Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
Update on Tree Ordinance Process
None.
II.
Subject:
Action:
Eco-Media/EcoZone
None.
III.
Subject:
Action:
Climate Prosperity/Climate Communities
None.
IV.
Subject:
Action:
Update on Development of Sustainable City Facilities Policy
None.
V.
Subject:
Action:
Information Report
None.
VI.
Subject:
Action:
Next Meeting
Monday, May 18 at 3:30 p.m.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Edwin Peacock, Nancy Carter, Susan Burgess and Andy Dulin
Warren Cooksey
2:00 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Agenda Package
Presentation: EcoMedia
Handout: CPP Executive Board Letter (from Council member Carter)
Presentation: Sustainable Facilities Policy Development
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Committee Chair Edwin Peacock welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked those in
attendance to introduce themselves.
Chair Peacock then recognized David Miller, an 18-year City employee, who recently
won the Business Journal’s Green Government Leader of the Year Award. Mr. Miller is
the City’s Energy Manager.
Peacock:
We are very proud to see you here today. Could you give us a little bit of
your background?
Miller:
I started with the City in 1991 in Energy Management. I really felt like
the award was for the work of our whole group.
Peacock:
Could you tell us some of your biggest obstacles or challenges?
Miller:
Probably getting started in 1997 with the data collection.
Peacock:
What about going forward?
Miller:
Stimulus money.
Dulin:
Were you responsible for the motion sensor lights in this building?
Miller:
David Taylor did that here.
Julie Burch added that Doug Bean was also a finalist for the Green Government Leader
of the Year award. The Airport won a recycling award as well as CMU for public
information around drought conservation. Also, May 21 is the official grand opening of
the Environmental Services Facility which won LEED gold.
Burgess:
I would like to make a suggestion to USAir regarding recycling and
perhaps our Airport Director can help us. I know from talking to Flight
Attendants that they would recycle more if there was a place for them to
put the recycling at airports.
Burch:
We can ask Jerry Orr for information.
Carter:
I know Northwest Airlines under Delta recycles, they may have a model.
Burch:
We will follow up.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 3
I.
Update on Tree Ordinance Process
Chair Peacock then advised the Committee he had requested a brief update on the Tree
Ordinance.
David Weekly reminded the Committee staff was charged in January to work with the
development community to come up with a cost benefit analysis. The stakeholders met
on February 27. It was a good meeting and they agreed to a methodology. We met again
on March 27 and at that time the Committee members had a different direction. We have
now invited members of the design community to help with the selection of sites. The
Committee agreed to the change in direction and we have proposed a list of names to
form a subgroup. We will meet again on April 27 and plan to 1) select the subgroup; 2)
propose the schedule; and 3) provide a charge to the subgroup. The subgroup will then
select the sites. We will then review the sites and begin the cost analysis, which will take
one to two months. Getting consensus on the sites will be the challenge, but we hope to
be back to you in August.
Peacock:
Can you give us the names of the people on the subcommittee?
Weekly:
We don’t have that list. I can provide it for you by the end of the meeting.
Peacock:
Well, I just want to make sure there is a good balance of folks from the
design and development communities.
Peterson:
We have people from Land Design, Colejenest & Stone, Osborne
Engineering, Childress Klein, Beacon, Trinity, Crosland, just to name a
few.
Burgess:
I think balance is important. Is there an appropriate amount of
environmental interest on the subgroup?
Weekly:
We have design and developers. The purpose is to have the experts select
the sites and of course the concern is what a good site is, but they have to
have consensus.
Burgess:
Will they consider a sample?
Weekly:
They will look at typical samples.
Burgess:
So, there will be a representative sample from all types?
Weekly:
Residential and commercial.
Carter:
Weekly:
What about industrial?
Industrial would be included in commercial.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 4
Carter:
I want to be sure because we previously heard industrial was not
represented.
Peacock:
I think there has been an environmental business interest for the last three
years on the stakeholders group. I would like to recognize the work of
Chris Buchanan, Andy Munn and Rick Roti, who I see in the audience.
Buchanan:
We are already working so hopefully we will finish sooner than August.
The design community is not a constituent group, but people with good
projects with environmental responsibility. There are probably more
commercial representatives on the stakeholders group.
Burgess:
But, you are confident there is good balance within the group?
Buchanan:
Our goal is to make it balanced. We have a list of potential members,
which is a good list, and we will get consensus.
Weekly:
That is our goal.
Munn:
We have a few unanswered questions, but feel those will be addressed on
Monday as we go forward. We feel very positive.
Peacock:
We saw division earlier in the process and we appreciate you all sticking
with this.
II.
Eco-Media/EcoZone
Julie Burch advised the Committee staff has had email correspondence, a conference call
and an in-person meeting with Mr. Greenberg since the previous Committee meeting.
Staff has continued to raise questions and some of those have been captured in a Q&A
that was included in your packet. Mr. Greenberg is here today with a follow-up
presentation.
Mr. Greenberg added that staff has asked very detailed and insightful questions and he
provided a recap of the program [copy attached]. Chair Peacock asked Committee
members to hold all questions to the end.
Burgess:
We are looking for creative ideas to meet our fiscal challenges. Do you
operate on volume by of having more customers?
Greenberg:
Our partners like to do projects that help their image and we have different
rates we can offer. For example, CBS is one of our partners and they give
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 5
preferential rates to companies that advertise with us.
Burgess:
You don’t have a conflict with our small business policies?
Greenberg:
We work with local, green companies and lowest bidder. But, if we have
a solar project that is $200,000, we don’t want 3 Guys and a Garage
owning that project and being responsible for maintaining it. We want to
make sure we are working with qualified companies that will be around
ten years down the road to fix problems. If they are the low-bidder too,
that’s great.
Burgess:
Do you have a competitor?
Greenberg:
No.
Burgess:
I think you know our sponsorship policy is currently in another Committee
– Restructuring Government – for review.
Carter:
What if an advertising program has contrary goals?
Greenberg:
If a partner in advertising is opposed to something or in conflict, we have
plenty of other partners. We have 20 partners now with a goal of 50 of the
top markets. So, if we were providing signage, the City would have a
right of refusal. For example, we worked with Chevron Energy and there
was some concern that the environmentalists would have a problem, but
we ended up working with their Renewable Energy Division and by doing
that there was no problem at all.
Carter:
So, we wouldn’t be linked to anything we didn’t want too?
Greenberg:
The advertising could be general or targeting a specific project. We work
with HP in national advertising but they are located in Palo Alto,
California so if they see a project with schools in Palo Alto they are going
to want their money to help there.
Burch:
In looking at the master agreement, we propose a project and then there is
a separate agreement that will work for both of us. We both have to agree
on the projects.
Greenberg:
And, we have a master blanket agreement.
Carter:
What about some of our CIP priorities, would this arrangement help us
move ahead?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 6
Burch:
I hadn’t thought about CIP projects, but for example a new fire station
would be built with green elements already; that wouldn’t change. But,
maybe some of the energy retrofits or chillers for this building might be
included as eligible projects.
Carter:
I like the networking and internalizing for City employees. If there was
the possibility for external networking or some sort of capacity for getting
information out to the community.
Greenberg:
In the specific example of Los Angeles, the City targeted employees
initially and then felt the program was too good, so they obtained a
sponsorship to fund it and tie in the education with tourists, etc. In my
experience, that program has been limited to City employees, because
cities couldn’t afford the license for 10,000+ users.
Carter:
That could be a new potential.
Greenberg:
There could be some synergy around that type of partnership.
Peacock:
I would like to thank you for coming today, Mr. Greenberg, and also I
would like to thank Rob Phocas who started this conversation back in
August. I am getting a sense there are some positive signals for our City
and would be curious what our Energy Manager might think.
Burch:
He might be interested in chillers on the building, or a possible green roof.
I’m sure those are some of his goals.
Peacock:
Could you explain TCPs signage with CBS?
Greenberg:
CBS owns the billboards. TCP is a lighting company (they used to have
an exclusive contract with Walmart for lights), but for their school
program, they bought local advertising on TV, radio and billboards.
Peacock:
So, for us it would be logical to talk to Adams for billboards?
Greenberg:
Yes, for any company that purchases signage.
Peacock:
Could you explain the platinum signage program with the EcoZone
program?
Greenberg:
It is an overlay. We have the 4 x 3 signs and bus shelters.
Peacock:
So, there is co-branding when you are advertising for something for the
City?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 7
Greenberg:
In the picture example the sign says “PG&E asks you to turn off lights and
conserve energy.” There are logos for PG&E, EcoMedia and the City.
Burch:
We also have the issue about signs in the public right-of-way.
Greenberg:
True, those cities that are willing to have the signage pay for the sign and
the upkeep. Because it generates revenue, we sell that as a package.
Burch:
Because we have a current policy regarding signs in the right-of-way this
is part of what is being discussed in developing a sponsorship policy.
Greenberg:
Having two pieces to our program makes it easier for municipalities
without signage to bring signage in later.
Peacock:
And, you still have the standard plan.
Greenberg:
It used to be the only option, so the early adopters all used signage. In the
last eighteen months, we have started working with more cities that don’t
have the signage option.
Peacock:
If we proceeded, could future Councils look at signage needs? I know
CDOT deals with signs.
Burch:
There are some opportunities to work through this. If the Committee and
Council agree they would like to pursue the Master Agreement, staff will
look at this harder and get actual copies for review.
Greenberg:
We ask cities to sign master agreements so we have the exclusive right to
grant money. We don’t want to work on a project for 18-24 months and
then someone else gets to ride on the coattails. The agreement is usually
for five years because that it easier than 10 years. There are no strings
attached. If the program doesn’t do XYZ, then you get money back. If
you have identified in the program to give money to a post-construction
ribbon-cutting event, you can do that. The exclusive agreement says you
won’t take money for a renewal energy project with money earned
through sales advertising with someone other than Eco-Media. Although
we are currently the only ones doing this.
Carter:
What if we had a renewal energy project with Duke Energy, could we not
take their advertising money?
Greenberg:
Utility companies are our closest friends. PG&E, one of the largest
energy companies, is trying to accomplish some of the same things as
cities. We have to get to the right people and then there is great synergy.
We went through Governmental Affairs at PG&E and not marketing.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 8
Carter:
I don’t want to diminish what anyone is doing.
Greenberg:
Take a solar project at the airport, it might be $1,000,000. Duke might
rebate $100,000, we would augment that $100,000 with advertising and it
might enable our grant to be larger.
Carter:
So, there is no conflict?
Greenberg:
There is no issue.
Burch:
We need some guidance from the Committee as to next steps. Do you
want us to pursue looking closer at the agreement and have the City
Attorney’s office bring back some additional information at a future
meeting?
Burgess:
Go forward.
Dulin:
This was good information and I would support moving forward and
going to the City Attorney’s office.
Burch:
If there is general agreement, we will bring this back to the Committee.
III.
Climate Prosperity/Climate Communities
Ms. Burch reminded the Committee they were briefly updated by Tom Warshauer at the
last meeting of the work City staff has been engaged in with green businesses.
It is important to note that the Climate Prosperity Initiative is not something we have to
pay into. There are seven or eight pilot cities and Council member Carter is on the board
of the national group. Climate Communities does require dues to join the larger
organization.
Peacock:
Restructuring Government is having their fourth meeting on the policy. I
think we all did speed reading on this the last time, is there anything else
from an ED update?
Warshauer:
Everything with Climate Prosperity lines up with where we are. Our next
initiative is to publicize this to the business community and help people
know about jobs. In the procurement area, we have incentives to lead
companies to bring green jobs. The key is next steps.
Peacock:
What about the green economic development stakeholders committee?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 9
Warshauer:
We began to recruit green businesses and wanted to coordinate with the
Chamber, COG, and Regional Partnership around energy areas and
understanding the priorities. So, we formed a group that meets monthly.
Peacock:
What about other consulting services?
Warshauer:
We have talked to a lot of people, but there are so many meetings related
to the green industry, we really wanted everyone to focus on the
sustainability initiative.
Peacock:
In the Climate Prosperity overview chart, are we as the City of Charlotte
doing these things?
Burch:
That is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
Peacock:
I would like to recognize Beth Clark in the audience and note that we
discussed being a Cool City back in 2006.
Burgess:
With regards to Climate Prosperity, we really are meeting most of the
goals. It looks like they have their seven pilot projects, but can we still
affiliate with them officially?
Carter:
I actually have some recent correspondence from Mark Weiss [attached].
They have received a grant from the Rockefeller organization and plan to
become a 501(c)3 and start fundraising. I think there is still room for us.
But, this is today’s information, so it is brand new. The focus appears to
be the same, the three priorities the same, but this is a more formalized
fundraising entity that will focus on foundations and grants. That will be
an interesting discussion, but things are moving rapidly and the window is
closing. It is time for us to move and this positions us well nationally.
Burgess:
What are you saying?
Carter:
Things are moving quickly.
Burgess:
How?
Carter:
For us asking entrance into a program they are advocating for us to join.
Burgess:
If it doesn’t cost anything, what is the downside?
Carter:
The commitment.
Burch:
We are unclear the commitment needed to move forward.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 10
Carter:
That strategy is being formulated.
Burch:
The process for developing the strategy is making progress, but we are not
sure of the criteria.
Carter:
I agree this has become more nebulous and we need to id a strategy and
work on moving forward. These are new initiatives with multiple
partners.
Peacock:
Thank you for the information. I think the Committee needs to understand
the initiatives in the plan and are we introducing a group to pay for the
plan? The question is what is the value proposition to being in the
project? Mr. Weiss is not clear how this adds value to staff. How will this
help us move forward? What is the value in relation to the $162,000 to
COG? That is significant money and we have 120 workable hours at no
cost. Other than bragging rights, I am having a hard time figuring out
what we’re getting. I would suggest we defer this while this new
organization is getting established.
Burch:
We can bring this back and have some additional conversations with
Council member Carter. Climate Communities is a different organization
that has been formed and requires dues.
Peacock:
Also, be aware they are a lobbying coalition and Rod Autrey works for
them. He has signed up Mecklenburg County.
Dulin:
I am curious about the funding for Climate Prosperity with non-profit
budgets.
Peacock:
Staff will bring this back for more discussion.
Carter:
Climate Communities is the lobbying arm of ICLEI.
Burch:
Which we are members of.
IV.
Update on Development of Sustainable City Facilities Policy
Gina Shell began the presentation on the Development of a Sustainable City Facilities
Policy [copy attached]. She noted staff was just beginning to outline the policy.
[Policy Goals & Intents: Local Sustainability Priorities – Slide]
Peacock:
I assume those are in no particular order.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 11
Shell:
Correct.
[Next Steps – Slide]
Carter:
With policy goals, I think we need to be careful with historic buildings,
like fire stations, that we aren’t losing our public history.
Burgess:
On page six, the first bullet, about making LEED “optional”, we are so
proud of our gold building, why are we dragging our feet on the
requirement? We have experts in the private industry on LEED and we
are lagging. It takes discipline to get LEED certification, but it is worth it.
Gastonia has LEED certified buildings, citizens want it, and we need to
step up.
Shell:
We looked closely at the right options and we have learned from other
municipalities that they are not sure the points are the appropriate way to
think about building. Trying to pick points was something we wanted to
think about.
Burch:
It is a policy choice for City Council, but unlike private business the City
has a big role in the community and there are a number of policies that are
driving the community to fit into a broader context. We want to help
Council think broader.
Peacock:
How did we arrive at LEED at the current facility?
Burch:
It was a conscious choice to building LEED. We didn’t go for gold, we
went for silver and it evolved at the gold level. The KBE decided to go
for it.
Burgess:
Private industry knows it is the right thing and saves money. It is a
marketing tool and LEED makes money. CMU buildings are in public
spaces. When would it not be appropriate?
Blackwell:
LEED is a great tool, but it isn’t a building policy. On the scorecard, we
have lowering greenhouse gases per square footage as a goal. LEED
doesn’t get you there. LEED is a reporting mechanism. LEED buildings
aren’t necessarily the best energy choices. It could be a greenhouse gas
choice is a better guided policy.
Burgess:
LEED plus policy goals could go together. The house across the street
from me was LEED certified; it can’t be that hard.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 12
Peacock:
We’re not not leading by example if we don’t have a mandate for LEED.
That gives it more shelf life. We need to be careful. And, we could be
shooting for LEED, but have another policy that gets us there.
Blackwell:
City Hall in Seattle uses 20% more energy. So, you can get the points and
not meet the goal.
Peacock:
The intent is to use the right measuring sticks. I don’t disagree. Mr.
Komasin, what do you think?
Komasin:
I think this is great dialogue around the policy of LEED. There are things
not added in the policy that are good for people. I think a combination of
both of these would be good. A couple of communities with LEED
programs are taking care to have better environmental policies. There is a
danger of cherry picking points for the rating without strong policy
language. You currently have great building industry standards. You are
in a position for Charlotte to be a national example.
Burgess:
That’s my point.
V.
Information Report
Ms. Burch alerted the Committee to the Communications report in their agenda package.
The pledge card has been launched as well as the website.
Burgess:
VI.
I thought the launch went well.
Next Meeting - Monday, May 18 at 3:30 p.m.
Peacock:
In our packets was a follow-up report from Eldewins Haynes on the
Connect.
Carter:
I think we should report out on the green summit.
Peacock:
That can be the first item on the agenda at our next meeting. A Blue Sky
discussion.
Burgess:
I will also have information from the Climate Communities meeting in
Washington.
Peacock:
Sounds good.
Burch:
We will also have an update at the May 4 Council meeting on stimulus
funding.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for April 23, 2009
Page 13
Meeting adjourned.