Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
II.
III.
Subject:
FY 2010/2011 Focus Area Plan
Action:
None.
Subject:
Stormwater Enterprise Fund: Finances and Fee Structure
Action:
None.
Subject:
Next Meetings
Action:
Monday, March 23 at noon
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Edwin Peacock, Nancy Carter, Warren Cooksey and Andy Dulin
Susan Burgess
2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Presentation: Storm Water Services / Budget and Fee Structure
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Committee Chair Edwin Peacock welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order.
I.
FY 2010/2011 Focus Area Plan
Jim Schumacher turned the meeting over to Wilson Hooper and Rob Phocas. Mr. Hooper
advised the Committee that staff was available from the various Key Business Units to
answer any questions on the Focus Area Plan.
Peacock:
On page one, we reference recognizing the importance of air quality in the
second bullet. On page two under Safeguard the Environment, we have a
measure to promote long-term reduction in ozone-causing emissions from
the transportation sector. In the target, what two mixed-use activity
centers are you talking about?
Haynes:
That has not been determined yet. CATS and CDOT are still meeting, but
we have discussed SouthPark, Ballantyne, North Lake, University
Research Park as well as the Metropolitan Center to either Presbyterian or
CMC. We need to figure out where we will get the most fruit.
Peacock:
We have used air quality once in the document, but it touches all areas.
Could staff put together some language around a new collective goal?
Steinman:
We have tried to do that previously. It would have been helpful for you
all to hear the person from State level that has the responsibility for
producing the State Implementation Plan. Air quality is complex. There
is really no single measure that can help us attain the standard. There are
several actions that need to be taken by the State. The City has already
made several improvements and there are efforts by COG with the
Regional Air Quality Work Group. That group is continuing to review
options and will bring communication back to you.
Peacock:
I suspected that was the case, but I was hoping in the document to be more
cognizant and reflect that the standards are tighter. Of course, we need
continued relationships with COG and CPCC.
Hooper:
We have that noted in the fourth initiative.
Peacock:
I want to make sure we continue that and make sure we see some measure
or reference.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 3
Cooksey:
To anyone’s knowledge, have there been any studies related to the tree
canopy and air quality?
Blackwell:
American Forests has some data; there are probably others.
Cooksey:
I just know we put the tree canopy study on hold.
Peacock:
With the tree ordinance, we are getting examples from the environmental
stakeholders so we can see why we are doing this. We need facts about
trees and I can see Council member Cooksey’s point about trees. They
reduce heat and that type of measure might be helpful. We don’t have a
measure or goal that says a certain number of trees make a contribution
towards air quality. I talked with Commissioner Chair Roberts about the
regional issue and COG’s leadership role. We want to make sure the City
doesn’t look behind.
Steinman:
There are short term requirements for air quality, mid-term actions that are
required and long-term, ongoing land use and transportation actions by the
State. Some are already having varying degrees of effectiveness.
Peacock:
I would like to attempt to give more subject matter to air quality. I’m
concerned there is only one reference.
[Council member Carter arrives]
Cooksey:
In number four, there is some mention of fleet emissions. Isn’t that an air
quality matter?
Carter:
What about fleet emissions for off-road vehicles? There are emissions
from tractors, significant emissions from blowers and mowing equipment.
Could we insert some language related to that?
Blackwell:
One challenge is a lot of those functions are performed by contractors and
usually they are small construction companies using old equipment, so
there will be some negative effect on the small businesses. We have
investigated that before. We are mindful when using City equipment.
Carter:
Could we look at encouraging language?
Robinson:
There are different types of fuel for off-road and on-road engines. The
City’s on-road vehicles use low-sulfur and that reduces their impact.
There is not a lot of off-road diesel.
Cooksey:
Is there a parallel with off-road diesel? Are there two diesel suppliers
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 4
now?
Robinson:
I have limited knowledge of the particulars, but we can get that
information for you. I do know they are sold separately and up until 2007
were two different colors even. They are made with two different
formulations.
Cooksey:
Could we find out what the different formulas are for off-road?
Carter:
I have great respect for the work that went into the cover page. There is
an interesting overlap with the measures and targets and I want to make
sure we are being consistent. Have we looked at the Economic
Development targets and measures to make sure we coincide?
Hooper:
That is why we put the last article on the first page to show that our
environmental goals are not just housed here, but also in Economic
Development, Neighborhood Development and Transportation. The most
vivid example is the workforce development measure related to the green
industry. There aren’t any duplicate measures.
Carter:
But is there overlap with land and specifically infill development? There
are no measures about infill development and that is an environmental
benefit if it is done well. We also didn’t talk about the Tree Ordinance.
Peacock:
We want to add a measure that shows how trees improve air quality.
Carter:
In initiative four with CONNECT; I think a website is critical to offer to
our community. I feel strongly about that. There are things we
collaborate, support and advertise. The green business park is not here or
in the ED plan. We had talked about a business park for green businesses.
We are losing industrial land. San Jose is doing this. They built a lab
with shared grants that is a benefit for that area. It could benefit us.
Hooper:
With the website, there was discussion with Corporate Communications
around the pledge that updating and managing the website would take
more resources than they have now. There will be a link on our website to
these other sites.
Carter:
I think the link is very important. The Chamber is developing something.
Hooper:
The CRVA is also working on one.
Carter:
And, UNCC. We are not interfacing enough with the education
community as we could.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 5
Peacock:
I think the links are important as well as continued collaboration. We
need to take credit for what we are already doing. For example, the bio
diesel article. We could do a better job advertising what we are already
doing especially since we really are not that far behind.
Bonfiglio:
We are actually in the middle of our design process. The primary link will
offer links to other community organizations like UNCC. We are not
operating in a vacuum. We want to bring people to the site and tell our
story. We will have city information and county information. The
struggle is the ability to maintain the site, but we are looking to launch by
the beginning of April.
Peacock:
Also in the fourth environmental goal, with relation to single-stream, I
thought another measure could be to include the figures from the State
Recycling Director and former Governor Easley. Could we add
something that would improve the State numbers as a measure?
Hooper:
To confirm, you would like to add an air quality measure related to the
tree canopy and air quality, the off-road vehicles, infill development and
recycling figures?
Peacock:
There is a measure in initiative three related to City fleet using diesel
engines.
Dulin:
With regard to recycling. I saw something about us selling 42 trucks to
rotate to new trucks and we received $12,900 each. I don’t track the
market, but that doesn’t seem like much money, they depreciate so
quickly. Could staff see if there is a used market for us to buy from? We
don’t we buy used trucks? Do those 42 used trucks have to be 42 new
trucks?
Carter:
You make a good point. I know the sale is a cost efficiency of the change,
but is it just for a one-time asset? I would be interested in the response.
Dulin:
I know that’s a bigger conversation than today.
Peacock:
Let’s move that to the parking lot.
Carter:
I know that Wayman Pearson has a business that creates a device that
converts trucks to hybrids for fuel consumption, etc. and those devices are
transferrable.
Jeb Blackwell mentioned that David Miller was a finalist for the Business Journal’s green
government, green leader award.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 6
Carter:
Could we send a letter of support or authorize staff to send a letter?
Peacock:
I think the event is April 15.
Cooksey:
I think that would be appropriate coming from the Chair and Vice Chair of
the Committee.
II.
Stormwater Enterprise Fund: Finances and Fee Structure
Jeb Blackwell started the presentation on Storm Water Services [copy attached]. He also
advised the Committee that no action was requested, just general direction to prepare for
the next meeting. Mr. Blackwell provided the history of the program and Jennifer Smith
discussed the Budget and proposed Fee Structure.
[FY10 Budget – Slide]
Carter:
What about credits? I know other cities are buying them.
Smith:
Some other city entities do as well. For instance, when the Airport was
building the fourth runway, they sold credits for streams.
Blackwell:
We were the first local bank of credits.
Smith:
The first in North Carolina.
Carter:
So, it localizes the benefits.
Cooksey:
In the $38.4 million number, how much is debt? Or, will you get to that
later in the presentation?
Blackwell:
We have some slides to address that.
Hecksher:
24 is PAYGO and the remainder is debt.
Blackwell:
When using PAYGO, you may be talking about a lot of projects, so in a
given year it might show as a high number or a low number.
Cooksey:
I just think it is important to know as we are all looking at the budget.
Dulin:
[Reference Operating Budget] We pay $1.4 million to Mecklenburg
County. How do they spend that?
Smith:
We only pay what we use, so $.4 often goes back to our budget.
Hammock:
This is for the NPDES compliance work plan. They bill us back.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 7
Dulin:
Is it ever over $1.4 million?
Hammock:
Never.
Dulin:
Is it under?
Hammock:
Usually 5% to 10% under.
Dulin:
In the $3.5 million other, how many employees are there?
Hecksher:
There are 80 full-time employees.
Dulin:
So, 80 people being good stewards.
[Capital Fund – 10 Year Projection, FY10-10 – Slide]
Carter:
We have some responsibility for folks on fixed incomes. There are
increases with water, bus service and they have no choice, no capacity to
deduct more. Some folks will be caught here.
Smith:
We have some options to show you.
[Impact of Not Raising Fees – Slide]
Carter:
Is the basis of the problem building out? Is that what causes flooding? If
so, are we putting protections on building?
Smith:
The PCCO is moving forward with a higher standard than in the past and
also requirements for run-off and water quality. Those will help us, but
won’t resolve the problems of old infrastructure.
Carter:
Is the PCCO reflected here?
Smith:
Flooding is on the books.
Blackwell:
These are existing problems.
Hammock:
The goal of the PCCO was to stop degradation from occurring, so it will
not restore problem areas, but prevent this from happening in the future.
Peacock:
We have an enormous amount of catch up for 70 years.
Blackwell:
There is a great argument for PAYGO; it can be good if your goal is
working yourself out.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 8
[Bradbury Culvert South Blvd Project – Slide]
Dulin:
I know with culverts in backyards, we have to shave the banks to give
water a place to go. But, we’re taking backyards. There was a couple that
we cut 40’ of their backyard, so we need to make sure we are being
cognizant of people’s property.
Smith:
I know we put in a pedestrian bridge, which at the time was what they
wanted as part of the compensation.
Blackwell:
That is a typical flood control.
[What is needed from the Environment Committee – Slide]
Smith:
This could be implemented on July 1.
Blackwell:
We will bring you back some scenarios at the next meeting.
Cooksey:
Last year when we were reviewing the water rate increase, there was a
chart that indicated where we were compared to other cities. That was an
effective tool to be able to say we are a good deal better than other cities.
Blackwell:
We have that and I would note that we were using 2007 data.
Smith:
We get the data every two years.
Cooksey:
As you go forward with the tier discussion, you should include the
comparative data.
Dulin:
How did we get to a Tier 4? I’d like to find out about my home. I think I
have an average home on an average street. But, what if we don’t take it
to Tier 4?
Blackwell:
There could be some legal issues. If we shift the size, it moves the median
point.
Dulin:
So, there could be legal ramifications if you have square footage over and
then don’t pay more?
Yes.
Blackwell:
Dulin:
I guess the assumption is people who make more money can handle it, but
nobody is without some bruising. I have some concerns about Tier 4 with
folks going from $5.90 to $14.00. That’s a hit.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 9
Blackwell:
It doesn’t necessarily equate to a house, it could be a driveway.
Dulin:
Well, large lots, typically have long driveways. It is rare for folks to have
a half acre lot. I have some concerns that would make me less inclined to
go for this.
Carter:
I just want to make sure we have the appropriate legal balance. Do we
look at square footage or properties such as apartment communities?
Blackwell:
Yes, and churches, they are not property taxed, but have impervious area.
Carter:
So, no exclusions. What about City and State roads?
Smith:
The City pays a flat fee.
Blackwell:
The State doesn’t pay.
Carter:
Have we approached the State about paying?
Blackwell:
The State feels they maintain the roads in the City as a service to us, so we
do not charge them a fee even though they contribute to the problem.
Higher governments aren’t subject to the rules of lower governments.
Some agencies do pay though – like the University.
Carter:
The railroad?
Hecksher:
Yes.
Carter:
I’d be interested to know if we could talk to NCDOT. With detention, if it
is voluntary on a lot is there a deduction if people build in cisterns or
green roofs?
Smith:
There is a fee credit program, but we have to have proof of the
calculations so they can get the credit.
Carter:
I would strongly suggest we advertise the benefits.
Smith:
The majority of fee credits are commercial and multi-family. Most singlefamily (properties) do not have that type of control.
Blackwell:
A BMP versus a fee sometimes doesn’t make sense. If a single-family
was on a lake, they might do something for the credit, but for most it
would not be worth it.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 2, 2009
Page 10
Carter:
The impact between $2.5 million and $2.0 million - how would that play
out?
Smith:
We would sell bonds to make up the difference.
Cooksey:
For future presentations, I would note why this is a fee and not a tax. And,
on City roads/streets what extent stormwater considerations were taken
into account like with the USDG.
Schumacher: There was discussion about wider sidewalks when we were talking about
going from 6 to 8 to 10 feet in width and increasing the impervious area.
There was some give and take and a conclusion that it was not a
significant issue within the broader picture. There was more discussion
around stream crossings and doing more street crossings.
Cooksey:
I would like to know to what extent we can track run-off. How easy or
difficult is that to demonstrate?
Smith:
It is hypothetical. There are standard calculations a developer has to
provide and we get those post-development.
Cooksey:
I don’t know if the technology exists to make run-off more measurable,
but I want to plant that seed.
Carter:
Thanks for good discussion today.
III.
Next Meeting
Jim Schumacher advised the Committee that Stormwater Services fee structure will be
coming back to them at their next meeting. The recommendations from that meeting will
be folded into the budget process. Also at the next meeting will be a discussion and vote
on the final version of the Focus Area Plan. All of the Focus Area Plans will be on the
March 23 agenda for adoption.
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
March 2, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Edwin Peacock, Chair
Nancy Carter, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Warren Cooksey
Andy Dulin
Staff Resources:
Jim Schumacher
AGENDA
I.
FY 2010/2011 Focus Area Plan
Staff Resource: Wilson Hooper, City Manager’s Office and Rob Phocas, City Attorney’s
Office
As follow-up to the Council Retreat, the Committee is asked to provide staff with
direction for any further changes to finalize the document for Committee
recommendation and Council adoption on March 23. Attachments
II.
Stormwater Enterprise Fund: Finances and Fee Structure
Staff Resource: Jennifer Smith, Engineering & Property Management
As part of the Council-approved budget process, the Committee receives information
about the Storm Water Enterprise Fund each year. This year’s review will include
recommendations on the proposed multi-tier fee structure. The Committee is asked to
report on its recommendations at the March 25 budget retreat. Attachment
III.
Next Meeting – Monday, March 23 at noon
Topics pending:
Climate Prosperity/Climate Communities
Eco-Zone
Tree Ordinance (April 16)
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Tree Advisory Committee
Curt Walton, City Manager
Stephanie Kelly
Leadership Team
Environmental Cabinet
FY2010 & FY2011 Strategic Focus Area Plan
“Charlotte will become a national leader in
environmental initiatives to preserve our
natural resources while balancing growth
with sound fiscal policy.”
The City of Charlotte recognizes that environmental stewardship both now and in the future is
fundamentally important to our quality of life and essential to maintaining a vibrant economy. Protecting
our natural resources, promoting conservation on all levels, and improving the environment enhance our
City’s mission to preserve the quality of life for our citizens.
Charlotte’s economic vitality presents challenges to maintaining a healthy environment. The City is
committed to:
•
promoting environmental best practices and protecting our natural resources: the air we breathe, the water we drink,
and the natural ecosystems we cherish, including the tree canopy;
•
recognizing important interrelationships among air quality, water resources, land preservation, and energy and
resource conservation;
•
making sound land use decisions regarding our future growth and development supporting sustainability so as not to
jeopardize our future generation of citizens;
•
achieving our goals of becoming a national leader in the successful stewardship of our environment by maintaining a
cooperative and open agenda with Mecklenburg County, our regional neighbors, and the business community; and
•
leading by example and promoting sound, cost effective environmental and energy conservation practices in City
operations.
The City of Charlotte will take a proactive leadership role in modeling best practices for its citizens. The
City recognizes that conscientious environmental stewardship and concern for the public interest requires
more than meeting mandates and minimum standards. The City will evaluate environmental conditions
and opportunities in order to determine what approach is best for our community’s optimal environmental
sustainability. By always being conscious of the need to meet regulatory compliance standards and the needs
of future generations, the City will avoid costly remedial action.
The actions associated with the other City Council Focus Areas – Community Safety, Housing and
Neighborhood Development, Economic Development, and Transportation - are supported and enhanced
by stewardship of our natural resources and the environment.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Environment
Safeguard the Environment
ENV.1
►
►
►
►
Focus Area Initiative:
Support environmental sustainability by making wise decisions regarding
growth and development, recognizing the interrelationships between air
quality, water resources, land preservation, and energy and resource
conservation
Measure:
Percent of residential and office developments located within centers and
corridors to continue implementing Centers, Corridors, and Wedges
Growth Framework
Target:
Minimum of 40% of new housing unit permits and 70% of new multifamily unit permits in the city located within the centers and corridors
Target:
Minimum of 75% of new office development square footage and 75% of
new employment occurring in the centers and corridors
Prior Year:
53.8% new housing units, 67.7% new multi-family, 98.7% new office
development square footage, and 94.8% new employment
Measure:
Percent of rezoning decisions consistent with adopted plans and/or
staff recommendation
Target:
95% of rezoning decisions consistent with adopted plans and/or staff
recommendation
Prior Year:
92.1% of rezoning decisions were consistent with adopted plans and/or
staff recommendation
Measure:
Percent of rezoning decisions consistent with adopted environmentally
sensitive site design policies
Target:
80% of approved rezonings incorporate environmentally sensitive site
design components as per the General Development Policies—
Environment
Measure:
Implement the General Development Policies Phase II - Environment
Target:
Implement Environmental Inventory Strategy to include internal use of
existing map and determine process, stakeholders, and potential
implications of designating environmentally sensitive areas by June 2010
Target:
Initiate strategies to address four additional General Development
Policies—Environment and continue implementation of the strategies
initiated in FY2008
►
Prior Year:
Strategies were initiated to address 6 of 15 General Development
Policies—Environment as of December 2008
Measure:
Promote long-term reduction in ozone-causing emissions from the
transportation sector
Target:
Establish partnerships with business/management organizations to
encourage increases in travel by alternative modes to/from two mixeduse activity centers by June 2010
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Environment
ENV.2 Focus Area Initiative: Protect natural ecosystems and habitats, including the tree canopy
►
►
►
Measure:
Maintain a significant and healthy tree canopy
Target:
Develop a program recognizing local developers or businesses annually
for excellent tree preservation efforts by December 2009
Measure:
Protect stream corridors, ponds, and wetlands through public acquisition of
additional conservation easements and enhancing existing buffers
Target:
Meet mitigation requirements through local rather than state-level
restoration efforts 100% of the time when streams are negatively impacted by
City projects
Measure:
Maintain permit compliance with treated wastewater
Target:
100% compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit requirements for all five wastewater plants
6 violations—99.92% compliance
Prior Year:
ENV.3
Focus Area Initiative: Lead by example, adopting sound environmental practices in City facilities
and operations
►
Measure:
Implement strategies to reduce City fleet emissions
Target:
Increase percentages of City fleet using alternative fuel or emission efficient
technologies
35 hybrids (+16.7%); 113 flex fuel vehicles (+15.3%) (excludes CATS)
Prior Year:
Target:
All fixed route buses purchased with diesel engines will include emission
reduction equipment
Target:
Procure hybrid buses during FY2010 and FY2011
(Annual amounts pending project and funding approval)
Procured five hybrid buses for service expansions
Prior Year:
Target:
Prior Year:
Reduce idling by 5% from previous fiscal year’s baseline data in Charlotte
Area Transit System’s fixed route bus fleet
Data insufficient to measure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Environment
ENV.3 (cont.)
►
Measure:
Incorporate environmentally responsible elements in the design, construction,
and operations of City facilities
Target:
Maintain energy use practices so that City facilities’ compare favorably with
available benchmark information in the South Atlantic region
(measured in thousands of BTUs per square foot)
Target:
Compile and present each fiscal year’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
by June of the following fiscal year
Target:
Obtain approval of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Action
Plan by September 2009
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory was completed in October 2008
Prior Year:
►
►
Target:
Develop a pilot program to perform costs/benefits analysis on
environmentally preferable products and develop a methodology for reporting
and rating green product performance and usability by July 2009
Target:
Expand recycling efforts within City facilities through public education and
increased participation
Target:
Adopt a Policy on Sustainable City Facilities by October 2009
Measure:
Operate a best-in-class bio-solids program that safely recycles and manages
bio-solids while mitigating environmental and health impacts
Target:
Receive 14001:2004 ISO certification for the Utilities Residuals Management
Program (Bio-solids) Environmental Management System by December 2009
Measure:
Develop and implement pilot project(s) for renewable energy
Target:
Develop and implement a solar energy pilot project on airport-owned
property by June 2010
Target:
Develop and implement a bio-fuel and/or methane-to-energy pilot
project at a wastewater treatment plant by June 2010
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Environment
Develop Collaborative Solutions
ENV.4
►
Focus Area Initiative:
Collaborate with local and regional public and private partners and
neighborhoods to enhance environmental quality and long-term
sustainability
Measure:
Continue collaboration and actively participate in public and private
sector partnership’s environmental and visioning initiatives
Target:
Continue collaboration and participation with Centralina Council of
Governments (COG), Duke Energy, UNC-Charlotte, CPCC, CRVA
Green Team, and other partners’ current initiatives
Jointly hosted Regional Environment Summit with Mecklenburg County
and Centralina COG.
Staff participation in COG CONNECT
workteams. Collaboration with CPCC and CMS. Involvement with
CRVA Green Team and Duke Energy efforts
Prior Year:
►
Measure:
Increase awareness of the environment as a priority for the community
and the organization
Target:
Continue implementing the internal communication plan for City
employees
Featured weekly environmental tips in FYI, launched environmental
website, created environmental video, and Earth Day event at CMGC
Prior Year:
Target:
►
Prior Year:
Implement the external communication plan for Charlotte-Mecklenburg
citizens by the first quarter of the fiscal year
External communication strategy developed October 2008
Measure:
Continue a leadership role in the regional water resources planning
Target:
Lead the group with Utilities’ staff as chair of the Water Management
Group and be actively involved in committee work in 2009
Utilities’ staff member lead the group and was actively involved
Prior Year:
►
►
Measure:
Increase single family recycling participation to achieve a 20% increase in
annual tonnage of recycled materials
Target:
Prior Year:
Implement single-stream recycling collection program by July 2010
Implementation scheduled for July 2010
Measure:
Continue implementing the multi-family recycling education program
Target:
Educate 20 non-participating multi-family property managers on the
benefits of recycling by July 2010
20 complexes educated on recycling services
Prior Year:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
MAYOR AND COUNCIL 2009 ANNUAL RETREAT
FEBRUARY 5-6, 2009
Retreat Notes
How should we approach the budget and capital investment plan (i.e., questions,
assumptions, guiding principles) in light of the current economic outlook?
¾ Identify and apply best practices, e.g., fee collection
¾ Look harder/closer at realizable savings
¾ Look at possible organizational efficiencies/streamlining
¾ Protect core services
¾ Look at possible short-term economies due to shifting workloads and service
needs/demands
¾ Look at opportunities for more equitably and efficiently allocating and leveling costs
among the city’s financial partners
¾ Continue forward with the CIP to protect/maintain our bond rating
¾ Look at fees in terms of appropriateness, sufficiency, and whether any reductions
might help
Council Priority 1 – Community Safety
¾ Strengthen linkage between gang membership and criminal conduct
¾ Strengthen federal relationship
¾ Emphasize prevention, e.g., youth
¾ Use COPS money
ƒ Note: In principle, police and public safety are a city matter, but pragmatic
needs may warrant use of outside funds
¾ Engage city employees, e.g., sanitation workers
¾ Incorporate national safety comparisons, not just state and local
¾ Refer special grand jury concept to council committee (note: while this was
discussed, Council did not refer this to committee)
¾ Explore the city role in probation
Council Priority 2 – Business Corridors
¾ Status reports on public private partnerships (PPPs)
¾ Coordinate business corridor, environment, and community safety discussions and
focus spending on areas where these priorities intersect
¾ Energize vacant building ordinance
¾ Make sure PPPs have adequate time given credit crunch
¾ Identify and vet new opportunities
¾ Coordinate economic and community development liaisons
Council Priority 3 – Transportation
¾ Sales tax decline pushing back transit investment/progress
¾ Strengthen regional focus
¾ Preserve public trust regarding assuring citizens that ½ cent sales tax for transit is
sufficient
¾ Discuss urban street design guidelines
¾ Continue achieving economies and efficiencies that help provide current service at
less cost help obtain federal funding
Focus Area 1 – Community Safety
¾ Investigate whether there are better ways/measures for reporting crime
¾ More targeted communication about real crime/reduction (e.g., type of crime, where)
to address public perception
¾ Continue to develop police force diversity
¾ Continue to seek innovation in criminal processing/adjudication
¾ Get AOC more involved in city’s court discussions in support of county efforts
¾ Look at coverage/cost/redundancy of city fire protection in ETJ
Focus Area 2 – Economic Development
¾ Strengthen leadership and focus on “green” economy
¾ Address the “cost” of doing business in Charlotte through opportunities to improve
our regulatory approach and framework
¾ Take a fresh look at brown fields
¾ Balance housing/neighborhood standards/sustainability with cost of construction and
re-energizing development
Focus Area 3 – Transportation
¾ Review/study regional transportation planning history, governance and structure
¾ Test USDG and evaluate impacts, e.g., economic impacts, possible onerous impacts
¾ Coordinate better with NCDOT on land use/road construction, e.g., 485, 47, etc.
Focus Area 4 – Housing and Neighborhood Development
¾ Address unintended consequences of neighborhood graduation
¾ Supplement regulatory/code enforcement with rehabilitating housing stock
¾ Determine what role home ownership should play in neighborhood development
efforts
¾ Identify not just number of foreclosures, but principal reasons behind them
¾ Discuss CDCs in light of forthcoming evaluation and communicate their role to the
public
Focus Area 5 – Environment
¾ Hold on tree canopy study
¾ Continue tree ordinance review
¾ Feed “expert” knowledge into committee process
¾ Public communication challenge: addressing tree protection/preservation vs. tree
removal/replacement
¾ Consider adopting “corporate-wide’ conservation practices throughout the city
¾ Find ways to better communicate current green efforts and challenges, e.g., LED
lighting, building emissions
¾ Look at ways to better target peak use hours for energy, transportation, etc.
Principal Messages, Directions, and Feedback from Council Regarding Policy
Direction, Assessing Success, Communicating with the Public, and Next Steps
¾ Adapt immediately to the economic realities, i.e., the “new normal”
¾ Preserve core services
¾ Find creative ways to get things done, and how to do them
¾ Create a local stimulus
¾ Sustainable spending and investment
¾ Help private efforts to work well
¾ Sustain long-term investment plan
¾ Explore ways to expand prevention
¾ Be good stewards of tax money
¾ Be able to say, “We sustained Charlotte”
¾ The public knows we have been working on their behalf and is proud of their city
government
¾ We will leave the city better than we find it today
¾ Tell the community how we will address/deal with the current economic climate
¾ Follow through on our economic development efforts ~ complete what we started
¾ Communicate a message of empathy and understanding
¾ Set an example/be a role model
¾ Convey and act on a sense of urgency
¾ Develop proactive communication about city spending
Stormwater Enterprise Fund
March 2, 2009
Storm Water Budget and Fee Options
Staff will present proposed fee increase options for the Storm Water Services budget for FY10,
and share information on the data collected as part of a multi-tier study that was endorsed by the
Environment Committee last spring. Currently, single-family properties are billed in one of two
tiers, based on the amount of impervious surface on the property:
•
•
Tier I - under 2,000 square feet of impervious surface, and
Tier II - 2,000 square feet or greater of impervious surface.
Storm Water Services is evaluating a change to four tiers in order to be more equitable (dollars
charged per square foot) to property owners.
Multi-Tier Option Presentations
•
•
•
•
The Environment Committee received a Storm Water Services presentation on the multitier concept and endorsed proceeding with data collection in Spring of 2008.
The Storm Water Advisory Committee was updated in Summer & Fall of 2008 and
endorsed additional tiers in January 2009.
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received a presentation on February 24,
2009. The BOCC will continue to hear about the multi-tier proposal throughout their
budget process.
Other Town Managers within Mecklenburg County and staff have been briefed on the
concept of multi-tier in February. In March of 2009, the various Councils and Boards
will be discussing it as part of their budget process.
Timetable
March 2
March 19
March 23
March 25
April 16
May 2009
June 2009
Review by the Environment Committee on potential fee increase and whether or
not to add additional tiers.
Presentation of the Budget to the Storm Water Advisory Committee.
Final recommendation(s) from the Environment Committee.
City Council Budget Retreat
Budget recommendation from the Storm Water Advisory Committee
City Council Budget Public Hearing, including storm water rates
City Council Budget Approval
Storm Water Services
Budget and Fee Structure
March 2, 2009
Agenda
1. What is needed
2. History
3. Budget
4. Fee Structure
Environment Committee
What is needed from the Environment Committee?
Direction for
* FY10 fee increase
* single family tier expansion
History
• No Storm Water program prior to 1993
• NPDES requirements
• Backlog of needs
• Started charging fee based on impervious area /
contribution to the problem
• Started repairs and capital projects with debt
1993 Strategic Objectives
• Solve the worst problems first
• Eliminate backlog of maintenance repairs within
10 years
• Prioritize and construct large neighborhood-wide
flood control projects
• Improve Water Quality
• Charge fee based on contribution to the problem
1996 Strategic Shift
• Start a balanced portfolio.
* Add low priority maintenance requests, ponds, and collaboration
with ED, NIP, TIP to the 1993 strategic objectives
• 10 yr goal to eliminate backlog in jeopardy.
• Increased fees by 10%.
• Met 10 year goal in 8 ½ years.
Long Term Plan
Storm Water Fee
• 1993 – 2006
– 10% increases to complete high priority maintenance
backlog
– 7.5% increases to continue aggressive attack
• 2007 forward
– 7% increases thru 2010
– Stepping down to a cost of living based increases
– Move towards 100% PAYG program
FY10 Budget
Capital Program Budget - $38.4 million
* Neighborhood-wide flood control projects ($17.4 / 45%)
* Minor neighborhood flood control projects ($2.1 / 5%)
* Maintenance / Repairs ($11.2 / 29%)
* Water Quality ($4.9 / 13%)
* Collaboration (ED, NIP, Transit, TIP) ($2.8 / 8%)
Operating Budget - $23.4 million
* Debt Service ($11.0)
* Street Maintenance ($4.0)
* Mecklenburg County ($1.4)
* Salaries & Benefits ($3.5 net*)
* Other (Education, Technology, etc.) ($3.5)
* Salary expense for Capital Projects is charged to the Capital Fund and is included in the Capital Budget above.
Capital Fund
Ten Year Projection, FY10-19
in millions
7.0%
0.0%
Capital Program
$459.0
$459.0
PAYG Funding of Capital Program
357.0
317.0
% Capital Program is Funded by PAYG
77.8%
69.1%
Bond Proceeds
65.0
120.0
124.2
229.2
30yr Cost
of Bond Issuance
(approx)
These are major components of the Capital program.
Does not include fund balance or interest income.
Impact of Not Raising Fees
• Current backlog for documented projects
* Flood Control – 19 years
* Stream Restoration and Ponds – 159 years
• If a zero percent increase is selected for FY10
and no additional bonds are sold to compensate
for the loss in fee revenue, then the backlog
moves to
* Flood Control – 28 years
* Stream Restoration and Ponds – 250 years
Bradbury Culvert
South Blvd Project
Current City Fee Structure
• Non-single family charged per acre of
impervious
$98.35 / month per acre
(23/100 of a penny per sq ft per month)
• Single Family charged flat fee
Tier I – less than 2,000 sq ft of impervious
$4.01 / month
(1500 sq ft of impervious area equates to 27/100 of a penny per sq ft per
month)
Tier II – 2,000 sq ft or greater of impervious
$5.90 / month
(6000 sq ft of impervious area equates to 10/100 of a penny per sq ft per
month)
• Other Storm Water Fee
City accounts are also charged a County fee ($1.27/mo) and a fixed fee for billing
processing ($.85/invoice).
Majority of single family property owners pay $8.02/mo
Single Family Rate
• In 2009, technology has advanced to the point that the
effort and the cost to capture the impervious area for a
large number of parcels has reduced to a manageable
process.
• Today there are 225,988 single family parcels and 19,612
non-single family parcels that are billed.
Impervious Surfaces
2,494 sq ft
$5.90/mo = 24/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
1,791 sq ft
$4.01/mo = 22/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
Impervious Surfaces
11,000 sq ft
$5.90/mo = 5/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
3,962 sq ft
$5.90/mo = 15/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
Single Family Tier Structure
Proposed Structure
* Four tiers based on impervious area
Tier I
<2,000 sf ft of impervious area
Tier II
2,000 to <3,000 sf ft
Tier III
3,000 to <5,000 sf ft
Tier IV
5,000 and up
* Approximately 68% of single family parcels fall below 3,000 sf of
impervious area
Other cities single family tier structure
Durham
Greensboro
Raleigh
Winston
2
3
5
4
tiers
tiers
tiers
tiers
(5th tier charges commercial rate)
Four Tier Analysis
Median Square Feet
%
Parcels
per
Tier*
Med
SF*
SF % of
Tier II
Tier I
10%
1,601
Tier II
58%
Tier III
Tier IV
< 2,000 sf
2,000 to <3,000 sf
3,000 to <5,000 sf
5,000 sf & up
New Rates
Mo/SF
Charge at
Median
FY09
Rate
Diff
64.8%
$3.82
24/100
penny
$4.01
(19¢)
2,472
100%
$5.90
24/100
penny
$5.90
-0-
26%
3,540
143.2%
$8.45
24/100
penny
$5.90
$2.55
6%
5,946
240.5%
$14.19
24/100
penny
$5.90
$8.29
* Calculations based on single family impervious data that has been collected and QA/QC to this point.
* Percentages and median will change slightly.
Impervious Surfaces
Based on Median
2,494 sq ft
$5.90/mo = 24/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
No change
1,791 sq ft
$4.01/mo = 22/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
$3.82/mo = 21/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
Impervious Surfaces
Based on Median
11,000 sq ft
$5.90/mo = 5/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
$14.19/mo = 13/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
3,962 sq ft
$5.90/mo = 15/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
$8.45/mo = 21/100 of a penny/sq ft/mo
Pros & Cons
Tier Structure Change
• Pros
– Equity
– Flexibility
– Fees comparable to other cities
• Cons
– Customer Complaints
• Large impervious areas lose some of their discount
Presentations for
Tier Structure Change
• Environment Committee (Spring 2008)
• SWAC (Updated Summer & Fall 2008, endorsed
additional tiers January 2009)
• BOCC (February 2009)
• Towns (February/March 2009)
Revenue Impact
• Multi-tier
* Four tiers = $2.0 million
• Fee Increase
* 7% increase = $2.5 million
Next Steps
Multi-tier Project
• Finalize QA/QC of impervious data collected
• Educate the public and customer service
•
•
•
•
Approval Process
Environment Committee recommendation
Council budget retreat – March 25
Public Hearing
Council approval
Environment Committee
What is needed from the Environment Committee?
Direction for
* FY10 fee increase
* pursuit of single family tier expansion.
Questions
Storm Water Monthly Fees
2007 Black & Veatch Survey of US Cities
$18
$16.82
$11.31
$12
$7.15
$6
$4.00
$4.50
$2.70
$0
*Rates listed are for tier that has the majority of the customers.
$5.51