
few years, I can reach a lot of people for $8,000 dollars.
We are working with Charlotte Arrangements for the cost of the venue and then we
have the cost of the equipment. But they are very willing to work with us so we are
negotiating with them.
I think we need to really sharpen the pencil on how to do this, there may be some
resources that have what you need. That will not require full rental of everything,
obviously you still need chairs and tables. I really would go with this on a bare bones
kind of stuff. You don’t need to impress people, they are just looking for information
and resources.
I think we need to plan for 500 people.
No, I think you need to plan for 150.
With all of our corridor business? You think?
I will be shocked and amazed if 500 people show up for this. I may be wrong.
We will go back and look at this number and get data down. We are working with
CoStar, which is a firm that puts out listings of all businesses in a geographic area.
That is the mailing list we use for the Business Corridor symposium as well.
The Chamber has a similar plan to reach businesses as well, you might see if there is a
more modest way to pull this up.
Yes, we will get the data and find out.
In a number that justifies the two hour event, if you get 150, you will have had a
successful morning.
That is the kind of feedback we are looking for.
There may be someone that would provide us with some free space.
We also are trying to be supportive of businesses on our corridors that are struggling
at this time.
Well the 11th and 12th are both fine dates with me, you might want to take a survey to
make sure the other members are clear for these dates, and check the Mayor’s
calendar.
O.K. I do know that Lee Keesler will be here on March 4th to start the conversation
about the endowment.
Thank you, we are adjourned.
Meeting Adjourned 5:15pm
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 3:30pm
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
James Mitchell, Vice Chair
Nancy Carter
Anthony Foxx
Patsy Kinsey
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager
AGENDA
I.
FIRST WARD PARK/PARKING DECK – 30 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director
Action: Update on Development Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement negotiations and
outstanding issues.
II.
FY2010/FY2011 ED FOCUS AREA PLAN – 30 minutes
Staff: Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager
Action: Recommendation to City Council on the ED Focus Area Plan for FY2010/FY2011.
(Attachment)
III.
UTILITIES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM POLICIES – 30 minutes
Staff: Doug Bean, Key Business Executive
Action: Review and discussion of regulations, policies and assumptions that drive Utilities Capital
Improvement Program.
IV.
NORTH TRYON STREETSCAPE - 15 minutes
Staff: Tom Warshauer, Economic Development Manager & Daniel Gallagher, Transportation Planning
Program Manager
Action: Review the status of the North Tryon Streetscape and preparation for budget deliberations.
V.
NEXT MEETING: March 4, 2009 at Noon, Room 280
Possible Topics: Deferral Policy for Rezoning
Business District Organization Program
Independence Wal-Mart
Utilities Capital Improvement Program Policies
Arts & Science Council Endowment Campaign
Distribution: Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
FY 2010 & FY2011 Strategic Focus Area Plan
“Charlotte will be the most prosperous
and livable city for all citizens through
quality economic development.”
The City of Charlotte’s long-term economic health is in large part driven by the City’s ability to facilitate
private sector job growth and investment through partnerships with agencies such as the Charlotte
Chamber, Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority and the Charlotte Regional Partnership. These
partnerships have resulted in a diversified local and regional economy, which requires public investment in
public services and facilities and infrastructure. A healthy economy also requires a commitment to
existing businesses, small business enterprise, entrepreneurship and business corridors. In order to foster
effective economic development we must coordinate the commitment from both the public and private
sectors.
Several significant structural changes have occurred in the economic environment that will impact the
City’s economic development. These include:
x
The freezing of the lending market has slowed commercial development as developers struggle to
find loans for office, multi-family and retail construction.
x
The sale of Charlotte’s largest employer, Wachovia, to Wells Fargo with yet to be determined job
loss consequences for Charlotte.
x
The dramatic realignment and shrinkage of the financial services sector, which has been one of
Charlotte’s key engines of economic growth.
x
Fluctuating fuel prices and the economic recession have impacted the airline industry, raising
uncertainty about US Airways and its 6,000 Charlotte employees.
There are opportunities for continued economic growth as Charlotte has enjoyed stable housing prices,
moderate construction slowdown, relatively stable employment and reinvestment in the City’s core and
adjacent business corridors ($819M in FY08). A well educated workforce and available Center City office
space also provide opportunities for economic growth. In addition, Bank of America’s acquisition of
Merrill Lynch is a positive indication that Charlotte will continue to be a strong market for financial and
professional services. However, the loss of Wachovia’s headquarters will result in job losses and increased
Center City office vacancy. This, along with the broader economic recession, will have ripple effects in
other professional services, retail, and hospitality sectors, and will impact the housing market as dislocated
workers put their houses on an already saturated market.
Charlotte’s continued success will be influenced by our diverse economic base and efforts with our
partners to grow and broaden into growing business sectors, including: renewable energy, green industry,
health care and high growth/high tech. This success can also build upon the previous year’s Business
Corridor Revitalization planning efforts. Since private capital will be harder to find, the City will need to
become more aggressive in pushing forward to ensure the economic growth and health of the corridor
businesses and the adjacent neighborhoods. This is also a time to lay a foundation for the next wave of
growth by business friendly process improvements and updating plans for major employment centers such
as Center City and the University Research Park. To grow the hospitality and tourism sector of the
economy, the City can build on recent investments in hospitality and tourism infrastructure, scheduled to
open during FY 2010, including the NASCAR HOF and Wachovia Cultural Center.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Economic Development
Promote Economic Opportunity
ED.1
Focus Area Initiative:
Ź
Ź
Ź
ED.2
Ź
ED.3
Ź
Ź
Promote a healthy business climate by 1) implementing a strong business expansion and
retention effort, exploring with the Chamber the effectiveness and metrics of the
BusinessFirst program, 2) addressing the needs of Charlotte’s largest employers, and
developing strategies and growing employment in: renewable energy, green industry,
health care, hospitality and tourism, emerging industries and high growth/high tech
companies (including an update of the City’s Strategic Plan and a strategy for use of
available industrial land) and 3) working with internal and external partners to grow
Charlotte’s hospitality industry, including quarterly tracking of hospitality revenue
streams and exploring partnerships to expand Amateur Sports
Measure:
Job growth in new sectors
Target:
5% increase (Develop baseline information)
Prior Year:
FY08 - New measure
Measure:
Number of existing businesses visited and serviced through BusinessFirst Charlotte, the
City’s business retention & expansion program
Target:
Total: 400 (Business Corridors:120)
Prior Year:
FY08 - 416
FY07 - 174
Measure:
Percentage increase in hospitality tax revenues and room nights generated by Amateur
Sports
Target:
3% increase in all hospitality tax revenues; 5% increase in amateur sport
room nights
Prior Year:
FY08 - 9% increase in all hospitality tax revenues
FY07 - 27% (Increase over base:11%)
FY08 - New measure (percentage increase in amateur sports room nights)
Focus Area Initiative:
Ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to participate in informal City
procurement and contracts through increasing SBE utilization and participation in SBE
development programs
Measure:
Percentage of informal contracting dollars awarded to SBEs
Target:
12%
Prior Year:
FY08 - 12.1%
FY07 - 13.7%
Measure:
Number of SBE submitting bids on informal contracts
Target:
New measure
Focus Area Initiative:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Workforce Development
Number of youth accessing skills assessment and training at JobLink Centers
1500 youth at JobLink Centers and place 500 youth in jobs
FY08 - 945 trained/273 placed
Promote strategy and develop partnership to retrain displaced workers
Inventory/Evaluation/Adjustment of City’s workforce retraining efforts
including online services
FY08 - New measure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Economic Development
Expand Tax Base & Revenues
ED.4
Focus Area Initiative:
Ź
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Expand Tax Base & Revenues
ED.5
Focus Area Initiative:
Ź
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Ź
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Develop Collaborative Solutions
ED.6
Focus Area Initiative:
Ź
Measure:
Ź
Ź
Target:
Prior Year:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Business Corridor Revitalization and Redevelopment
Advance/complete development of priority projects and corridors
Eastland Mall (MOU by December 2009)
Five Business Corridors:
- North Tryon (Developer by September 2009)
- Independence Boulevard Phase II (Begin Implementation Fall 2009)
- Rozzelles Ferry (Greenway Business Park completed by December
2011)
- Beatties Ford (Begin one redevelopment project)
- Freedom/Wilkinson/Morehead—leverage Bryant Park project and
County’s Freedom Center
- Conduct Urban Market Studies and Recruitment for Corridors
FY08 - Held a corridor symposium; Began Independence Boulevard Phase
II; Grant program revisions approved by City Council; Identified catalyst
sites on North Tryon; Continued implementation of ULI
recommendations for Eastland Mall
Promote infill development/redevelopment in the Center City, distressed
business districts and adjacent neighborhoods, and transit stations
Building Permit value of construction in the Center City, Business
Services Program Geography, and within 1/2 mile of identified transit
station locations
$500 million
FY08 - $819,000,000
FY07 - $732,528,837
Number of recommended new capital projects implemented in area plans
Initiate two new area plan capital projects
FY08 - Inventory of area plans completed and presented to City Council
Business Facilitation/Business Process Improvements
Average number of reviews on all land development permitting
submissions
< 2.5 reviews
FY08 - New measure
Percentage of permitting report initiatives implemented
100%
FY08 - 12 initiatives endorsed by City Council
Conduct “competitive advantage” analysis of permitting systems and
processes
Elimination of System Barriers/Conflict/Impediments in application
of regulations
FY08 - New measure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
4/1/2009
First Ward Park & Parking Update
ED & Planning Committee
g
February 18, 2009
Overview
• Outstanding Issues
• Cost Estimates
• Schedule
1
4/1/2009
Outstanding Issues
• Financial Gap Analysis for Second Deck
– Update if second deck not started w/in 3 years
• Developer/County Agreement on Appraisals
D l
/C
t A
t
A
i l
• No County Money for Park – Possible Lease/Land Exchange
– May require State enabling legislation
• Workforce Housing
– Rental; 20 years
R
l 20
• 10th Street Land
– Developer purchase; add City ROW cost to City STIF Payment
• MWSBE Goal
Cost Estimates
• 8th & Brevard
– $4.5 M to $5 M
– Includes $150,000 from Stormwater (9
Includes $150 000 from Stormwater (9th Street)
• 8th Street Thru Park
– Park probably delayed due to County funding issues
– City cost/budget issues
– Build standard street, can be upgraded later
• Source of Funds
– Payment due: FY2011
– Excess proceeds from NASCAR land sales
2
4/1/2009
Schedule
• ED&P Consideration: Late March
• Council Consideration: April 13
• County Commission: Late April
3
Capital Improvements Program Planning
y Community
y
Clean Water for a Healthy
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Why Are We Here?
g
Report
p
• Mayy 2008 Cityy Manager’s
– Capital Improvement Program Planning
• Drivers of Utilities Capital Program
• Policy Considerations
• Financial Implications of CIP – March 4th
• Zero Rate Change
g Option
p
for FY10 – March 4th
1
Drivers of Utilities Capital Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increase capacity for growth
Maintain existing infrastructure
Meet annexation requirements
Meet regulatory requirements
Support public projects and operations
Serve existing customers
Utilities FY2010-FY2014 CIP
Existing
Customers
8%
Public Projects
9%
Regulatory
10%
Growth/Capacity
46%
Annexation
10%
Maintenance
17%
2
Increase Capacity
for Growth
FY10-FY14 CIP
Regulations
•
EPA
Capacity
/Growth
46%
C tif Capacity
C
it F
N
– Certify
For New
Development
•
NC Wastewater
– Complete Expansion Plans Before
90% Capacity
•
NC Water
– Minimum pressure and volume
requirements
Policies
P li i
•
Water & Sewer Extension Policy
– City provides plant capacity and major
pipelines
– Developers donate subdivisions
– Reimbursable contracts to developers
• Avoid Moratorium
Increase Capacity
for Growth
•
•
•
•
•
•
Long Creek New Wastewater Plant
Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion
N.E. Water Transmission Main
Steele Creek PS & FM
S.W. Water Transmission Main
McAlpine Creek WWTP Filters
$197M
$123M
$ 70M
$ 38M
$ 37M
$ 30M
3
Maintain Existing
Infrastructure
FY10-FY14 CIP
Regulation
•
NC Wastewater
t
t plant
l t permits
it
– T
Treatment
– Collection system permits
•
NC Water
– Drinking water standards
City Practice
•
Rehabilitate/replace aging lines to
reduce breaks and overflows
Maintenance
17%
Maintain Existing
Infrastructure
•
•
•
•
•
Sewer Line Rehab
Irwin Creek WWTP Rehab
Reservoir
CBD Water Main Rehab
Rehab Elevated Water Tanks
$ 56M
$ 35M
$ 35M
$ 7M
$ 6M
Sewer Line Rehab
Central Business District
Elevated Water Tanks
4
Support Annexation
FY10-FY14 CIP
Policies
•
City Annexation Policy
A
lif i areas
– Annex
qualifying
• Water/Sewer Extension Policy
– Fire protection
– Sewer lines up to public streets
• N. C. Statutes
– Require equal service to annexed
areas
– Service provided within 2 years
Annexation
10%
Support Annexation
•
•
•
•
Reedy/McKee Sewer
2009 Annexation
Anne ation
2011 Annexation
Cabarrus Capacity
$ 83M
$ 25M
$ 25M
$ 10M
Cabarrus County
Capacity
2009 Annexation Areas
2011 Annexation
Reedy/McKee Sewer Lines
5
Meet Regulatory Requirements
FY10-FY14 CIP
Regulations
• EPA Administrative Order
– Reduce overflows
– Ensure capacity
• Safe Drinking Water Act
Regulatory
10%
• Clean Water Act
Meet Regulatory
Requirements
Sewer Model
2010
2011
• McAlpine Creek Relief Sewer Ph 2-4
$ 74M
• Briar Creek Relief Sewer Ph 2&3
$ 60M
• Sewer Modeling as required by EPA
$ 3M
6
Public Projects & Operations
FY10-FY14 CIP
Regulations
•
NCDOT
R
i d tto move lilines within
ithi NCDOT
– Required
right of way
Public
Projects
9%
Policy
•
Transportation, Transit and
Neighborhood Projects
– Relocate or replace water/sewer lines
Practice
P ti
• Technology
– Maintain technology systems for
operations and customer service
• Facilities
– Maintain operations
Public Projects &
Operations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Neighborhood Improvement Projects
NCDOT & CDOT Projects
Administration Building Renovation
Field Operations Center
Wallace Neal Road Relocations
N.E. Transit Corridor (Engineering)
$ 30M
$ 23M
$ 19M
$ 13M
$ 3M
$ 0.5M
Neighborhood Improvement Projects
7
Serve Existing Customers
FY10-FY14 CIP
Policies
•
Water/Sewer Extension Policy
t
i
l
t t (1000’)
– Li
Line extensions
along
streets
– Line extensions for failed wells or
septic systems
•
Existing
Customers
8%
City/County/Towns
Interlocal Agreement
– Requires uniform water/sewer
policies across service area
Service to
Existing Customers
• Water and Sewer Street Mains $ 70M
• Water and Sewer Taps
$ 31M
Water & Sewer Street Mains (2008)
Water & Sewer Taps (2008)
8
Utilities FY2010-FY2014 CIP
Existing Customers
$124 M
8%
Public Projects
$140 M
9%
Total $1.57 Billion
100%
Regulatory
$156 M
10%
Growth/Capacity
$731 M
46%
Annexation
A
ti
$156 M
10%
Maintenance
$266 M
17%
*$420M is for Long Creek, Sugar, McAlpine WWTPs & Northeast Transmission Main.
All of these also support the Annexation & Regulatory projects.
Factors Considered in
Selection of Projects
•
•
•
•
•
Population
P
l ti fforecasts
t
Land use plans
Demand projections
Regulatory changes
Condition of existing infrastructure
9
Mecklenburg County Population Projection:
2000 - 2035
1,700,000
1,600,000
State Demographer
1,500,000
MUMPO (Revised)
1,400,000
MUMPO
8,000 Units per Year
2015
900,000
2008
800,000
893,992
892,606
829,946
2035
1,000,000
1,601,758
1,345,078
1,313,842
1,311,839
2033
2025
1,100,000
1,328,298
1,196,999
1,158,342
1,140,620
1,067,396
1
067 396
1,025,004
1,002,842
958,687
700,000
2035
2034
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
600,000
2000
Population
1,200,000
2032
1,300,000
Land Use Plans
Comprehensive Utility Planning
Completed in 2002
• Expanding urban edges
• Transit Corridors
• Revitalization
• Traditional Centers
10
Land Use Plans
• Master Plans Updated Every 4
t 5Y
to
Years
• Annual Cross-Departmental
Collaborative CIP Planning
Water System Flows
Max Day Water Demand (mg
gd)
350
300
250
200
150
100
00
50
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Historic Max Day Demands
Water Treatment Capacity
Projected Max Day (8.5 ccf/mo )
Projected Max Day (w/ 2 yr economic downturn)
11
Wastewater Treatment Plant Flows
Irwin, Sugar, & McAlpine Creek WWTP's
160
Max Monthly Flow (mgd)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Flow
WW Masterplan
Flow Projections
Current Treatment
Capacity
Capacity Needs
Trend line
• Policy Considerations
– Should infrastructure drive growth or growth drive infrastructure?
• Should growth be moderated by current capacity or should capacity
be planned to meet growth plans?
– Should size and timing of annexation be impacted by Utilities funds
available?
– What is appropriate level of risk tolerance for regulatory requirements?
• Local Policies/Practices
– Extension Policy
• Reimbursable Contracts
• 1000’ Extensions
• Donated Projects
– Neighborhood Improvement
Projects
– Transit & Transportation
Projects
– Reurbanization
12
Next Steps
• March 4 E D & P Committee Meeting
– Review Utilities Financial Model
– Review CIP Adjustments
– Evaluate Impact of 0% Rate Increase
• March 18 E D & P Committee Meeting
– Discuss and Consider Rate Options for FY2010
13
Project Schedule Adjustments
(FY09 to FY10+)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
S
Sugar
C
Creek
k WWTP Expansion
E
i
McAlpine Creek Relief Sewer Ph 2 & 3
Irwin Creek WWTP Upgrades
Franklin Reservoir Expansion
McAlpine Creek WWTP Filters
Paw Creek Force Main/Outfall
Field Operation Center
Administration Building Renovations
Sugar Creek WWTP Primaries
$123M
$ 52M
$ 35M
$ 30M
$ 30M
$ 25M
$ 14M
$ 14M
$ 6M
Total Project Cost $ 323 M
Scope Reductions for Growth
(FY10-14)
• N
Northeast
th
tT
Transmission
i i M
Main
i
• Water and Sewer Street Mains
• Water and Sewer Connections
$ 20M
$ 8M
$ 8M
Total CIP Reduction $ 36M
14
Current Long Term Debt
COP's &
Other
$1.5 Billion
Annual Debt Service
on Long Term Debt
General
Obligation
Bonds
2009
$ 116M
2010
$ 138M
Increase
$ 22M
Revenue
Bonds
*Increase for $343M 2008 Revenue Bond Issue
Commercial Paper Projected to
Be Issued for 2010
$215 Million
$
Borrowed
• Ongoing Projects
$
43,600,000
• New Projects
$ 171,400,000
Debt Service
$
872,000
$ 3,428,000
15
New Projects for 2010
•
Annexation
$
Borrowed
Debt Service
58,500,000
$
• Others
112,900,000
Total
$ 171,400,000
1,170,000
2,258,000
$ 3,428,000
FY10 Projects Expenditures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Franklin Reservoirs
Street Mains
Sewer Line Rehab
McAlpine Relief Ph2
Water Line Rehab
Coffey Outfall/Paw Force Main
NCDOT/Streets
Water Tank Painting
Rocky River Sewer
Sugar WWTP Expansion Design
$ 27M
$ 10M
$ 10M
$ 8M
$ 6M
$ 6M
$ 4.5M
$ 4M
$ 4M
$ 4M
16
4/1/2009
North Tryon Redevelopment Study and
Recommended Streetscape
Economic Development & Planning
February 18, 2009
Current Project Status
• Developers suggested that this isn’t the right
time to release an RFP for development at
Catalyst Sites,
Sites preferring infrastructure
improvements along N. Tryon to prepare the
area for redevelopment when the market
returns
• ED requested $10 M in FY’10 budget for North
Tryon streetscape/infrastructure
• ED&P requested an update on the Streetscape
plans on 1/28/09
1
4/1/2009
Project History
• North Tryon Study began in 2006. Phase 1 (BrookshireSugar Creek) completed November, 2008
• Purpose of study:
– Develop data on demographics, market trends and land
use
– Develop new “vision” for N. Tryon
– Identify public sector improvements, actions and funding
– Leverage private sector reinvestment in the corridor
• Internal team: ED, Planning, CDOT and CATS
• Planning is pursuing a North Tryon Area Plan (Brookshire –
36th) for Council adoption in FY ‘10
Public Input
• Individual interviews
– 40 business, property
owners and developers
• Public Meetings:
– March 20, 2007
– June 19, 2007
• Stakeholders listed
key issues with the
existing corridor
2
4/1/2009
Stakeholder Concerns
• Unattractive streetscape/no greenery
• Dangerous
g
for p
pedestrians
• Inadequate sidewalks at back of curb
• Overhead utilities
• No transit shelters
• Lack of street lights
• Dangerous left turns
• Not a destination
Improved cross-section
• Improved corridor aesthetics – provides a “green
element” to the corridor
• Creates a destination corridor versus a “pass-thru”
corridor
• Benefits to all users – motorists, bicyclists,
pedestrians and transit users
• Connects both sides of the Tryon
y
corridor
• Pedestrian refuge opportunities
• Safety and mobility improvements
3
4/1/2009
Cross Section with median
Dalton to 30th
Cross-section with no median:
Brookshire to Dalton
4
4/1/2009
North Tryon: Liddell-30th Street
16th
Street
Dalton
Ave
Catalyst 3
Catalyst 2
Catalyst 1
30th Street
Amtrak
Streetscape Catalyst Area 1
W. Liddell
N. Tryon
16th Street
5
4/1/2009
Streetscape Dalton and
Lockwood
Dalton
Lockwood
N. Tryon
Streetscape N. Tryon & Dalton
6
4/1/2009
Streetscape 23rd & N. Tryon
23rd Street
N. Tryon
Amtrak Station
Streetscape N. Tryon & 27th
7
4/1/2009
Streetscape Catalyst Area 3
N. Tryon
Matheson
Potential Costs
• $20-25M for the entire corridor
• Construction costs only (no ROW or design)
• Planned to be built in phases with willing partners
and ROW dedication
• FY ’09 CIP
C includes
l d $1M
$
to begin
b
design
d
(on
(
hold)
h ld)
• ED requested $10M in FY 10 to begin
implementation of streetscape concept
8
4/1/2009
Implementation
• Criteria for selected area:
– Private sector
contribution
– Potential for
redevelopment according
to plan
– Ease of acquisition
q
– Enhancement and
stabilization of
surrounding
neighborhoods
Staff Recommendation
• Dalton to 30th (Catalyst Area 2)
• Substantial private sector interest
• Large undeveloped sites make land acquisition and road
widening easier at this time
• Helps improve edge of Lockwood and Tryon Hills and
stabilizes these neighborhoods
• Need additional study to determine specific area
f improvements
for
i
• Additional phases done over time as budget
permits
9
SMALL BUSINESS RESOURCE EVENT What: Provide tangible resources and advice for small business owners operating in today’s economy Why: Provide an opportunity for small businesses to receive useful and practical information regarding financing and other resources in today’s market Who: Focus on certified SBEs and corridor businesses Goals: ‐ Inform people of the state of the economy in Charlotte ‐ Providing tangible examples of business owners who have survived an economic downturn ‐ Advise businesses how to remain bankable in today’s market ‐ Provide technical resources to assist businesses Resource event with three panels (3 people per panel) and resource fair. People can come and go as they please depending on what subjects they are most interested in. Subjects Include: 8:00 – 8:15 Assemble 8:15 – 8:30 Welcome and Economic Overview 8:30 – 9:00 Sales and Marketing 9:00 – 9:30 Operations/HR 9:30 – 10:00 Funding Resource fair in separate room to include: ‐ Banks ‐Community Anchors ‐ Self Help Credit Union ‐CPCC ‐ Chamber ‐Minority Business Development ‐ BEFCO ‐Other Colleges (?) ‐ SBA ‐ SBTDC Potential Dates: Wednesday March 11 or Thursday March 12 Location:Center Stage @ NoDa (Charlotte Arrangements) Timing: 8a.m. – 10 a.m.