Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Committee unanimously voted to recommend Resolution Version 2 to the
full Council for adoption.
II.
Subject:
Enterprise Fund Review: Charlotte Stormwater Utility
No action.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting:
Monday, May 21, 3:00 p.m. in Room 267 (Note: The start time and
location have changed.)
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter and
Don Lochman
3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Updated Stormwater Services Presentation
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked those in attendance
to introduce themselves.
I.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Council member Foxx thanked Council member Carter for her work in helping craft the
different versions of the Resolution that the Committee would look at today for
greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
Carter:
I would like to thank Rob Phocas, Julie Burch and Wilson Hooper for
helping me craft these proposals. I have a depth of feeling that we do not
need a political resolution, but a work plan. I think Version 2 is feasible
for Council and I would like to make a motion that we pass Version 2.
Burgess:
Second.
I think it is especially important for us to join the rest of the country to
sign on to Cool Cities with the Sierra Club. Our Mayor was a co-sponsor
of the US Conference of Mayors Resolution. If we can get a critical mass
of cities across the country to sign on, we can make a difference. I hope
that Version 2 qualifies us for Cool Cities. It may or may not be true; the
Sierra Club will be researching that for us. But, today I think it is
appropriate for us to adopt Version 2 and send it to Council.
Foxx:
I would like to express that we have been in a lot of different places since
the president of the Sierra Club asked us to consider a resolution. I would
have preferred that we sign on to the US Conference of Mayors
Resolution. I know there was some concern regarding implementing that
particular resolution, so we have been guided to a resolution that is
tailored to Charlotte.
Version 1 is what I prepared. Version 2, as I understand it, does what we
can do to take the politics out. We have removed the reference to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and reference to adoption and
changed the whereas. This allows us to follow our normal processes for
consideration in adopting resources. I would not have drafted it this way
by myself. This has been a democratic process. I will support Version 2,
albeit reluctantly. I think it should be stronger, but it does acknowledge
climate change.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 3
Lochman:
I would like to compliment Council member Carter. I can live with this
Resolution. I am not sure what the outcome will be and it is not as vague
as I would like, but it is one I can support.
Mumford:
I agree with Council member Lochman. It takes our prior discussions into
account. Politics can get in the way and this Resolution does a good job
of taking the sensitive points out. I feel certain we can do good work.
Thank you, Council member Carter, and thank you all for your frankness.
Motion passes unanimously (Foxx, Mumford, Burgess, Carter, Lochman – for)
Mumford:
Out of curiosity, what was Version 3?
Carter:
It was even more narrowly stated; deleted the action. The differences are
at the end.
Burch:
This will be on the May 14 Council agenda.
Burgess:
I am delighted we supported this unanimously. If the Sierra Club
approves this, I think it will make us a model for other cities. There is an
opportunity right now because NLC is working on this and hopes to have
something to approve in July. Hopefully, other cities will sign on to this
too.
Lochman:
I would suggest that Version 2 would be reasonable to NLC.
Carter:
I am on the Steering Committee for Energy and Natural Resources and
they will be pleased to see what comes up.
Foxx:
I understand Winston-Salem is now considering a climate change
resolution. I know we can’t take credit for that, but there is something to
be said for the work we have done.
Burgess:
In October, I take over as President of the North Carolina League of
Municipalities and the environment topic is one that the League is
interested in as well as education technical assistance. The president gets
to pick a topic, and I am considering the environment. If this passes
muster and we can get broad support, I think this could be a template for
the State. I hope it qualifies.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 4
II.
Enterprise Fund Review: Charlotte Stormwater Utility
Council member Foxx then turned the meeting over to Julie Burch to introduce the next
topic. Ms. Burch advised the Committee that similar to the presentation at the last
meeting, Tim Richards and Bruce Anderson (SWAC Chair) would be giving an overview
of the Stormwater Enterprise Fund.
Tim Richards then begin the presentation [copy attached].
Lochman:
What is the backlog now versus five years ago?
Richards:
Five years ago, the high priority backlog was 1,000 or so. Now, it is 300
to 400. In 2003 the backlog went up again as a result of a significant rain
event.
Lochman:
We put off the stormwater rate reduction to deal with the South Corridor.
I think the plan was five years of sequential rate changes and then to back
off once the specific requirements of the South Corridor had been met.
What was the impact of the Corridor?
Richards:
We had planned for $10 to $12 million and it ended up costing $11
million. We pushed back the step down in budgeting.
Lochman:
Looking out five years will there be rate reductions?
Richards:
Yes, sir.
Carter:
With the increased rates, is that more of a problem through zoning?
We’re seeing in rezonings water quality, water flow, etc. is that part of the
benefit we are seeing now?
Richards:
Yes, ma’am. We have been operating in a reactive state and we are trying
to be more proactive.
Burgess:
[Regarding repairs to storm drains] Do the drains collapse because they
are blowing out dirt?
Richards:
The problem actually occurs when the material wears out around the joint
where the dirt has settled. When the material weakens enough for an
opening, it actually sucks water in. So, dirt is not blowing out, but being
sucked in.
Burgess:
And, that causes it to clog.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 5
Richards:
Yes. Then, if you have a heavy storm it acts like a vacuum sucking
everything in.
Burgess:
Do you have to buy an easement for repairs?
Richards:
If we have a problem on one property and we can do the repair on the
property, ideally the homeowner donates the easement and then we can
maintain the repair. If we don’t get the easement, we have to go to the
next person.
Burgess:
What is the life expectancy of a joint? How do you maintain it?
Richards:
50-75 years.
Burgess:
Do you replace them?
Carter:
Or, do you just reline them?
Richards:
It depends. It is expensive to dig up and replace lines and relining is also
expensive.
Foxx:
I know there was a struggle a few months ago with some residents in Mr.
Lochman’s district with curb and gutter.
Burch:
Williamsburg in the vicinity of Rea and Stonecrest.
Foxx:
I remember they were far down the list and wanted to invest themselves.
How does the list work? Is there any flexibility?
Richards:
Stormwater doesn’t have a curb and gutter program. Curb and gutter is
handled through Neighborhood Development. Stormwater Services
actually feels that ditches are the appropriate way to carry water and are
more environmentally friendly. If there is a ditch that needs repair, we’ll
repair it with a ditch. If the residents want curb and gutter, they have to
petition and pay the cost.
Foxx:
So, the stormwater fees don’t cover that? Personally, I think sidewalks are
important. But, environmentally I suppose sidewalks plus other
impervious surfaces are hard to control. I just think we need to be more
friendly and internally push the environmental framework.
Richards:
Ditches are pretty stable and easy to maintain. The less impervious area
the more environmentally friendly. We are relying on structural measures
like ponds, rain gardens, swells, and bmps to treat water. The concern is
the City’s goals are more sidewalks and more intersections which are at
odds with the environment. Maybe Stormwater Services could look at
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 6
ways to deal with more water and more sidewalks. With new
development, the builder has to include measures to treat water.
Burgess:
I think ditches are ugly and when they are not maintained they are
dangerous. People don’t understand ditches and there is pipe underneath.
There was a pipe under a driveway on Ridgeview Lane and it flooded
yards and yards because the ditch was inadequate and the pipes were
clogged. How do we maintain our two goals? The ditches got bigger and
bigger and then they covered them with rip-rap, it was hideous.
Richards:
The developer did that and admittedly it was not the prettiest thing, but it
has now been removed and the system is underground. It is hard to know
what velocity the water will be entering the system.
Burgess:
Well, I think it’s the wrong remedy to do that to someone’s yard.
Richards:
The Stormwater Services Policy since inception is pipe for pipe, channel
for channel. In other words, we only replace or repair what was already
there. There are several reasons for that with the primary one being cost.
If the property owner wants something different, they can pay that cost.
Regarding the environmental impacts, the EPA – Corps of Engineers –
uses rip-rap standard for an end of pipe scenario.
Burgess:
Even in a front yard?
Richards:
Yes, ma’am.
Carter:
With the two tiered level of review, have you added personnel?
Richards:
We have not added personnel.
Carter:
Did you lose personnel to 311?
Richards:
No, we did not.
Carter:
[Regarding Challenges] Is there a cluster of projects or a sense of general
calls from new development because of infrastructure?
Richards:
There is any number of things that can cause problems with new
development, some erosion, flooding, any improvement on the land, road
widening, even stormwater services can cause problems. If the
neighborhood is already built out, then the problems can include how to
put in a bigger system. As floodway experience increases, the debate
becomes should we let the water naturally flood through the floodplain or
do we try to get it back.
Burgess:
Well, with Ridgeview Lane, the problem was with the development, they
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 7
had a tree save or retention pond that mitigated the problem. How did you
prevent that?
Richards:
The developer actually didn’t do anything wrong. There was a sediment
pond that was not required by Stormwater Services for drainage detention.
The Post Construction Controls Ordinance would have required the pond
water to be the same as the amount of development. They did everything
they were supposed to do since we are missing this requirement. One
thing to note with water quality is that is something the federal
government is dealing with; we want a policy to deal with water quantity.
Lochman:
How realistic is long term fee plan?
Richards:
Very, if we can make a decision how to handle the low priority requests.
We can’t continue to not deal with our Cs. We have 15 years of funding
and we need to start dealing with them.
Lochman:
I know our fees are high for North Carolina, but are we competitive across
the country?
Richards:
Yes.
Burgess:
On the monthly fee chart, what unit of time is the $5.51?
Richards:
Per month.
Burgess:
Based on impervious surface?
Richards:
Yes.
Burgess:
It’s not a flat fee?
Richards:
No – it takes in account the impervious surface.
Burgess:
So, the footprint of the house?
Richards:
The driveway and hard surface on the property.
Mr. Richards then turned the presentation over to Bruce Anderson, Chair of the
Stormwater Advisory Committee (SWAC). He began by reading the Committee the
SWAC’s charge. He also indicated the Committee needs new members.
Carter:
Do you make recommendations for members?
Anderson:
I wish we could make more recommendations. Currently, we recommend
one member.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 8
Carter:
With other Committees, oftentimes the Chair weighs in.
Anderson:
Our problem is getting enough applicants. We need five members to
make a decision and we have four vacancies. We have one member still
serving because they have not been replaced.
Foxx:
Are these all our vacancies?
Anderson:
Some are Board of County Commission appointees.
Mr. Anderson then continued his presentation by reading an article from the Charlotte
Observer last August, which concluded that under the present system after filing a
complaint, you must wait 12 years for a resolution.
Lochman:
Is that a reasonable timeframe? Is that the same as other cities, I mean is
this generally accepted?
Anderson:
High priority items usually take six months.
Richards:
That’s a goal.
Lochman:
I assume that costs money. How much?
Anderson:
If you will permit me, we will cover that in about four more slides with
the budget.
Carter:
Have we approached the State for funding?
Anderson:
Grants of that nature are very hard to obtain.
Richards:
I don’t know of any opportunities for State support. I think WinstonSalem issued bonds.
Carter:
What about support from the North Carolina League?
Burgess:
Some of the smaller communities have huge needs, the rural communities.
The urban communities need help with roads. The League is not asking
for support for Winston-Salem’s stormwater needs. There is no major
assistance, we’re hoping for more roads.
Carter:
[Budget Shortfall] Does this address the 14,000 backlog or just the 6,000?
Anderson:
It addresses everything.
Mumford:
With projected population growth and development, doesn’t that add to
the backlog?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 9
Anderson:
It does. We’ve probably had 1,000 added.
Mumford:
So, there are 1,000 new ones, plus additional development it would seem
with that load to roads and infrastructure, you can’t get to a 0 number of
backlogs or realistically decline. I’m not suggesting that we don’t deal
with them, but I don’t think a 0 number is realistic either.
Anderson:
We mention it to give you time to think about it. The question is do you
put your head in the sand and wait 12 years?
Lochman:
This program was established with a fee reduction schedule that I hope
you realize, but what is the impact if you didn’t do that?
Anderson:
We didn’t address that.
Lochman:
What if we simply forgot about the objective and maintained the current
rate, would that make a difference?
Anderson:
Yes. It wouldn’t eliminate the backlog, but it would help.
Mumford:
When we were working on a transportation strategy here, there were many
issues with infrastructure. We didn’t suggest that what we listed identified
everything, but we had an overall picture of a big program. I think we
could use the same approach here. We need to figure out how to deal with
the data. We need to get our minds set to look at this the same way we
looked at other infrastructure problems.
Carter:
I agree. I am concerned with the number of low priority items. I think
addressing them is important. It is difficult to understand the chart
because it shows the red disappearing. Could we deal with a major
problem?
Anderson:
There is no reference to a major problem. The left portion shows the 12
year budget, the blue is current. The red shows rates peaking at 9½% and
tapering back down. As a percentage of the total of the fees, it is a
relatively small change at the end of 12 years. It is cheaper to take care of
this now.
Foxx:
We heard a lot of this in Transportation.
Burgess:
CM Mumford are you saying the TAP model applies to this or this applies
to the TAP?
Mumford:
I’m saying the TAP didn’t identify everything. There are things that
aren’t on the list. Some of the 14,000 on the backlog may be the same
issue. I don’t know how many of these can be addressed today.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 16, 2007
Page 10
Anderson:
Not everything is a level C – those are wash-outs, erosion of streams, the
difference is what now will cost X number of dollars might be 20 x X
number of dollars 12 years from now. I would be happy to hear us find
some place in between.
Foxx:
I would like to thank you and staff. We asked the Enterprise Funds to
come with information and you have done a good job giving us some
perspective on the challenges.
Burgess:
On your recommended chart, I’m not sure what gets us to 0, but what does
it look at as it starts to go up?
Anderson:
It starts at 7% the first year, 8% in 2008, 9% in 2009 and then 9½% in
2010 where it stays for four years. In 2014, it drops back to 9%, and then
drops ½% every year through 2019. It ends at a 6½% increase.
Richards:
I appreciate what Mr. Anderson has done. What we are proposing won’t
make everything go away. There are some unintended consequences with
the percentage increases because we will have to add staff.
Foxx:
We can’t continue to have two classes of problems with one we deal with
and one we don’t. I am supportive of addressing this and would like
reemphasize how enormously helpful this has been.
Burch:
You can raise with the full Council at the Budget the retreat that you
would like Stormwater Services to drill down more on these numbers.
Foxx:
I will do that.
III.
Next Meeting:
The Committee will meet on May 21, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. in Room 267.
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Monday, April 16, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
AGENDA
I.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Staff Resources: Julie Burch and Rob Phocas
Following up to the meeting of March 19, the Committee will discuss how to move
forward on the “Cool Cities” greenhouse gas emissions reduction initiatives. One
method under consideration by the Committee is to recommend adoption of a formal
resolution. Alternative language for a resolution is attached, reflecting input from
Committee members since the last meeting. Also attached is another copy of the staff
briefing paper prepared earlier.
II.
Enterprise Fund Review: Charlotte Stormwater Utility
Staff Resource: Tim Richards
Bruce Anderson, Chair of the Stormwater Advisory Committee and Tim Richards,
Stormwater Utility Manager, will present an overview of the Stormwater Utility
program, as well as budget drivers and issues for the FY 2008 Budget. This
presentation is for information only and as a preview for the presentation scheduled
for the April 18 Council Budget Retreat.
III.
Next Meeting:
Monday, May 21, 3:30 p.m. Agenda will include “Blue Sky” discussion about
environmental issues and challenges.
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Jim Schumacher
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders
Tim Richards
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
PCCO Stakeholders
Bruce Anderson
COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
March 19, 2007
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Briefing Paper
Executive Summary
•
The U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, the centerpiece of Sierra Club’s “Cool
Cities” initiative, contains twelve initiatives that cities are asked to commit to undertake
in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
•
An assessment conducted by City staff found that three of the twelve initiatives could
involve additional cost and operational impacts: 1) conducting an emissions inventory
and developing and implementing an action plan to reduce emissions; 2) increasing the
use of clean, alternative energy and advocating for renewable energy resources; and 3)
participating in a broad, collaborative public education campaign about reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
•
Staff’s estimate of the resources needed to conduct an inventory of emissions for City
operations only: $10,000 - $ 30,000 in staff time. City membership for ICLEI to provide
technical assistance and software: $ 3,500. Staff would also collaborate with County.
•
Without the baseline information from a current emissions inventory, staff is not able to
estimate the costs for developing or implementing an emissions reduction action plan.
•
Like Charlotte, most cities that staff contacted are uncertain what actions they’ll be
taking, so few had estimates of the costs of implementing an action plan.
•
Renewable Energy Credits are additional payment for producing power from renewable
sources. If the City were to participate in a credit program, costs would vary depending
on the scope and extent of purchasing credits.
•
The cost of a collaborative public education campaign involving public and private
partners would depend on the scope of the campaign and the role of the City in the
campaign.
Options for Possible Actions:
1.) Recommend the City join the Sierra Club’s “Cool Cities” Initiative by City Council
adoption of a resolution to endorse the U.S. Mayors’ Agreement and commit to a green
City fleet; energy-efficiency technology in City facilities; and investment in renewable
energy, OR
1
COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
March 19, 2007
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Briefing Paper
Executive Summary
2.) Recommend the City join the ICLEI “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign” by
adopting a resolution of support and commitment, OR
3.) Recommend the City Council adopt a Charlotte-specific resolution to commit the City
to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, OR
4.) Recommend the City Council use a Request for Council Action to direct City staff to
take actions to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Note: Based on staff understanding of the Sierra Club and ICLEI criteria, a formal
resolution must be adopted by the municipality in order to be considered a “Cool City” or a
supporter of the ICLEI initiative.
•
The complete briefing paper contains additional information related to all of the summary
points above. Further, staff has provided responses to Committee member questions
about the status of methane recovery at landfills and the programs already underway to
maximize pump efficiency and methane recovery at wastewater treatment plants.
2
COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
March 19, 2007
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Briefing Paper
Introduction
The purpose of this briefing paper is to provide the Environment Committee
(“Committee”) with answers to questions posed at the February 19, 2007 meeting and to bring
together information that has been presented over the past several Committee meetings. Staff also
presents new information from Utilities on pump efficiency for water and wastewater and recovery
of wastewater methane. Options for Committee recommendations to Council can be found on pp.
5-6.
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
The centerpiece of Sierra Club’s “Cool Cities” initiative is the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement (“Agreement”) (see Attachment A), which a city must endorse in order to
become a Cool City. 1 Among other statements, the Agreement contains twelve initiatives that
cities commit to in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.
As indicated in staff’s December 19th preliminary assessment of these twelve initiatives,
there are three initiatives in the Agreement that would be most challenging for staff to meet, i.e.,
would involve potentially substantial cost and operational impact. These three initiatives are:
1) initiative #1, inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set
reduction targets and create an action plan; 2) initiative #4, increase the use of clean, alternative
energy; and 3) initiative #12, help educate the public, schools and others about reducing global
warming pollution. At the Committee’s request, staff provides additional information on these
three initiatives.
Initiative #1, GHG Inventory and Action Plan for City Operations
The Committee asked staff to estimate the costs of conducting a GHG inventory for city
operations, creating an action plan, and implementing the action plan.
Conduct a GHG Inventory for City Operations by June 2008
Engineering and Property Management (“E&PM”) staff has researched how a GHG
inventory for City operations might be approached and the associated costs. A commonly used
tool for conducting the inventory is to join the nonprofit group ICLEI-Local Governments for
Sustainability (see Attachment B), which provides computer software and technical support to
1
North Carolina cities that have endorsed include: Asheville; Boone; Canton; Carborro; Chapel
Hill; Durham; Highlands; Hillsborough, Wilmington; and cities expected to endorse include:
Brevard; Greenville; Salisbury; and Winston-Salem.
3
members to conduct a GHG emissions inventory. A one-year ICLEI membership for the City
would cost $3,500.
Staff learned that Mecklenburg County (“County”) intends to conduct a GHG emissions
inventory of County operations by June 2008, and that the County already has access to ICLEI’s
software through the County’s membership in a state-wide organization. City staff has met with
County staff about collaborating on a City/County GHG emissions inventory, and the County has
offered to work with City staff to calculate the City’s GHG emission inventory if the City so
desires.
E&PM staff believes that collaborating with the County to conduct the inventory would be
beneficial, but E&PM staff also supports the City conducting an independent inventory and
becoming an ICLEI member for the following reasons: 1) it will be more seamless for E&PM to
enter City GHG emissions data; 2) E&PM staff would become more familiar with the ICLEI
software and its potential if E&PM has access to its own copy; 3) joining ICLEI offers networking
possibilities in discussing emissions issues with other cities and using their past experience in
attaining City emission reduction goals or developing the City’s action plan.
To date, E&PM staff has collected the majority of the data 2 needed to conduct the
inventory. Going forward, E&PM staff estimates that staff resources needed to conduct a GHG
inventory by June 2008 entail reassigning some of the workload of one staff member 3 so that he
could work over the coming year to complete data compilation, learn the ICLEI software, enter the
data into the software, and collaborate with the County, at a cost of approximately $10,000$30,000 in staff resources.
Develop a GHG Emissions Reduction Action Plan for City Operations
For cities that wish to develop their action plan internally, ICLEI also provides resources to
develop an action plan; for example, ICLEI will make available to members this summer new
software aimed at developing action plans. An alternative approach would be for a city to hire a
consultant to develop the action plan. At this time, not knowing the City’s current GHG emissions
per year, the City’s reduction target and what actions the City would take to reduce GHG
emissions, staff has not determined which approach to take and thus has not been able to estimate
the costs for developing an action plan.
Most of the cities that staff has contacted plan to develop an action plan using internal staff
and ICLEI resources; they too have not quantified the resources that will be needed. However, we
did receive cost information from two groups. First, Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
Hillsborough have contracted with ICLEI to conduct their inventory and create an action plan.
Their inventory and action plan address GHG emissions from both government operations and the
larger community. Total cost is $45,000 to be split by the communities based on their populations.
2
The data includes: electric and natural gas consumption for City operations and City motor
vehicle fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel).
3
The impact of reassigning this one staff person would be assigned CIP maintenance projects
would be put on hold.
4
Second, the City of Durham and Durham County sent out a request for bids to conduct an
inventory of GHG emissions from government operations and the larger community and to
develop and action plan. They too chose to contract with ICLEI, which will cost approximately
$50,000; the other bids received came in at around $100,000.
Implementation of GHG Emission Reduction Action Plan for City Operations
Staff reached out to two sources to answer this question. First, staff contacted the cities it
had spoken to earlier to determine if these cities had determined the costs associated with
implementing an action plan. Staff received responses from: Atlanta; Houston; Tallahassee;
Asheville; Chapel Hill, Chicago and Kansas City.
Staff received generally the same response from each of these cities, except for Kansas
City, all of which are in the process of conducting their GHG inventory and creating an action
plan. These cities have not determined the costs associated with implementing an action plan,
because they do not yet know what actions they will be taking. The cities have made the
commitment to reduce GHG emissions, and after they calculate their GHG emissions and a
reduction target, they will then undertake an effort to figure out how much it will cost to get them
to the reduced levels.
Kansas City, however, was able to provide staff with some costs. Kansas City is presenting
(and seeking approval of) their action plan in phases. Phase I will be presented in late April, and
Phase I consists of several internal initiatives, such as increasing recycling in City operations
($50,000-$60,000) and cutting down on employee miles traveled by buying bus passes for City
employees ($30,000). Kansas City also proposed undertaking some larger projects, such as putting
a green roof on city hall ($400,000) and purchasing Green Power to cover 5% of their energy
usage, which will amount to about $200,000.
Second, staff contacted Professor Douglas Crawford-Brown at UNC-Chapel Hill, who is
helping Chapel Hill and the UNC to reduce GHG emissions. Professor Brown also indicated the
difficulty with estimating what a city’s costs might be, because it depends on what reduction
strategies are chosen as well as how a city accounts for the costs. Professor Brown suggested that
reduction strategies are generally broken down into three categories: 1) Short-term, which can be
implemented immediately from an organization's annual budget and where there is an immediate
reduction in energy costs (e.g., keeping doors closed, turning the heat down a few degrees);
2) Medium-term, which also can be implemented from the annual budget, or perhaps require two
budget cycles, and where there is a pay-back period of 5 years or less (e.g., replacement of lighting
fixtures, adding an energy management system, etc.); 3) Long-term, which might not ever pay
themselves back or would take a long time to, and certainly involve the capital budget for a
number of years (e.g., investment in a bus system or new passenger fleet).
Initiative #4, Alternative Energy
Under initiative #4, a city commits to increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for
example, investing in green tags, also know as renewable energy credits, advocating for the
5
development of renewable energy resources and recovering landfill methane for energy
production.
Green Tags or Renewable Energy Credits
Green tags or renewable energy credits (“RECs”) are a market mechanism that represent
the environmental benefits associated with generating electricity from renewable energy sources,
such as wind, solar and water. A REC represents an additional payment for producing power from
renewable energy sources, allowing the producer to create and sell electricity at the local market
price and thus enabling cleaner, renewable energy to be made.
The REC does not take the place of one’s normal electric bill; the cost associated with a
REC is in addition to what one normally pays for electricity. A popular incentive for buying RECs
is to make the claim that your energy use is "carbon neutral" and hence does not contribute to
global warming. For example, the recent Super Bowl purchased enough RECs to make the event a
carbon neutral event (see Attachment C). RECs can be purchased from entities that act like
middlemen. Two such entities are NC Green Power (used by Duke Energy) and Renewable
Energy Choice.
Staff contacted both of these entities to get an idea of the costs associated with buying
green power. According to Renewable Energy Choice, for example, to make the government
center building (approximately 450,000 sq. ft.) 100% carbon neutral for one year, it would cost the
City approximately $36,000. According to Renewable Energy Choice, price will change based on
volume of deal, length of contract, and when one purchases. The quote provided is at the high end
of the pricing spectrum (see Attachment D, which includes the environmental benefits of this
approach).
NC Green Power currently offers two products: 1) $4.00/per month for a 100 kwh block;
and 2) the $2.50/per month per 100 kwh block if you buy a minimum of 100 blocks a month (the
average US individual uses approximately 3,000 kwh/per year). They are considering, but have
made no commitment to, a third option that would allow a very large customer to pick what
alternative source they would like and, if it is available, pay a rate anywhere from $.50-$2.00 block
to have all their purchased blocks come from that source.
Landfill Methane
Currently, the City does not have the opportunity to recover landfill methane for energy
production from the two closed City landfills. The Statesville Avenue landfill, which has been
closed for several decades but not redeveloped, does not have a methane recovery system and an
argument can be made that is old enough that it no longer produces enough methane for a recovery
effort. At Renaissance Park (the York Landfill) there is a small vacuum extraction system at the
golf shop, but it is to protect the building, not for true recovery. In the early 1990s, the City tried
methane recovery, but it is staff’s understanding that the recovery system was not successful.
According to County staff, there is a methane recovery system at the Speedway Landfill in
Concord. The recovered methane is used to produce energy.
6
Initiative #9, Pump Efficiency for Water & Wastewater and Recovery of Wastewater
Methane.
Pump Efficiency
Staff has received additional information from Utilities since the February 19th meeting on
this initiative. Utilities' water pumps are already energy efficient, with most operating at 97 to 99.5
percent efficiency. Utilities purchases efficient water pumps and maintains those efficiencies
through pump testing, repair and maintenance. Utilities reduces energy consumption and cost for
water pumping by utilizing an off-peak pumping schedule. Utilities also purchases efficient
pumps for wastewater treatment and maintains those routinely for high performance. Wastewater
pumps and other wastewater treatment processes will be evaluated more fully during an energy
audit that a consultant will conduct as part of the optimization of wastewater treatment plants.
Recovery of Wastewater Methane
Utilities already has completed a preliminary study that identified the McAlpine WWTP as
a candidate for more extensive methane recovery. All wastewater treatment plants that operate
digesters (four of five plants) currently capture methane and use it to heat the digesters, but the
large amount of methane generated at McAlpine might lend itself to other applications as well.
Utilities expects the energy audit and methane feasibility study to be complete by July 2008.
Initiative #12, Education about GHGs
At this point staff, staff does not know the scope of what the City would undertake to meet this
community initiative and thus does not have information on potential costs. The costs of a
collaborative public education campaign could vary widely, depending on the exact scope and
extent of the campaign. Education could be an important part of the City’s GHG emission
reduction action plan, but several factors would need to be considered: the message; strategies;
resources; and possible partnerships and appropriate roles for the City, County, Centralina Council
of Governments, CMS, Duke Energy and other members of the business community.
Options for Recommended Actions related to the “Cool Cities” Initiative/ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reduction
If the Committee wishes to recommend action to respond to the Sierra Club Cool Cities
initiative, below are options for consideration as possible recommendations to the Council:
Recommend the City join the Sierra Club’s Cool Cities Initiative by City Council
1.
adoption of a resolution to endorse the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and to commit
to the following: (i) green” city vehicle fleets with hybrid and other cleaner cars; (ii) modernize
city buildings with money-saving energy-efficiency technology; and (iii) invest in clean and safe
renewable energy.
2.
Recommend the City join the ICLEI “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign” by
adopting a resolution of support and commitment (see Attachment B for ICLEI’s proposed
7
resolution). If the City joins this campaign, the City would have to commit to five milestones:
1) conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast; 2) adopt an emissions reduction target for
the forecast year; 3) develop a local action plan; 4) implement policies and measures; and
5) evaluate, report on progress and update plans. These milestones differ from the Cool Cities
requirements in that they are more general targets rather than specific actions.
3.
Recommend the City Council adopt a Charlotte-specific resolution to commit the
City to GHG emissions reduction. Based on Committee direction and guidance, staff has tailored a
draft resolution for Charlotte, drawing from targets in the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement and from the adopted Mecklenburg County resolution (see Attachment E, also included
for comparison is the 2/15/07 version). Staff has shared this document with the local Sierra Club
representative. It is our understanding that the resolution, if adopted, would qualify the City for
both the Cool Cities initiative and for the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection campaign.
4.
Recommend the City Council use a Request for Council Action to direct City staff
to take actions to further reduce GHG emissions. The specific actions in the Request for Council
Action could be the same as those proposed on page 3 of the Charlotte-specific resolution
described above, but under this option, the Council would not be asked to adopt a resolution.
It is staff’s understanding that to be considered a “Cool City” by the Sierra Club or to be
recognized as part of the ICLEI “Cities for Climate Protection” initiative, a formal resolution must
be adopted.
8
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 1
City of Charlotte Commitment to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
WHEREAS the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change released a report on Feb 1, 2007,
stating that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations
of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global mean sea level; {from the IPCC report}
WHEREAS the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that most of the
global warming occurring over the last fifty (50) years is very likely in response to increased
greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations primarily attributable to human activities that have caused
increased emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halogenated
fluorocarbons (HCFCs), ozone (O3), perfluorinated carbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs); and {taken from County resolution – with the word “very” added as a result of new
report}
WHEREAS over 350 jurisdictions throughout the United States have adopted resolutions
regarding climate protection, including endorsement of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement and participation in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’
Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, both of which call for conducting GHG inventories,
taking actions to reduce GHG emissions and raising public awareness regarding climate change;
{County resolution}
WHEREAS in accordance with the Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) passed in June 2002, the
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has completed studies and made
recommendations to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the North
Carolina Environmental Review Commission regarding GHG emissions and steps that can be
taken to reduce GHG emissions, especially reducing the use of energy;
{County resolution}
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation in the summer of 2005,
the NC Global Warming Act (S1134), that established the Legislative Commission on Global
Climate Change to study issues related to global warming, the emerging carbon economy and
whether it is appropriate and desirable for North Carolina to establish global warming pollutant
reductions goals for North Carolina; and {County resolution}
WHEREAS, The North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG) was formed
and charged with developing an inventory and forecast of greenhouse gas emissions in North
Carolina and presenting to the Governor, the Legislature, and Environmental Management
9
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 1
Commission an action plan with recommendations to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas
emissions. CAPAG’s actions are intended to complement those of the Legislative Commission.
WHEREAS, in October 2005, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources published a report entitled Draft North Carolina Greenhouse Gas Inventory and
Reference Case Projections 1990-2020 that identifies electricity use and transportation as the
principal sources of GHG emissions in North Carolina; and {County resolution}
WHEREAS, the City of Charlotte has adopted the “Environment” as one of five Focus Areas
(priorities) for City government and is committed to safeguarding the environment, balancing
environmental health, sound fiscal policy and growth; and
WHEREAS the City has a number of policies and practices in place which already support the
following targets of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement:
•
Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create
compact, walkable urban communities;
•
Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs,
incentives for car pooling and public transit;
•
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;
•
Purchase only energy efficient equipment and appliances, e.g., Energy Star, for City
use;
•
Practice and promote sustainable building practices, using the U.S. Green Building
Council's LEED program or a similar system to identify existing and emerging
sustainable design practices;
•
Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of
such vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages;
convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel;
•
Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems;
recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production;
10
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 1
•
Increase variety of materials recycled and recycling rates in City operations and in the
community; and
•
Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading, lower urban
temperatures and to absorb greenhouse gases.
WHEREAS the City Council of Charlotte, North Carolina is committed to lead by example in
matters related to the environment and climate protection,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlotte, North Carolina,
that the City will continue to support the initiatives outlined above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City will strive to take additional actions to reduce further
GHG emissions as follows:
•
Conduct an inventory of GHG emissions from City operations by June 2008; establish
as aggressive and realistic a GHG emissions reduction target as can be met by the year
2012; and create an action plan, prepare a cost-benefit analysis and adopt a budget
designed to meet the established GHG emissions reduction target;
•
Utilize the resources of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability to identify ways in
which GHG emissions can be reduced from City operations;
•
Monitor the recommendations and actions of the NC Legislative Commission on
Global Climate Change, the NC Climate Action Plan Advisory Group and Federal
agencies so as to inform the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, after review, consideration and approval by the City
Council, the City will:
•
Support the use of clean, alternative energy, by, for example, the use of renewable
energy in City operations and recovering methane for energy production, where
practicable;
•
Develop partnerships with the private sector in the greater Charlotte metropolitan
community so as to leverage the private sector’s expertise and experience on GHG
emissions reduction;
•
Collaborate with Mecklenburg County and other neighboring communities to conduct
an inventory of GHG emissions for the greater Charlotte metropolitan area. Once this
11
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 1
•
inventory has been completed, continue this regional collaboration in an effort to
reduce GHG emissions in the greater Charlotte metropolitan area; and
•
Collaborate with Mecklenburg County and other neighboring communities to educate
the greater Charlotte metropolitan community about the need for and benefits of
reducing GHG emissions.
Adopted this ______day of __________, 2007.
12
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 2
City of Charlotte Commitment to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
WHEREAS in accordance with the Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) passed in June 2002, the
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has completed studies and made
recommendations to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the North
Carolina Environmental Review Commission regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
steps that can be taken to reduce GHG emissions, especially reducing the use of energy;
{County resolution}
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation in the summer of 2005,
the NC Global Warming Act (S1134), that established the Legislative Commission on Global
Climate Change to study issues related to global warming, the emerging carbon economy and
whether it is appropriate and desirable for North Carolina to establish global warming pollutant
reductions goals for North Carolina; and {County resolution}
WHEREAS, The North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG) was formed
and charged with developing an inventory and forecast of greenhouse gas emissions in North
Carolina and presenting to the Governor, the Legislature, and Environmental Management
Commission an action plan with recommendations to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas
emissions. CAPAG’s actions are intended to complement those of the Legislative Commission.
WHEREAS, in October 2005, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources published a report entitled Draft North Carolina Greenhouse Gas Inventory and
Reference Case Projections 1990-2020 that identifies electricity use and transportation as the
principal sources of GHG emissions in North Carolina; and {County resolution}
WHEREAS, the City of Charlotte has adopted the “Environment” as one of five Focus Areas
(priorities) for City government and is committed to safeguarding the environment, balancing
environmental health, sound fiscal policy and growth; and
WHEREAS the City has a number of policies and practices in place which already support the
following targets of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement:
•
Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create
compact, walkable urban communities;
•
Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs,
incentives for car pooling and public transit;
13
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 2
•
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;
•
Purchase only energy efficient equipment and appliances, e.g., Energy Star, for City
use;
•
Practice and promote sustainable building practices, using the U.S. Green Building
Council's LEED program or a similar system to identify existing and emerging
sustainable design practices;
•
Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of
such vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages;
convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel;
•
Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems;
recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production;
•
Increase variety of materials recycled and recycling rates in City operations and in the
community; and
•
Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading, lower urban
temperatures and to absorb greenhouse gases.
WHEREAS the City Council of Charlotte, North Carolina is committed to lead by example in
matters related to the environment and climate protection,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlotte, North Carolina,
that the City will continue to support the initiatives outlined above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City will strive to take additional actions to reduce further
GHG emissions as follows:
•
Conduct an inventory of GHG emissions from City operations by June 2008; establish
as aggressive and realistic a GHG emissions reduction target as can be met by the year
2012; and create an action plan, prepare a cost-benefit analysis and adopt a budget
designed to meet the established GHG emissions reduction target;
•
Utilize the resources of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability to identify ways in
which GHG emissions can be reduced from City operations;
14
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 2
•
Monitor the recommendations and actions of the NC Legislative Commission on
Global Climate Change, the NC Climate Action Plan Advisory Group and Federal
agencies so as to inform the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council, using the appropriate City Council
review process, will consider the feasibility of the City undertaking the following actions to
reduce GHG emissions:
•
Support the use of clean, alternative energy, by, for example, the use of renewable
energy in City operations and recovering methane for energy production, where
practicable;
•
Developing partnerships with the private sector in the greater Charlotte metropolitan
community so as to leverage the private sector’s expertise and experience on GHG
emissions reduction;
•
Collaborating with Mecklenburg County and other neighboring communities to conduct
an inventory of GHG emissions for the greater Charlotte metropolitan area. Once this
inventory has been completed, continue this regional collaboration in an effort to
reduce GHG emissions in the greater Charlotte metropolitan area;
•
Collaborating with Mecklenburg County and other neighboring communities to educate
the greater Charlotte metropolitan community about the need for and benefits of
reducing GHG emissions; and
•
Other additional actions as the City Council determines to be appropriate.
Adopted this ______day of __________, 2007.
15
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 3
City of Charlotte Commitment to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
WHEREAS in accordance with the Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) passed in June 2002, the
North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has completed studies and made
recommendations to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and the North
Carolina Environmental Review Commission regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
steps that can be taken to reduce GHG emissions, especially reducing the use of energy;
{County resolution}
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation in the summer of 2005,
the NC Global Warming Act (S1134), that established the Legislative Commission on Global
Climate Change to study issues related to global warming, the emerging carbon economy and
whether it is appropriate and desirable for North Carolina to establish global warming pollutant
reductions goals for North Carolina; and {County resolution}
WHEREAS, The North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG) was formed
and charged with developing an inventory and forecast of greenhouse gas emissions in North
Carolina and presenting to the Governor, the Legislature, and Environmental Management
Commission an action plan with recommendations to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas
emissions. CAPAG’s actions are intended to complement those of the Legislative Commission.
WHEREAS, in October 2005, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources published a report entitled Draft North Carolina Greenhouse Gas Inventory and
Reference Case Projections 1990-2020 that identifies electricity use and transportation as the
principal sources of GHG emissions in North Carolina; and {County resolution}
WHEREAS, the City of Charlotte has adopted the “Environment” as one of five Focus Areas
(priorities) for City government and is committed to safeguarding the environment, balancing
environmental health, sound fiscal policy and growth; and
WHEREAS the City has a number of policies and practices in place which already support the
following targets of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement:
•
Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create
compact, walkable urban communities;
•
Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs,
incentives for car pooling and public transit;
16
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 3
•
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;
•
Purchase only energy efficient equipment and appliances, e.g., Energy Star, for City
use;
•
Practice and promote sustainable building practices, using the U.S. Green Building
Council's LEED program or a similar system to identify existing and emerging
sustainable design practices;
•
Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of
such vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages;
convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel;
•
Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems;
recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production;
•
Increase variety of materials recycled and recycling rates in City operations and in the
community; and
•
Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading, lower urban
temperatures and to absorb greenhouse gases.
WHEREAS the City Council of Charlotte, North Carolina is committed to lead by example in
matters related to the environment and climate protection,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlotte, North Carolina,
that the City will continue to support the initiatives outlined above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City will strive to take additional actions to reduce further
GHG emissions as follows:
•
Conduct an inventory of GHG emissions from City operations by June 2008 and
establish as aggressive and realistic a GHG emissions reduction target as can be met by
the year 2012;
•
Utilize the resources of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability to held reduce
GHG emissions from City operations;
17
DRAFT
April 4, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
Version 3
•
Monitor the recommendations and actions of the NC Legislative Commission on
Global Climate Change, the NC Climate Action Plan Advisory Group and Federal
agencies so as to inform the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City will develop an action plan, prepare a costbenefit analysis and adopt a budget designed to meet the GHG emissions reduction target, which
the City Council will review using the appropriate Council procedures.
Adopted this ______day of __________, 2007.
18
Storm Water Services
Council Environment Committee
April 16, 2007
Highlights
•
•
•
•
•
Early goals
Maturing Utility
Program Descriptions
Long Term Program Plan
Long Term Fee Plan
Early Goals
•
Solve the worst problems first
(public safety, flooding of
structures)
•
Prioritize and construct capital
projects (through low-bid
privatization)
•
Address backlog of remedial
repairs within 10 years
•
Improve water quality
Maturing Utility
•
•
Prioritize and construct large capital projects
•
•
Improve water quality
•
•
Support Community Goals
Address backlog of remedial repairs within 10
years
Implement Balanced Portfolio of storm water
capital strategies
Reactive
Proactive
Programs
Infrastructure
• Flood Control
• Repairs to Storm Drains
• Channel Projects
Strategic Investments
•Neighborhood Projects
•Transportation Projects
•Transit
•Economic Development
Programs
Water Quality
• Pollution Control
• Stream Restoration
• Mitigation
Operating
•NPDES permit
•Street Maintenance
•Customer Service
Accomplishments
1.
High priority requests started within six months of the
request.
2.
Mitigation Bank receipt of $1.4mm from Charlotte
Douglas Airport
3.
Completed eight large Flood Control projects in FY06
and four in FY07.
4.
Standards & Poor bond rating of ‘AAA’ on Storm Water
Services October, 2006 $43mm bond issuance. The
new rating will save approximately $90,000 a year in
interest expense.
Challenges
1.
Infrastructure needs growing faster than the funding.
2.
Continued downstream impacts from new
development causing flooding, stream degradation,
and water quality issues.
3.
Hiring qualified staff
•
•
•
4.
High demands for skills nationwide
Rising market values
Recruit and retain
Necessity of planning for cost escalations to maintain
buying power
Long Term Program Plan
Programmatic Goals:
•
•
•
•
•
Keep high priority backlog at the optimal level
Determine best course for lower priority requests
Remain proactive versus reactive
Meet federal mandates plus some when it makes sense
Collaborate on community initiatives
Financial Goals:
•
•
Match expenditures within the financial model
•
Fee increases = inflation
Steadily decline reliance on revenue bonds to become PAYGsupported
Storm Water’s
Long Term Fee Plan
Fee Increases
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
94
97
00
03
06
09
12
15
18
Fiscal Year
8%
Monthly Fee
Single Family Residential > 2,000 sf
FY20
$9.83
FY08
$5.51
$10
$8
$6 FY94
$2.12
$4
$2
$0
94
97
00
03
06
09
12
15
18
Fiscal Year
8%
Committee Representation
• Intended to have nine members
– 3 residential
– 1 environmental
– 1 financial
– 1 institutional
– 1 commercial property
– 2 development representatives
• A well balanced committee is essential to
good decisions
Committee Representation
• It requires a minimum of 5 members
to make a decision.
• Currently, there are 4 vacancies.
• Two positions have been open for
one year (appointments by Charlotte
Mayor’s office and town of Matthews).
Storm Water Policies
• Congratulations should be in order to both
the City and County Storm Water staff.
• Both have recently received awards from
their peers in the industry.
• Erosion story in Observer – other counties
on Lake Norman trying to enforce the rules
since the state can or will not do so. The
standards in Charlotte-Mecklenburg are
currently much higher.
Storm Water Policies
• The new Post-Construction Controls
Ordinance will become law in July for the
county and six towns.
• It is the hope of the SWAC that the city will
move forward and endorse the ordinance
shortly after the county and towns.
Long Range Plans
• A key issue is the maintenance and repair
of existing and future BMP’s (erosion
control ponds and structures)
• Storm Water staff and the SWAC continue
to discuss options for the most effective
way to prevent future failures of these
facilities
Budget
•
•
The proposed budget represents the best
efforts of the staff to fund the
expenditures that are absolutely
necessary.
It does not address the backlog of “low
priority” requests.
Charlotte Observer (8/1/06):
1. Step 1 – File complaint
2. Step 2 – Wait 12 years
Budget Shortfall
• There are currently over 6000 “low priority”
requests in the backlog.
• In the budget this back log increases to
more than 14,000 by 2019.
• This approach is not in the best interest of
the city or its citizens.
• The SWAC has raised serious concerns
about insufficient fees to support the storm
water program for the past several years.
Erosion Control Fine Appeals
• In Charlotte, appeals to fines are few. That
is the case because the city and county
provide education, training, and
certification so developers can minimize
problems at their sites.
• There is some concern by SWAC
members that fines are negotiated too low,
but the policy saves time and money for all
parties.
Budget Shortfall
Alternative budget
Budget Shortfall
• The budget that Storm Water staff has
prepared meets city staff goals for limiting
increases.
• However, at the request of the SWAC,
staff has prepared an alternate budget
with storm water fees designed to
eliminate the backlog of “low priority”
requests by 2019.
Budget Shortfall
• If the city continues the “delay” approach,
when it is no longer possible to allow these
problems to continue, the future fees
necessary will be very, very high.
• The following chart shows the impact of
the fees paid by residential customers.
Commercial fees increases are identical.
Impact on residential fees
(Action now vs. wait 12 years to start)
50.00
45.00
40.00
Backlog = 0
28%
MORE
OVER
12 YEARS
OR
70% JUMP
IN FY20
35.00
30.00
Backlog 14,000
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Alternative
Current
Budget Shortfall
• A secondary benefit of the alternative
fee schedule is that it funds an annual
increase in staff, rather than being
forced to wait for available applicants
in a tight market.
Questions