Environment & Energy Programs at Risk?
Update as of 1/24/21
Last week we took a closer look at the EQPW Committee’s Annual Energy Improvement Fund (EIF) and Alternatives for Yard Waste updates. After the first presentation on the EIF, several Committee members had questions about the information. Here’s what we learned:
Council member Hannah LeGris asked about completion dates for the firehouse solar panel installations at stations 7 and 15.
Project Manager James replied that the panels will be delivered in February and finished by April.
CM Moloney asked about extending efficiency standards for new home construction.
James said that local municipalities are prohibited from implementing anything beyond state limits.
VM Kay wanted to know if Lexington has been ambitious enough in pursuing energy efficiency standards and where LFUCG stands on increasing energy efficiency in government.
the city has missed some opportunities by not establishing higher standards for design teams on new construction. The city needs to be more aggressive on the front end.
we are moving away from the low hanging fruit. In the next phase, the city will be looking at larger equipment, which will cost more. Savings will occur over a longer period of time. He said Lexington’s energy efficiency spending is about 1-2% of total energy spending and it needs to be higher.
CM Plomin asked about buying vs leasing equipment.
James recommended buying over leasing. The maintenance costs are higher, but ultimately buying would be better in the long term.
CM Plomin wanted to know why 85% of all expenses from the Sanitary Sewer Fund went to the aeration blower for Town Branch.
James replied that this was an anticipated expense common to water treatment projects. He elaborated that the technology for providing aeration has greatly improved since the original.
CM Plomin asked for more EIF capital details.
The fund still has a healthy balance for use in water quality projects. Otherwise, the Committee will need to have more conversations about whether there are any more projects that could be supplemented by the EIF, or if it has served its purpose.
Finally CM Sheehan asked if there are any quantifiable energy targets for design and performance.
James answered that he would need to update baselines before giving a full answer, but that establishing targets wouldn’t be something from which Lexington would start from scratch. Standards, such as EnergyStar, LEED, and a number of national scoring guidelines, exist that LFUCG could utilize. Previously Lexington had design guidelines that compared cost vs intent for more efficient structures.
In summary, after operating with lagging efficiency standards, LFUCG is now facing more expensive, intensive energy saving projects, with less money than ever to tackle them. The city’s task for the coming years will be to continue and complete current projects, delineate and implement strong energy efficiency standards that will bring it up to speed in comparison to other cities, and decide whether or not the Energy Improvement Fund, outside of water quality projects, has run its course.
The leaf collection and recycling update followed.
CM LeGris wanted to know why home composting was not included as an alternative solution.
Commissioner Albright answered that they were looking at the issue from a recycling perspective, but that composting could definitely be part of the conversation.
CM Reynolds asked how much it would cost to build a center like Sevierville’s.
Albright replied that it would cost about 25M and that LFUCG would have to decide how similar a facility it would want ours to be - Sevierville’s is bigger than what Lexington needs. LFUCG is thinking about bringing in experts to consult on the plan and needs to do more research to find out how much we’d save.
CM Reynolds said she supports new programs to manage and or recycle yard waste.
CM Lamb asked if carts or bags were better in terms of contamination.
Albright didn’t have the answer in front of her but believed that bags tend to have less. She added that the driver or personnel at the drop spot reviews materials to determine if the contents are too contaminated.
CM McCurn asked how much is estimated to go to the landfill every year.
According to Ms. Albright, potentially 1/4 of it goes back to the landfill on some days, adding that she will follow up on the environmental impact.
CM McCurn asked if LFUCg were to undertake construction of a facility similar to Sevierville’s, could it be done in phases or would it have to be all at once.
Albright said the city was initially looking at a facility about 1/3 of the scale and it could be done in phases.
VM Kay asked why it wasn’t possible to schedule the leaf program closer to the exact times the leaves drop.
Albright explained that the project is a highly coordinated city-wide effort that must be planned in advance. Asked by Kay what percentage of the leaves that get dropped actually get picked up by the vacuum, she said she didn’t have the exact number, but had heard from someone in District 5 that despite their best efforts, they still sent about 100 bags of leaves to yard waste pickup in addition to the vacuum.
CM Moloney proposed a Motion to take $25K from the Solid Waste Project budget to look at a RFP/I process to bring to council. This was seconded by CM McCurn.
Albright said the Solid Waste Project Fund has about $30M. Potentially, the entire project could come from the fund and would be a good use of the money.
CM McCurn added that the Fund is restricted, so the money would not be taken out of General funds.
CM Bledsoe asked about LFUCG’s commitment to regional strategies after issuing the RFI/P and cautioned that this would be a large (7-8 figures) project.
VM Kay wanted more clarification on the Motion’s details and where bond payments for such a project would come from.
CM Moloney answered that the money for the RFP/I will be coming out of the Solid Waste Fund. The RFP will look at what direction we want to go. Bonding is not an immediate concern. The RFP would be to have someone come in and tell LFUCG what we need to do to update our processes.
Albright added that the RFP/I would be to solicit input from interested organizations that would propose other solutions to our current recycling process.
CM LeGris asked if some of the smaller options like backyard composting could be included in the RFP. To which CM Moloney answered, yes.
The Committee then voted and unanimously passed the Motion.
In summary, recycling, especially leaf collection, is complicated! We have a patchwork system of bag and vacuum collection that has turned out to be inefficient for several reasons. We haven’t explored or promoted alternatives to city programs like backyard or community composting. Trash is often combined with yard waste, making a significant portion of it unusable as recyclable material, adding to landfill deposits. Vacuuming leaves is expensive, costing $1M for one day of collection, while often not being able to be deployed during peak leaf drop due to scheduling complexities. In response to these issues, the Committee voted to issue an RFP/I for a third party to evaluate our recycling systems and recommend ways to improve them, including possibly building a new facility with a regional focus.
We’re likely to see both of these topics come up again either in Committee or before the Council. When they do, you can count on us to find out what’s going on and report it all back to you.
This week, we're covering two presentations happening in this week's Environmental Quality and Public Works committee meeting on Tuesday, January 19th. These presentations involve ways that the City reduces its carbon footprint, although that isn't the presentations' or the programs’ explicit framing.
Watch this meeting live on LexTV on Tuesday, January 19 at 1:00pm
Why should you care?
With the pace of climate change accelerating and green infrastructure costs dropping, cities across the country are finding it makes good financial and societal sense to focus on reducing their carbon footprint. These two presentations present two different approaches the City is taking to address their energy use. Both have significant impacts on the city’s carbon footprint. One of the two processes is internal - the Energy Improvement Fund. The other strategy is more external (resident-facing) and is at risk of becoming financially unviable due to some misuse of the program. Let's jump in.
Internal-Facing Program: Energy Initiatives
A non-trivial portion of the total appropriations for the City of Lexington goes to energy use and utilities.
The City of Lexington will likely spend about 2% of total appropriations for FY21 on energy and utility costs.
While 2% may not seem like a lot, it adds up. This year, the City is projecting to spend around $19.2M on energy and utilities.
Utility costs have trended upwards recently - in FY17, the City’s cost for utilities and energy was around $17.8M.
Where do these costs come from? A combination of sources, including streetlights ($6.6M), fire hydrants ($4.3M), and utilities for city facilities.
To drive these costs lower in future years, the City created an internal revolving loan fund in 2010 that would invest in energy-saving projects and then use the savings generated from those projects to invest in additional ones. This program is known as the Energy Improvement Fund (EIF).
The City's primary focus for EIF-funded projects is to take proactive steps to reduce energy costs. This also reduces the city’s carbon footprint.
Want an example? In FY20, the City used the EIF to retrofit new, energy-efficient lighting across several city properties. The EIF invested around $157k into these lighting retrofits, saving the City around $42k per year in utility bills.
In addition to saving money, this saves energy. The City estimates that this retrofit alone will save around 522k kWh per year - the annual energy use of 50 average American households combined.
So why are we talking about this program? Well, as of 12/28, the Fund Balance for the central core of the EIF is too low to make any investments for next year.
With the tight budget in FY21, the City chose not to invest in the program. City Officials are presenting that if there is no allocation made in next year's budget (which may be even tighter than FY21), the program's continuity may come to an end.
Additional parts of the EIF (reserved for Urban Services and the Sanitary Sewer system) are less at-risk.
Overall, the City is running out of the smaller-scale projects -like LED retrofits- and moving on to larger efficiency projects, like building automation and investing in renewables like solar.
During this presentation, the City will make several recommendations to Council for this program centered around EIF Guidelines, LFUCG's Energy Saving Goals, and how they will fund the EIF given the uncertainty around the City's budget.
External-Facing Program - Yard Waste
On its own, and through privatized contracts, the City maintains several programs to gather and compost yard waste from residents across Fayette County. Many residents enjoy these programs - but due to various factors, they are at risk of ending. Let's start with "Lenny" yard waste collection, and then we'll move on to leaf collection.
Weekly Yard Waste Pickup via your "Lenny"
The City's Yard Waste Collection program diverts 5-20k tons of yard waste from the landfill each year through weekly pickup during the spring, summer, and fall.
83% of residents that have the option to receive a Lenny have one - an excellent enrollment rate for a program like this. The City estimates that there are around 75k Lennies out there in the wild.
The program has a lot of challenges, though, much of it stemming from user error.
Lenny cars frequently have enough non-yard trash in them that it can ruin an entire truckload of material. Once this happens, the City must divert the semi-compostable waste to the landfill. This is an issue because this organic matter can no longer be “reused” as compost/mulch. This matter also breaks down differently in a landfill, adding to Lexington’s carbon footprint.
Even the yard waste that does make it to the proper place produces mulch of dubious quality because there is too much trash that gets lumped in.
Not only does this make for an inefficient program, but it also is costly. The City pays the program contractor a minimum guarantee even if the materials are too contaminated to use.
Annual Fall Leaf Collection
The City's fall leaf collection diverts the same amount of yard waste from the landfill annually - between 5k and 20k tons. Not only that, but it keeps much of Lexington's leaves from making their way into the City's storm sewer system (an expensive problem), and it keeps them off the street through the winter.
While the City says strong public support exists for the program, they often get more complaints about the program than praise.
Why? The timing of the annual leaf drop. Since it is unpredictable, crews often come before all the leaves have fallen or after they have begun decomposing significantly.
The leaf collection program is also expensive - the single-pass across all of Lexington costs about $1M. The City has to hire seasonal workers to cover the program, and it often diverts energy away from other Streets & Roads programs.
So what's the bottom line?
Well, the city has three options that they will discuss in this presentation.
Continue with the existing programs.
Stop current programs and landfill the material.
Switch models to improve the program.
These models could include an Aerobic Digester or releasing an RFP/RFI to combine yard waste and food waste to create compost.
There is a significant chance that these programs could change significantly or be eliminated. While these programs have many benefits for Lexington's carbon footprint, the city's financial situation may force some on Council to advocate for ending/restructuring these programs.
Want to get involved? Here's how.
Reach out to relevant nonprofit organizations - good choices for this issue would be Bluegrass Greensource or Friends of Wolf Run.
Apply to be on a Board or Commission - good options with vacancies (as of 1/18) for this issue would be Greenspace Commission, Infrastructure Hearing Board, Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission, or the Tree Board.