City of Lawrence
Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB)
November 14, 2007 (5:30 PM) Meeting Minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Chris Cobb, Sarah Hill-Nelson, Matt Lehrman, Daniel Poull, Laura Routh
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
John Craft, Dickie Heckler, Marie Stockett, Cindy Strecker |
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
Tammy Bennett, Kathy Richardson
|
|
CITY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: |
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
ANNOUCEMENTS
John Craft and Marie Stockett have resigned from the Sustainability Advisory Board.
SAB meeting tonight will proceed as if there is a quorum based on the official resignation of two board members.
Discussion of SAB’s Proposed City-Sponsored Green Education Campaign
Earlier today Sarah Hill-Nelson, Laura Routh and Simran Sethi met with Lisa Patterson, city’s Communication Manager, Tammy Bennett, and Kathy Richardson to discuss proposed City-Sponsored Green Education Campaign.
Tammy Bennett stated that the conversation of a Green Education Campaign resulted in the agreement that this should be a community driven effort, not a city driven effort. Tammy added that a community based group or “Steering Committee” is needed for the Cool Cities Campaign. It would make sense to marry these two concepts together. The Steering Committee would be working on the Climate Protection Plan and the Greener Lawrence Campaign would be one component.
Sarah Hill-Nelson said the Steering Committee needs to have high rank official from Westar, Aquila, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, University of Kansas, etc. Tammy added that this group needs to be composed of people with diverse ideas and different backgrounds. All agreed.
Daniel Poull stated that SAB should prepare a presentation for the City Commission in January. SAB would recommend that the city create a mayor’s task force for Climate Protection Plan and SAB would serve an advisory role to help get that process started. SAB would reference Kansas City, MO efforts and Dennis Murphey’s presentation.
Tammy Bennett recommended to SAB that if at the time of their presentation to the City Commission there is discomfort with the idea or any hesitation, then they should take a step back and suggest to the Commission to spend a study session with Dennis Murphey.
Motion: SAB create a presentation for January that advises the City Commission to establish a mayor’s task force for the Climate Protection Plan (Cobb/Hill-Nelson).
Vote: Motion was passed unanimously.
Action: Laura Routh will type up a draft document to be reviewed at the next meeting in December regarding information which will be presented to the City Commission.
Motion: SAB invite Commissioner Mike Dever to the next SAB meeting on December 12th, 2007 (Routh/Hill-Nelson).
Vote: Motion was passed unanimously.
Action: Daniel Poull will invite Mike Dever.
Tax Abatement Paper Presentation, Laura Routh
Laura Routh discussed her Public Administration graduate class and presented her paper on tax abatements (attached). Laura met with Frank Reeb, City Clerk and went over tax abatement applications for the last 5 years. Laura’s paper outlines her recommendations for the city.
Laura’s recommends that the Sustainability Advisory Board solicit an invitation or extend an invitation to the Public Incentives Review Committee. SAB will wait and pitch this idea to Mike Dever at the next meeting and see what he thinks.
Discussion on Recycling Survey
Tammy Bennett is ready to get pricing from vendor for the survey. It will probably be similar to the citizen’s survey which was mail ballot first and then follow up phone call. It will be a statistically valid, random sample. SAB will get to review a draft of survey before it goes out.
Cool Cities Update
Software and password have been received by the City. Soon the City will start entering data.
Waste Reduction and Recycling (WRR) Report – Staff
Action: Kathy Richardson will e-mail copy of the monthly updates to SAB.
Home Energy Conservation Fair (HECF) and Sustainable Homes Tour Wrap Up
The Home Energy Conservation Fair Team had a wrap up meeting at Free State Brewery one week after the event. Notes from this wrap up meeting are available.
Action: Kathy will e-mail Meeting Minutes from Energy Fair Team to SAB.
Kathy Richardson mentioned that WRR staff will work on expanding the Energy Conservation web page to provide information on energy alternatives and energy conservation tips.
Sustainability Town Hall Meeting
Sarah Hill-Nelson is contemplating having the Lawrence Journal World and Zephyr Energy sponsor another Sustainability Town Hall Meeting in the spring. SAB might consider being a partner in the Town Hall Meeting. Laura Routh suggested having round tables. SAB discussed possible locations for the Town Hall Meeting. Tammy Bennett suggested the Lied Center.
Matt Lehrman announced that Hillnel and KU Center of Sustainability are planning an energy week at KU in January.
Sustainability Advisory Board
There was discussion about the recent board resignations. Laura Routh said she would like to recognize John’s and Marie’s volunteer efforts and time on the board by sending them a card or little gift from SAB.
Action: Daniel Poull will buy cards for John and Marie and bring them to the next meeting so everyone can sign them.
Agenda items:
- Next meeting: December 12, 2007
Meeting adjourned 7:30 p.m.
Attachments:
- Laura Routh’s PUAD 824 paper
- Waste Reduction and Recycling Division report
ATTACHMENT: Laura Routh’s PUAD 824 paper
Laura D. Routh
Short Paper #3 - PUAD 824
November 11, 2007
Tax abatements are used by the City of Lawrence as a primary method of economic development.
The value of industrial process equipment, land, and buildings are all eligible for partial shelter from taxation under the City’s abatement policy; each of these areas of valuation has the potential to impact the local environment. Due to gaps in the application and review processes, however, the City’s abatement policy does not fully address the potential environmental impacts of industrial development, nor does it sufficiently encourage innovation or environmental stewardship. Reform of our abatement process is needed.
As described in the City’s Tax Abatement Policy and codified in City Ordinance No. 7706, a receiving company must be “environmentally sound”. This language, while laudable, is not defined in City ordinance, nor is the intent measurable. With the following application question, the City requests that applicants disclose potential environmental impacts: “Does your product pose or create an environmental hazard when it is produced, destroyed, or discarded?”[1] But this awkward, inexact language does little to establish verifiable measures of impact. The University of Kansas Institute for Policy and Social Research conducts cost-benefit analyses of abatements applications, and while these assessments are a valuable tool, researchers acknowledge that “the cost-benefit analysis is just one component of the decision making process and does not capture all impacts, for example-environmental impacts are not included in the model.”[2] The current methods of assessment do not address environmental externalities nor do they attempt to fully measure infrastructure impacts.[3] Neither applications nor reviews require quantifiable environmental data. As described by one member of the Public Incentives Review Committee (PIRC), discussion of environmental impacts during review of abatement applications is “virtually non-existent”[4].
The City’s current policy is flexible to the point of being ineffective. Environmental information submitted in abatement applications is minimally verified[5]. Non-compliance with abatement agreements is common, and some companies fail to report altogether.[6] By accepting such a low standard of performance, the City abandons what could be a strong bargaining position to ensure regulatory compliance and spur innovation. Applicants should be required to fully disclose their compliance history, and provide specific information regarding expected waste generation, water and energy usage. Environmental accountability is necessary if the abatement process is to retain credibility with taxpayers. Lack of accountability damages the public’s trust in the abatement process. Public support for industrial development can be strengthened by a process which honestly assesses and openly discloses impacts.
In regard to resource consumption and pollution, less is generally better. Thus, as part of the abatement process, quantifiable environmental externalities should be considered. Appropriate assessment would include review of a facility’s regulatory status, and proposed impacts to water, sewer, land or roads resulting in infrastructure costs to the community. Companies are currently required to disclose limited operational expenses including their costs for water, sanitation, and energy services. If formatted appropriately, and tracked over time as part of annual reporting, this information can provide a good baseline for measuring specific infrastructure and environmental impacts. The resulting data might even illuminate potential efficiencies for recipients. Research shows that significant energy conservation opportunities are available to many sectors of industry, yet remain untapped.[7]
A commonly suggested alternative to modifying the abatement process is the proposal that abatements be eliminated altogether. Another option would be to continue the process as it is currently configured, and change nothing. However, given Lawrence’s political climate, and continuing local economic challenges, neither of these options is palatable. In light of current events related to the City’s recent abatement activity, the optimal moment for reform may be here.
Productive conferral with a range of stakeholders will be necessary before abatement procedures can be revised. It is my intention to request assistance in this effort from the City’s Sustainability Advisory Board. To be successfully adopted, a revised abatement policy must be drafted in consultation with the PIRC, and stakeholders including City and County elected officials and staff; economic development organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce; representatives from Industry, and the Citizenry at large. Once a draft version is agreed upon by stakeholders, a revised policy can be presented to the City Commission for their consideration.
I propose five specific modifications to the City’s abatement process:
- The stated value of “Environmentally sound” must be specifically defined in policy and City Ordinance No. 7706.
- Disclosure of specific environmental information should be required by all Companies seeking abatements. Applications shall include the following information: the company’s status as a regulated generator of hazardous waste; EPA ID number; environmental permits (air, pre-treatment, NPDES discharge); notices of non-compliance or violation received; disclosure of consent agreements and or enforcement actions taken against the company by any local, state or federal regulatory agency; total weight/volume of process waste and waste waters to be generated annually; estimated annual energy consumption.
- Existing industries which can demonstrate quantifiable pollution prevention, waste reduction, brownfields redevelopment, green building techniques or other conservation or efficiency efforts in their expansions shall be given preference in abatement awards. New industrial applications should be scored on the aforementioned factors, and targeted for abatement when evidence is shown that the application is complete and the proposal consistent with the overall development, planning and environmental goals of the community.
- All applications shall be complete prior to submittal. Failure to submit annual conformance reports should result in penalties or rescission of the abatement. Documents provided will include specific information regarding environmental performance, and shall be reviewed by qualified staff using measurable environmental benchmarks. The PIRC shall use the aforementioned information to make informed abatement recommendations to the City Commission.
- Compliance standards shall be clearly defined in the policy and strictly adhered to when abatement outcomes are assessed. An applicant’s compliance with environmental regulations shall be expected and will be considered as part of both abatement awards and annual review decisions.
Tax abatements are negotiated contracts. To be effective, fair and binding, they require thorough research, fully informed participants, clearly elucidated expectations and effective oversight. In granting abatements, the City forgoes significant annual tax revenues. Disclosure and accountability on the part of abatement recipients is not an unreasonable expectation. Tax abatements and environmental excellence can and should be mutually reinforcing. As a tangible manifestation of the City’s development goals and environmental values, our tax abatement process should inspire innovation, confidence, and accountability while ensuring protection of our community’s natural resource base.
ATTACHMENT: Waste Reduction and Recycling Division Report
Waste Reduction and Recycling Division Update
On October 13th, 2007 the City’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Division hosted the 7th Annual Home Energy Conservation Fair and Sustainable Homes Tour. Attendees learned about ways to reduce energy consumption within their homes. Our Division’s goal was to help citizens lower their utility expenses, with the added benefit of lending a healing hand to Lawrence’s natural environment. Our list of over forty exhibitors with professional expertise included local builders, architects, engineers, insulation contractors, and home energy efficiency specialists. Businesses offering residential wind and solar energy systems were also present. A variety of alternative fueled vehicles were on display at Free State High School, accompanied by individuals prepared to answer questions about the vehicles’ operating systems and fuel needs. In addition to these exhibitors a line-up of guest speakers gave presentations throughout the day as an additional service to the community. Perhaps the greatest highlight of the Fair was this year’s Sustainable Homes Tour, which gave the opportunity to see many exhibitors’ systems in action.
Compost Program
The City’s Fall Compost Giveaway was held on Thursday and Friday, October 25th and 26th from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and on Saturday, October 27th from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The compost given away was a mix of this year’s April and May composted yard trimmings. A total of 725 vehicles entered our facility over the three-day period. The Compost Giveaway started with approximately 1,260 cubic yards of compost from April and May yard trimmings that was screened, tested, and ready for distribution. At the end of the day on Saturday, there was approximately 70 cubic yards of the compost left. This translates to about 1,550 tons of compost distributed to the community over the three-day period.
In early November Central Junior High took two truckloads of compost for an art project with Daniel Dancer. (photo)
Yard Trimmings collection: Year to date
|
|
Jan. |
Feb. |
March |
April |
May |
June |
July |
August |
Sept. |
October |
|
Total Tons collected curbside |
21.45 |
NA |
1114.98 |
1413.36 |
2545.08 |
617.60 |
823.88
|
566.96 |
378.43 |
2146.17 |
|
Commercial YW received |
2.00 |
1.80 |
29.00 |
132.10 |
50.61 |
36.5
|
11.3 |
19.6
|
37.0 |
63.8 |
|
Other YW received |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Total tons this month |
23.45 |
1.80 |
1143.98 |
1545.46 |
2595.69 |
654.10 |
835.18 |
586.56 |
415.43 |
2209.97 |
|
Average Preferred Container Compliance |
100% |
NA |
98% |
99% |
99% |
99% |
99% |
99% |
99% |
99% |
Fibers Report
Old Corrugated Containers (OCC)
Cardboard Tons Revenue
Current YTD 787.08 $92,309.12
Prior YTD 694.81 $57,034.80
Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2007: $ 117.28 Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2006: $82.09
Old Newspapers (ONP)
Newspaper Tons Revenue
Current YTD 667.55 $64,817.83
Prior YTD 638.97 $49,249.23
Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2007: $97.10 Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2006: $77.08
Office Waste Paper (SOP)
Sorted Office Paper Tons Revenue
Current YTD 17.31 $2,875.51
Prior YTD 10.08 $ 609.84
Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2007: $166.12 Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2006: $60.50
Old Magazines (OMG)
Magazines Tons Revenue
Current YTD .63 $40.63
Prior YTD 0 $0
Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2007: $65 Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2006: $ n/a
Mixed Waste Paper (MIX)
Tons Revenue
Current YTD 19.95 $1664.75
Prior YTD N/A $ N/A
Avg. Price/ton thru Sept 2007: $83.45 Avg. Price/ton thru Sept. 2006: $ N/A
TOTAL ytd tons Revenue
1492.51 $161,707.83
Prior YTD 1343.86 $106,893.87
Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program Report
Outreach and Education
October 24: The Waste Reduction and Recycling Division (WRRD) had an informational booth at the United Way picnic for City employees.
October 27: The Waste Reduction and Recycling Division (WRRD) had an informational booth at the Very Important Planet event in Pine Ridge Plaza. Inland US Management LLC, the owner of Pine Ridge Plaza was sponsoring this program at its shopping centers across the USA to educate the community about local recycling programs.