Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
“Cool Cities” Resolution
No action.
II.
Subject:
Focus Area Plan for the Environment
No action.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting:
Monday, February 19, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, and Nancy Carter
Susan Burgess and Don Lochman
2:15 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Handouts: “Cool Cities” Presentation
DRAFT: Resolution / City of Charlotte Commitment to Climate Protection
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting. He noted that the Committee
had been referred the issue of climate change initiatives and the Charlotte Observer
recently ran a front page story on reducing global warming. There seems to be solid
consensus now that global warming is occurring and it is the work of human beings. We
have to become more responsible. So, today we are going to look at some initiatives
across the country and hopefully craft a statement to start reducing global warming.
After introductions, I will turn the meeting over to staff.
I.
“Cool Cities” Resolution
Julie Burch reminded the Committee that the Sierra Club had approached City Council
regarding the “Cool Cities” initiative and asked us to join with the Mayor’s Climate
Protection Agreement to reduce global warming. Some of those efforts include green
City vehicle fleets, modernizing City facilities, and investing in clean, safe, renewable
energy. There are twelve targets in the agreement.
Foxx:
The City is doing a whole lot already; we need to trumpet that we are
already doing a lot.
Targets:
#1 – Inventory global emissions in City operations and in the community, set
reduction targets and create an action plan.
Burch:
We will need to spend some time on this first target specifically what it
would take to prepare an inventory.
#2 – Adopt land use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create
compact, walkable urban communities.
Burch:
We have a number of policies already in place to address this target.
#3 – Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction
programs, incentives for carpooling and public transit.
Burch:
We have a number of policies already in place to address this target.
#4 – Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in
“green tags,” advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, and
recovering landfill methane for energy production.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 3
Burch:
Staff is not prepared to discuss this target at this time. We need to spend
more time.
#5 – Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements,
retrofitting City facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to
conserve energy and save money.
Burch:
We are already doing this.
#6 – Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use.
Burch:
We are already doing this.
#7 – Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green
Building Council’s LEED program or a similar system.
Burch:
We will discuss this more today. We have not committed to LEED
certification in the past due to cost.
#8 – Increase the average fuel efficiency of fleet vehicles; reduce the number of
vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages;
convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel.
Burch:
We already are putting forth good effort on this target.
#9 – Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater
systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production.
Burch:
Utilities staff is evaluating this.
#10 – Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community.
Burch:
We hope to up the bar with this target by going to single-stream recycling.
Carter:
Will we be incorporating apartments?
Burch:
Single-stream is for residential. We are having conservations with the
County to have more collaboration on multi-family.
Mumford:
With recycling, it is beneficial to understand the back end capacity. Some
facilities can’t recycle everything. It is good to know what our local
capacity is and if we can manage increased capacity.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 4
Burch:
That is true even with single-streaming with the County. We will be
drilling down further on that.
Mumford:
Back to number 9, are we capturing methane from the landfills; is that
even feasible?
Burch:
We do collection, the County does the disposal.
Saul:
The landfill does have some recovery and I’m pretty sure we co-generate
some electricity. I need to verify that.
Mumford:
That is important since that is one of the greenhouse gases.
#11 – Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading
and to absorb CO2.
Burch:
As part of the Focus Area Plan we suggested updating the assessment of
the tree canopy.
Mumford:
Regarding trees and carbon offsets, we need to manage that carefully.
Some folks think if you just plant trees, they’ll absorb the CO2. Do we
have the right number of trees? We need to know what number of trees
offsets what number of tons of stuff.
Burch:
We are not quite to that point as we are sitting here today.
Mumford:
My personal opinion is you can’t globally say I’ll just buy this number of
trees to offset not having efficient automobiles. Folks will start to say if
we can’t reduce emissions, we’ll just have offsets.
#12 – Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations,
businesses and industry about reducing global warming pollution.
Burch:
We need to have more dialogue about this as a target. If we spend a lot of
money on this, to what extent is Council willing to commit resources.
Foxx:
When Council discussed the Clean Air Works! effort, we discussed how
much we will commit. I think that fits in with the 12 targets.
Mumford:
I think number 12 is critical. Society thinks it is a problem for someone
else to fix. Education is important. So many folks hear about the
problems and if it sounds complicated they back away. We need to help
people understand what they can do to be involved in the solution. City
Council can’t solve this; the power companies can’t solve this. People
need to see that buying a hybrid car doesn’t help global warming. We
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 5
need to make the people aware, make the community aware.
Ms. Burch said the remainder of the presentation (copy attached) is an overview of what
we have learned from other cities as it relates to Target #1 and Target #4. She turned the
presentation over to Rob Phocas and Wilson Hooper.
Mr. Phocas said that contacts were made with Tallahassee, Florida, Atlanta Georgia,
Kansas City, Missouri and Boston, Massachusetts as cities who have signed onto the
agreement. Contact was also made with Houston, Texas who has not signed onto the
process, but is working to reach the targets.
Foxx:
What is ICLEI?
Phocas:
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. They have
a joining fee that is based on population and provides resources for cities
trying to address environmental issues. They take data that has been
gathered and plug it into their software to help cities figure out ways to
make reductions. Most of the cities we spoke to have joined ICLEI.
Carter:
Can it be shared by local governments in the region?
Phocas:
I don’t know. I suspect each government would have to join and pay their
fee.
Carter:
If Mecklenburg County joined would they be an umbrella group for us and
the towns?
Preuss:
We’ll look into that.
Haynes:
I think if a City or County joins together they can use the same resources.
Carter:
Have we looked at COG?
Foxx:
They might be considered private.
Mr. Phocas continued the presentation and said one thing to note with Boston is they
have created an ordinance requiring private sector buildings over a certain square footage
or dollar amount to go through LEED certification. Boston and Washington, DC are the
two most prominent cities trying to move the private sector to achieve that goal.
Houston did not sign the Agreement; they did not like its approach. So, they drafted their
own resolution which has similar goals and targets.
Carter:
Why are they not trying solar power?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 6
Phocas:
Actually where they are, wind power works best for them.
Burch:
We are learning something every day. The biggest issue most cities
reported was finding a standard methodology for measuring emissions.
They are struggling with finding a baseline in 1990. All the cities note
that community wide emissions have risen. It is unlikely that more than
one or two cities will reduce their global emissions 7% by 2012. It is still
relatively early in this process and we want to be smart.
Foxx:
Where is Charlotte versus where other cities are? 2012 is the magic year
for Kyoto, but we’re just five years out from that today.
Phocas:
Most of the cities are actually just finishing up their inventories and
crafting environmental initiatives. Atlanta should finish up this summer,
but Boston is further along.
Hooper:
Kansas City finished in late 2005; they spent a year gearing up with an
Environmental Committee.
Carter:
Could you provide us a print out with the research?
Hooper:
Sure.
Mumford:
If we have to go back to 1990, I imagine that is a lot of staff time trying to
calculate emissions. The focus should be on reductions going forward.
How do we ascertain emissions today and then figure out the maximum
reductions we could make? What does it take to do that? I would not
worry about reconciling back to the 1900 numbers because that is not
relevant to us. We need to do the best we can do and we have a whole list
of things. I would not suggest spending time putting together information
from 1990.
Foxx:
Have you looked at how difficult that would be?
Burch:
I’ll ask Jim Schumacher to describe the staff work and how they would
approach a global emissions inventory to meet a baseline of 1990 or
something else.
Schumacher: We have primarily talked to the folks at ICLEI and as I understand it, the
software, etc. is reasonable if we want to move to that first step of
establishing a baseline. I would say the software is a better way to go
versus hiring a consultant. We will be collecting a lot of local
consumption information and even with a consultant we will have to do
most of the footwork. If we just plug it into software initially that would
be easier. Moving forward, we might look to having a consultant.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 7
Mumford:
I think the software is interesting. It might be interesting to be able to
break it down by emissions per square foot per employee, etc. But, who
cares if we reduce 7%? If we become more efficient, that’s what we are
after.
Schumacher: We can do better than that.
Mumford:
We can always continue to improve.
Carter:
We need to look at our own universe, look at the Council of Governments.
I think it is appropriate to focus on what we can control. We can be a
model for others. We can share the software. We are setting ourselves up
for a leadership position.
Schumacher: We need to check if others can use the software. I think there is some
licensing involved. So, I don’t know if it is as straightforward as
Mecklenburg County buying it and then all seven being able to use it.
That doesn’t involve a lot of staff man-hours. We can use an existing staff
person for that.
Foxx:
My view of Kyoto is a lot of communities have adopted the policies, but a
lot are pulling back. If we all end up developing plans, we’ll end up at the
same place. Nationally, we will get to the place we would have been had
the Administration adopted protocols. As for going back to 1990 levels, I
think that is impossible or very difficult. We need to determine ultimately
where we are and where we go from here.
Schumacher: I don’t think we know enough yet, but going back 17 years sounds
problematic.
Foxx:
Do you have any information from ICLEI?
Burch:
In your agenda packet, is a page directly off their website. We also have a
copy of the County’s resolution which was approved in December 2005
(copies attached).
Saul:
When the County approached this resolution we had a relatively short
period of time to work with. We couldn’t make the commitment because
some of things we just weren’t capable of doing. We understood this to be
a real problem and we will be looking at this with more detail. There is a
State Legislative Committee that is looking at this now. Some of the
resources we couldn’t commit too because we had to look at the County as
a business. The resolution that was ultimately approved was what we felt
we could do.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 8
Burch:
We have prepared a discussion guide (attached), which gives at least four
options moving forward:
1. Endorse the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement;
2. Join “Cool Cities” which includes joining the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement;
3. Adopt the joint “ICLEI” Cities for Climate Change Protection
Program; or
4. Adopt a resolution to make a commitment to the environment that is
unique to Charlotte.
Carter:
I think we could do possibly three and four.
Burch:
ICLEI and our own?
Carter:
I think they are complementary.
Burch:
For the record, staff is not recommending any of these, but we do feel the
ICLEI milestones are doable.
Carter:
By joining a group of cities, we accrue their flow of information on the
books and we adapt it to our own policies.
Burch:
We can definitely explore membership with ICLEI.
Carter:
We could draft our own which could be a fifth option.
Burch:
We actually attempted that in a very rough draft for discussion purposes
only (attached).
Mumford:
I like what Council member Carter proposes by tagging on with other US
cities policies early on. This gives us an opportunity to be more efficient
and take the politics out.
Burch:
The Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement is mentioned several times in
our draft resolution, but we can craft this differently however.
Foxx:
I think this is a good piece of work, but since a couple of members are
missing today why don’t we wait to study the draft for action until
February 19?
Carter:
Could you put together a packet of information and include the
information from other cities?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 9
Foxx:
I want to go above and beyond and for Charlotte to make a statement that
global climate change is an issue and address a strategy to fix it.
Mumford:
The private sector is already out in front of the local government. We
have a lot to learn. Is there a Chamber focus? Is there some forum that
includes Bank of America, Wachovia and Duke?
Carter:
I think there is.
Mumford:
Is there a group at the Chamber for climate change?
Burch:
We’ll find out.
Foxx:
We could convene a group to help us.
Burch:
The last page of the draft resolution gets at a global emissions inventory,
page two summarizes what we are doing. We aren’t suggesting any
numbers. The second bullet on the last page mirrors the climate protection
agreement and indicates that several Kyoto cities have different times for
reaching their target.
Foxx:
I think the key word is “strive”. It doesn’t lock you into an absolute. I’m
open to that. We can take this back up on the 19th.
Mumford:
Some data that might be interesting is to go back to the population growth
since 1990. How much have we grown? Is it 50%? How do large
southeastern cities account for their increased population since 1990? If
we’re making serious effort to meet those goals and we have 50% more
population, I’d be interested in seeing that data.
Burch:
We can repackage the information as well as find out about the Chamber.
Foxx:
If the Chamber doesn’t have a group, we can discuss pulling in the private
sector on the 19th.
Carter:
We need to pull in Mecklenburg County, COG, look at efficiencies and
get some guidance from the State.
Foxx:
If we take action, will we position Council to consider this before the end
of February?
Burch:
The next Council meeting is February 26. I would suggest a little time
might be needed for Council members to dialogue. You might want to do
a dinner briefing.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 10
Mumford:
I don’t know if there is a global sense of urgency. Some people haven’t
looked at this at all or understand it. Taking a few minutes to educate
them would help us in the long run. Is there anyone else in the state doing
this?
Phocas:
Raleigh and Durham.
Burch:
Asheville, Durham and Chapel Hill are all “cool cities” we could contact.
Mumford:
That would be helpful.
Carter:
I would suggest the State League prepare a workshop on this in the fall.
Burch:
For a panel discussion?
Carter:
Yes.
II.
Focus Area Plan for the Environment
Julie Burch then reminded the Committee that due to the Council retreat being cancelled,
the Focus Area Plans were referred back to Committee for discussion. The Focus Area
Plans will then be on the March 26 Council agenda for approval.
Mumford:
I agree with what we did before.
Burch:
We added dates for the Post Construction Controls Ordinance and
Environmental GDPs. We also added stronger language for recycling.
Foxx:
One thing I’d like to note is we have been so focused on developing
principles, the floodplain ordinance and cool cities that we have not spent
a lot of time blue sky-ing issues. The Committee has a lot of energy to
push the environment beyond just the Focus Area Plan. I’d like to ask
Council for the authority to have some more open ended discussions.
What do you want us to do as a City that is not in the Focus Area Plan?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 6, 2007
Page 11
Mumford:
Five years ago we did that with Housing. Three years ago we did that
with Transportation. I think it holds true with the Environment. Where do
our efforts have impact?
Carter:
My interests focus on the national level. In March we are going to DC
and I am on a Steering Committee that is meeting. When NLC lobbies
Congress for action, it is a barometer for here. We can see issues that pop
up.
Burch:
The Focus Area Plan is the Council priority to staff of where to spend our
time. The first year we are delivering these initiatives, and then we’ll add
achievements. If you want to frame it larger, we need to incorporate a
resource plan.
Foxx:
Well, there is no policy for LEED certification. Maybe we don’t build a
lot but maybe we need some policy that evaluates LEED certification.
That is something that is not in the plan, but should be a discussion of the
Committee and the full Council.
Burch:
It is covered in sustainable design. But, we could look at a specific
initiative. But, I think you have room in that target to talk about it.
Mumford:
We need to figure out what we’re doing going forward. The work plan is
a good first one. It’s going to push us out eight months or so. So, we
don’t need to redefine this year’s workload, we need to find out the staff
time involved, but we also need to make sure we are involved and not just
overseeing the work.
Burch:
We can pick this up on the 19th.
III.
Next Meeting
The Committee will meet on February 19 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280.
Meeting adjourned.
Climate Change Initiatives
Council Environment Committee
February 6, 2007
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets:
1.) Inventory global emissions in City operations
and in the community, set reduction targets
and create an action plan.
2.) Adopt land use policies that reduce sprawl,
preserve open space, and create compact,
walkable urban communities.
3.) Promote transportation options such as
bicycle trails, commute trip reduction
programs, incentives for carpooling and
public transit.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
4.) Increase the use of clean, alternative energy
by, for example, investing in “green tags,”
advocating for the development of
renewable energy resources, and
recovering landfill methane for energy
production.
5.) Make energy efficiency a priority through
building code improvements, retrofitting city
facilities with energy efficient lighting and
urging employees to conserve energy and
save money.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
6.) Purchase only Energy Star equipment and
appliance for city use.
7.) Practice and promote sustainable building
practices using the U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED program or a similar
system.
8.) Increase the average fuel efficiency of fleet
vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles;
launch an employee education program
including anti-idling messages; convert
diesel vehicles to bio-diesel.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
9.) Evaluate opportunities to increase pump
efficiency in water and wastewater systems;
recover wastewater treatment methane for
energy production.
10.) Increase recycling rates in city operations
and in the community.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
11.) Maintain healthy urban forests;
promote tree planting to increase
shading and to absorb CO2.
12.) Help educate the public, schools, other
jurisdictions, professional associations,
business and industry about reducing
global warming pollution.
Preliminary Staff Review of US Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement Targets: December 15, 2006
• Cost and operational impacts summary
– Targets 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 are already current city
policy/practice.
– Target 7 is current city practice, though LEED
certification will require additional resources.
– Target 9 impacts are currently being determined.
– Target 11 concepts covered in Chap. 21 City
Code – “Tree Ordinance”- but additional
resources required for updated assessment of
tree canopy.
– Targets 1, 4, and 12 impacts require potentially
significant time and financial investment.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
1.) Inventory global emissions in City operations
and in the community, set reduction targets
and create an action plan.
4.) Increase the use of clean, alternative energy
by, for example, investing in “green tags,”
advocating for the development of
renewable energy resources, and
recovering landfill methane for energy
production.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Tallahassee, FL
– Signed US Mayors Protection Agreement in August 2006
– Unique because city owns and operates the utility
– Target 1
• City calculated its CO2 from city operations and some
outside sources.
• Have not yet begun setting reduction targets or developing
an action plan.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Tallahassee, FL
– Target 4
• Purchasing total output of biomass plant coming online
in 2010.
• Low interest loans to customers who wish to purchase
solar energy systems.
• Program that allows customers to pay into a renewable
energy resources fund.
• Management program with the goal of reducing electric
demand by 59MW by 2012 and 161MW by 2026.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Kansas City, MO
– Signed US Mayors Agreement in June 2005
– Target 1
• Using ICLEI software
• Plugging in consumption information, vehicle miles traveled,
solid waste produced.
• Trying to collect info from utilities and city-wide
– Target 4
• Under discussion
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Boston, Mass.
– Signed Agreement in April 2006, but not as focused on
meeting the specific Kyoto targets in the Agreement; hard
to get baseline of 1990 levels.
– Target 1
• Conducting baseline inventory in-house using ICLEI
software. Beginning with city facilities . . . hope to
extrapolate results to private sector. Will begin creating
action plan once inventory is complete.
– Target 4
• 8.6% of total energy purchased will be renewable.
• Green building strategy for public as well as private
development.
• Switching to biodiesel busses.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Atlanta, GA
– Signed Agreement in May 2005, but not concerned
with meeting Kyoto levels . . . hope their measures
will surpass these levels.
– Target 1
• working with ICLEI and using their software; used an
outside firm to do an internal audit in 2001. City will use
data from that year to form their baseline because the
1990 level is difficult to determine.
– Target 4
• working with GA Power to come up with solutions; GA
Power donated CFLs to city employees for home use;
considering joining Chicago Climate Exchange.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Houston, TX
– “Strong Mayor” form of government
– Did not sign Agreement, because they did not like its
approach. Houston wants an aggressive and realistic
approach based on their actual emissions data, not
on what they perceive to be is an unscientific target.
– Turned to ICLEI for a more scientific approach and for
access to ICLEI’s resources.
– No intention to sign ICLEI’s climate protection
resolution; Houston will draft their own.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Houston, TX
– Target 1
• Worked with ICLEI and the emissions inventory software.
• Emissions data collected by building services staff and
inputted by and intern.
• Had paid a consultant in 2005 to audit their 2000 and 2005
emissions; ICLEI software produced a comparable result
and was cheaper.
– Target 4
• Houston is buying green tags/renewable energy.
• Texas uses predominantly natural gas . . . City put out an
RFP for a certain percentage of wind power.
• very committed to diversifying, for environmental reasons
but also due to the radical fluctuation of NG.