Issuu on Google+

2012 Sustainability Report

Energy Efficiency and Resource Conservation Measures

City of Edmond Planning Department Community Development Division 03/08/2012


Thank You City departments providing information toward this document Building Services Citylink Edmond Electric Engineering Information Technology Marketing Parks, Events, and Recreation Planning Department Public Works Solid Waste Urban Forestry Utility Customer Service Vehicle Maintenance Water Resources


Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Statement of Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Strategies ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Energy Efficiency, Conservation, and Renewable Energy: City Facilities .................................................. 3 Measure 1 – Total Energy Cost for City Facilities ....................................................................................... 3 Measure 2 – Breakdown of Total Energy Cost for City Facilities And Baseline .......................................... 4 Measure 3 – City Facilities Equivalent Co2 (metric tons) Production Comparison .................................... 9

Energy Efficiency, Conservation, and Renewable Energy: Community Services ................................... 11 Measure 4 – Percentage of Customers by Sector - Pure and Simple ....................................................... 11 Measure 5 – Reduced Customer Total Equivalent Co2 for all Revenue Classes - Pure and Simple ......... 12 Measure 6 – Number of Energy Audits .................................................................................................... 14 Measure 7 – Number of Energy Saving Equipment Rebates .................................................................... 16

Landuse and Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 17 Measure 8 – Percentage Change in Population using YR 2000 to 2010 Census .................................... 18 Measure 9 – Total Building Permits by 2000 Census Tract (2001 – 2011) ............................................. 19 Measure 10 – Total Building Permits by Type (2001 – 2011) ................................................................... 20 Measure 11 – Percentages in Undeveloped Acres of Land: Zoning (Title 22) ......................................... 22 Measure 12 – Percentages in Undeveloped Acres of Land That is Urbanized Infill ................................. 22 Measure 13 – Large Tracts of Land NOT in Undeveloped Acreages and Conservation Acreages ........... 23 Measure 14 – Average Daily Traffic Counts – CY 2011 ............................................................................. 25 Measure 15 – Planned Traffic Projects ..................................................................................................... 26 Measure 16 – Edmond Trail Plan .............................................................................................................. 27 Measure 17 – Existing Trails and Trail Lengths ......................................................................................... 27 Measure 18 – Sales & Use Tax Revenue Effect on Budget ....................................................................... 29

Alternative Fuels and Public Transportation…………………………………………………….………………………………………30 Measure 19 – City of Edmond Fleet – Alternative Fuel Percentages ....................................................... 30 Measure 20 – City of Edmond Fleet - Fuel Costs ...................................................................................... 31 Measure 21 – City of Edmond Fleet - Total Equivalent CO2 (metric tons) ............................................... 31 Measure 22 – City of Edmond Fleet Vehicle Counts and Total Equivalent CO2 (metric tons) ................. 32


Table of Contents (cont'd) Alternative Fuels and Public Transportation (Cont'd) Measure 23 – Citylink Yearly Ridership Comparison (FY 08-09 to FY 10-11) ........................................... 33 Measure 24 – Citylink Total Wheelchair and Bicycle Boardings (2010-11) .............................................. 33 Measure 25 – Citylink Survey (2011) - Those Riding 20 or more days a month ...................................... 34

Solid Waste and Recycling................................................................................................................................ 35 Measure 26 - Average Percentage of Recycled Material (2008-2011)..................................................... 35 Measure 27 - Total Volume of Recycled Material in Tons (2008-2011) ................................................... 36 Measure 28 - GHG Reductions MTCO2E from Recycling (2008-2011) ..................................................... 36 Measure 29 - Total Stops for Curbside Recycling (2008 – 2011).............................................................. 37 Measure 30 - Curbside Recycling Average Percent Participation Rate (2008 – 2011) ............................. 38 Measure 31 - Percentage of Total Waste by Type (2008-2011) ............................................................... 38 Measure 32 - Recycled Material as a Percentage of Residential Waste (2008-2011) ............................. 39 Measure 33 - Recycled Material as a Percentage of All Waste Generated (2008-2011) ......................... 39

Urban Forestry ................................................................................................................................................... 41 Measure 34 - Number of Trees Planted and Removed ............................................................................ 41

Park and Recreational Facilities ...................................................................................................................... 42 Measure 35 - City Parks Acreage and Attributes ...................................................................................... 42

Water and Wastewater Resources ................................................................................................................. 43 Measure 36 – Water Usage by Areas (January, 2011) Figure A ............................................................... 44 Measure 37 – Water Usage by Areas (June, 2011) Figure B .................................................................... 45 Measure 38 – Utility Water Consumption by Sector ( FY 2008 – 2011) - Quantities in Kilogallons ........ 46 Measure 39 – Total Water Utility Costs for City Facilities ........................................................................ 46 Measure 40 – Breakdown of Total Water Costs for City Facilities ........................................................... 47 Measure 41 – Total lbs of Biosolids .......................................................................................................... 49 Measure 42 – Total Number of Acres where Biosolids are Applied ......................................................... 50

Appendix - City Actions toward Better Efficiency and Conservation ........................................................ 51


INTRODUCTION Private and public stakeholders, elected officials, and city staff have worked together to make this community what it is today. The City of Edmond has grown from a population of 68,315 to 81,405 from the year 2000 to 2010. This reflects a 19.2% increase from the year 2000. As with any growing community, it’s necessary to make plans for accommodating urban growth, and to understand the consequences of our action, or inaction, for future residents. On the whole the City of Edmond has proven to be a good place to do business, has shown to be environmentally sensitive, and has been consistent as one of the most desirable place to live in the US. In 2010 Edmond ranked number 35 in CNN’s Money Magazine as one of the top places to live, and in 2011 gained the honor of CNBC’s top suburb. Today, the City of Edmond continues the same conversation that has built this City, incorporating ideas and concepts that will make the community stronger. With projected world-wide population rising by an additional 2.5 billion people by 2050, and energy and water demand exceeding sustainable output under current conditions, mankind can no longer build without understanding how to incorporate natural systems into the manmade environment. George Crombie, MPA, BCEE American Public Works Association President Sustainability Conference June 27, 2011

PURPOSE OF THE SUSTAINABILITY REPORT This report, or assessment, provides the structure for measuring selected sustainable practices in Edmond. It provides a current picture, and serves as a roadmap to potential future investment with regard to these issues. Sustainable practices are derived from the following bulleted priorities. As practices for better stewardship evolve, and new strategies are identified, they will fall under one of these priorities: Protecting our natural resources Enhancing energy management Improving the built environment Maximizing waste reduction Balancing land use and transportation Promotion of economic development Improving City partnerships and outreach efforts Within these pages are strategies that illustrate the City’s commitment to providing sensible approaches for City operations and continued community growth. This report is an annual assessment, and will serve as a tool for those practices that promote energy efficiency, fiscal responsibility, natural resource conservation, public health and welfare, and the outdoor recreational culture that are cornerstones for the City. We will continue to seek those practices that make us better stewards, while valuing the diversity of opinions, beliefs and cultures that exist within our community. For each of the Strategies on the following pages, we will define the Value behind the Strategy, offer a quantitative or qualitative Goal for the Strategy, provide a Measure for that program or initiative, Analyze what that measurement is telling us, and then list specific Actions that the City is taking to improve our operations, and the City as a whole.

1|Page


STRATEGIES While strategies reflect the duty of city government to provide for the health, safety, and welfare, of the community, they also maintain the quality of life expected in Edmond. A description of the types of subject matter contained in this report is shown below.

maintaining good air and water quality • providing options to conserve our water supply • using alternative sources of energy to reduce greenhouse gases and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels • offering building options and services so that residents and businesses can save more on utility costs • providing public transportation options and other alternative modes for travel • offering options for recycling and waste management to divert waste away from the landfill and back into the economy • offering parks, trails and recreational facilities that promote health and wellness • working with developers and landowners to conserve and protect open space and other natural resources

In this report Strategies are listed in the following order: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Energy Efficiency, Conservation and Renewable Energy Landuse and Transportation Alternative Fuels and Public Transportation Solid Waste and Recycling Urban Forestry Park and Recreation Facilities Water and Wastewater Resources

GREEN TASK FORCE Currently, the City of Edmond has organized an informal Green Task Force, made up of City staff from multiple departments, who will review and provide new suggestions and/or input for our City organization. This input will be considered in the annual sustainability assessment. The Task Force will evolve as new players become involved, and it will be supplemented by the City of Edmond Green Team, made up of City staff volunteers. The responsibilities of the Green Task Force are to: Gather and analyze data for the annual assessment Analyze existing City programs and initiatives Research best practices from other cities Interact with the Edmond Energy Conservation Committee Manage implementation of relevant initiatives

2|Page


Energy Efficiency, Conservation, and Renewable Energy City Facilities Value: We strive to save money on heating, cooling, and other energy costs for City operations while reducing dependence on fossil fuels. We hope to set an example through our own actions, while providing opportunities and incentives for residents to make their own homes and businesses more energy efficient, and subsequently reduce the City’s overall carbon footprint. In December, 2011 the City became an EPA Green Power Partner, a voluntary program that encourages the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and lowimpact hydro.

Goal: The goal is to improve energy efficiency through City facilities, and through citizen participation by utilizing new and existing technology that can reduce overall costs while mitigating harmful effects to the environment. The qualitative goal is to have a downward trend in energy operational costs, and to have an upward trend in residents taking advantage of the energy conscious programs offered through the City.

Measure 1 & 2: Measurements are based on the fiscal year for all City facilities. These measurements are Total Energy Cost for all City facilities and Breakdown of Total Energy Costs for City Facilities

Measure 1 – Total Energy Cost for City Facilities (FY 07-08 to FY 10-11) $2,250,000 $2,189,939

$2,200,000 $2,150,000 $2,100,000

$2,076,824

$2,050,000 $2,014,391 COST

$2,000,000 $1,951,965 $1,950,000 $1,900,000 $1,850,000 $1,800,000 2008

2009

2010

2011

3|Page


Measure 2 – Breakdown of Total Energy Cost for City Facilities And Baseline (FY 07-08 to FY 10-11) BASELINE DEPARTMENT Animal Welfare Arcadia Lake Project Office City First Building Convention & Visitors Bureau Downtown Administration Downtown Community Center Downtown Municipal Building Edmond Historical Museum Fire Gracelawn Cemetery Kickingbird Golf and Tennis Miscellaneous Other Mobile Meals Multi-Activity Center (MAC) Building Old Electric and Vehicle Maintenance Parks Pelican Bay Aquatic Center Planning/Public Works Building Police Facilities Radio Towers Street Lights and Traffic Control Vehicle Maintenance Water/Wastewater Xtimb Admin Building Xtimb Operations Building TOTAL

2008 COST $29,704.77 $5,314.14 $15,765.63 $4,301.49 $29,065.09 $32,253.10 $46,023.82 $36,066.72 $105,286.41 $2,624.79 $88,620.31 $14,721.11 $3,798.29 $55,361.36 $382.22 $99,940.48 $21,456.37 $18,693.73 $52,260.08 $7,743.57 $48,375.84 $48,193.00 $1,114,656.92 $28,479.61 $105,302.38 $2,014,391.23

2008 KWH 603,863 65,400 255,845 56,080 481,700 471,591 807,926 478,960 1,560,696 38,609 1,091,679 156,502 44,624 818,594 2,931 1,301,377 228,880 277,080 830,270 94,768 575,238 942,857 20,092,870 377,760 1,497,520 33,153,620

2009 COST $31,007.92 $6,575.40 $15,650.48 $4,447.58 $27,418.44 $29,129.91 $52,370.06 $27,781.20 $111,413.71 $3,312.48 $103,081.89 $13,052.96 $4,165.88 $61,209.93 $133.92 $118,461.80 $23,984.05 $18,873.05 $63,569.62 $9,906.20 $66,553.68 $44,622.32 $1,228,363.83 $14,485.14 $110,367.74 $2,189,939.19

2009 KWH 657,783 72,000 234,094 52,320 403,200 388,568 796,489 348,480 1,526,603 39,585 1,167,353 115,930 43,733 803,831 0 1,344,375 223,360 239,640 819,564 106,125 728,540 859,327 18,876,522 168,400 1,556,720 31,572,542

2010 COST $26,086.00 $5,458.18 $14,516.48 $4,060.25 $23,756.48 $31,268.88 $47,431.92 $26,903.50 $104,294.73 $3,198.37 $91,118.34 $11,335.30 $4,447.48 $56,847.51 $1,042.51 $110,219.62 $24,851.66 $18,286.15 $63,349.75 $9,168.45 $64,984.09 $40,836.88 $1,027,344.07 $27,059.93 $114,098.24 $1,951,964.77

Avg 08-10 $28,932.90 $5,782.57 $15,310.86 $4,269.77 $26,746.67 $30,883.96 $48,608.60 $30,250.47 $106,998.28 $3,045.21 $94,273.51 $13,036.46 $4,137.22 $57,806.27 $519.55 $109,540.63 $23,430.69 $18,617.64 $59,726.48 $8,939.41 $59,971.20 $44,550.73 $1,123,454.94 $23,341.56 $109,922.79 $2,052,098.40

2010 KWH 734,484 65,400 248,720 52,240 373,500 468,512 785,036 369,920 1,557,121 43,222 1,146,994 79,286 51,913 853,941 10,975 1,402,384 251,040 249,000 871,116 106,263 757,698 936,356 17,920,749 381,360 1,675,520 31,392,750

2011 COST $24,340.93 $5,606.42 $13,070.30 $3,493.14 $23,010.90 $29,570.65 $40,679.64 $30,105.39 $93,351.00 $2,714.19 $87,904.49 $11,663.96 $5,885.27 $52,240.05 $912.87 $100,154.97 $23,219.26 $16,968.13 $53,490.58 $8,815.11 $62,161.55 $37,321.85 $1,210,433.07 $33,531.93 $106,178.81 $2,076,824.46

2011 KWH 732,866 69,600 219,102 46,480 387,900 457,045 725,410 408,400 1,382,968 36,575 1,216,756 69,322 75,430 855,196 8,259 1,318,641 254,560 239,520 883,352 107,408 748,261 840,411 20,409,391 452,400 1,534,960 33,480,214

% COST DIFF -16% -3% -15% -18% -14% -4% -16% 0% -13% -11% -7% -11% 42% -10% 76% -9% -1% -9% -10% -1% 4% -16% 8% 44% -3% 1.20%

Analysis: In three years (FY 2008 – 2010), the average energy cost for all City Facilities was $2,052,098. This is solely the cost of electricity and natural gas (dekatherms have been converted to kwh). Energy costs are largely dependent on the weather for heating and cooling, but are also affected by a facility’s building envelope, the every day practices of City employees, and the application of advanced energy saving technologies. In 2010 the City was able to maintain its costs at only 1.2% more than the Baseline value.

4|Page

Starting in FY 10 the City helped keep its costs lower for facilities through programs like Edmond Electric’s “Turn It Off” campaign, encouraging employees to turn off lights when rooms are not in use. Cumulatively, considering weather, changes in employee behavior, and advanced technologies, in FY 10 the City retained $237,974 from 2009 levels, and by 2011 had retained $351,089 from 2009 levels. Considering there will be fluctuations in energy costs solely because of weather, the average cost for years FY 2008-2010 was used as the baseline. In the table above, the right column reveals areas where there was a reduced cost in FY 2011, and areas where there was an increased cost. There can be several factors in a department or building’s performance, some of which will be explained under Actions, but these facilities will be monitored closely to demonstrate the effectiveness of new technology, changes in policy, and/or retrofits.


Action(s): Technology has allowed the City of Edmond to explore new ways for Energy savings. Five activities described here are (1) LED lighting replacements for signal lights, (2) Energy Management Systems, (3) Geothermal Energy, (4) T-12 Lighting Retrofits for existing buildings, and (5) the use of Variable Frequency Drives for some of our large motors in Water and Wastewater facility operations Action 1: LED Lighting Replacements for Traffic Signals and Street Lamps

Practices in Edmond to manage energy consumption have been underway for some time. Worthy of mention was an agreement reached between Edmond’s Traffic Control department and Edmond Electric in 1997 that resulted in replacing the incandescent bulbs at signalized intersections with LEDs (light emitting diodes). Pricing was adjusted based upon LED cost savings. With 93 signalized intersections, using current cost per kWh, the City has saved approximately $129,043 per year on traffic lights. All lights were changed out to LED by the year 2002. Using the same cost per kWh, we can estimate that since YR 2002 the City has saved approximately $1,290,430 on Traffic Signals alone. In 2012 US Department of Energy funds are also being used for the replacement of many street lamps with LEDs.

5|Page


Action 2: Energy Management Systems for Municipal Buildings Office buildings are large consumers of energy. Whether it is heating up the office before staff arrives, or the lights in offices, parking lots, hallways, or data centers where numerous racks of servers run constantly, buildings are constantly consuming energy. Energy Management Systems (EMS) are a combination of building management and advanced software solutions that assist in managing building functions in a more energy efficient way, to provide demand response controls when situations within the power grid demand it. During construction in 2005, the Crosstimbers Municipal Complex, Animal Welfare, and Fire Station V at I-35 and Covell Rd, were put on energy management systems. In 2006 dollars, savings were determined to be $21,900 per year for the Crosstimbers Administration building. Projecting these savings onto the rest of the buildings within the Crosstimbers Complex brings the total savings to $65,000 per year for EMS installations on those buildings. In addition, in calendar years 2007 and 2008 two buildings were converted to energy management systems with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) controls. They were the Downtown Administration Building and the Edmond Historical Museum. Using two comparable spaces (sq feet) for the same time period, this table is reflective of the types of savings that were achieved.

Dollar Savings using CY 2007 as a Comparative Base

This table shows that from the base year 2007, the total savings for two buildings put on EMS is $32,410.68 for a three year period. The two comparable buildings that did not have EMS cost more with each subsequent year, losing a total of ($12,192.18). All of these savings are measured against buildings with standard split system heating and cooling. Using 2009 US Department of Energy money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), twelve additional City facilities have been fit with Energy Management Systems. They include the City First Building, Municipal Court, the Emergency Operations Center, Crosstimbers Administration, Crosstimbers Operations, the Downtown Community Center, Fire Station #1, Fire Station #2, Fire Station #3, Fire Station #4, the Planning/Public Works Building, and the Mitch Park Multi-Activity Center (MAC). Five buildings will have HVAC and lighting controls installed, whereas four additional buildings will have only HVAC controls installed. The two Crosstimbers buildings – Administration and Operations, have only lighting controls installed. The energy expenditures and equivalent CO2 will be measured for these facilities over time to monitor effectiveness, subsequent cost savings, and benefit to the environment. 6|Page


Action 3: Geothermal Energy for Municipal Buildings Geothermal energy is another way in which the City is saving on energy costs, and using renewable sources of energy to benefit the environment. Geothermal energy is heat from the ground. It’s clean and sustainable. When the Crosstimbers Municipal Complex was completed in 2006, approximately 230 tons of ground-source geothermal wells were installed. A “ton” refers to the amount of cooling a ton of ice provides per hour. The energy unit, ton, can be used as a measure for both heating and cooling, because cooling is simply the removal of heat from a space.

Again, in 2005, with the construction of the Crosstimbers Municipal Complex at I-35 and Covell Rd, several buildings were put on geothermal systems. From the 70 tons that were installed for the Crosstimbers Administration building, it is estimated that the City saves 74,373 kWh per year, or $6,112 per year. Projecting these cost savings on the rest of the geothermal buildings, within the Crosstimbers Complex, estimated total savings are $20,000 per year.

Action 4: T12 Lighting Retrofit for Municipal Buildings The City of Edmond Public Works department has obtained a cost/benefit analysis from Orion Southwest for two buildings to do a T12 Lighting Retrofit. T12 fluorescent lights are what people are accustomed to seeing in most office buildings across the United States. Replacing T12 bulbs with T8 bulbs reduces the office’s energy consumption and reduces air conditioning costs. It may also increase employee productivity since newer bulbs generally provide more natural light. The analysis was completed for the Planning and Public Works building, and the Downtown Community Center in August, 2011. Converting T12 light fixtures to T8s requires replacing the entire existing fixture, so it is initially costly. It is necessary, however, as manufacturers will soon be phasing out their production of the T12 bulbs. Using 2009 US Department of Energy funds (ARRA), the City has budgeted dollars for this Activity. The longer this transition is delayed, the more costly it will likely become. There will be increased costs for T12 lamps and ballasts due to demand, and relatively limited supply. Two buildings that have been identified in need of this retrofit are the Planning and Public Works building and the Downtown Community Center. Following is a table representing information provided by Orion Southwest. The agreement through Orion would allow the costs to be financed over a number of years. This capital purchase amount also does not include any potential rebates or incentives. 7|Page


Orion Southwest T8 Bulbs Cost/Benefit Qty of Fixtures

kWh Saved

kW saved (Demand)

Annual Savings

20 year Lifecycle Savings

Capital Purchase

Planning and Public Works

168

41,626

14

$3,330

$66,602

$14,933.50

Downtown Community Center

336

76,923

30

$6,154

$123,076

$30,062.76

Action 5: Variable Frequency Drives and Soft Starts for Water Resources Variable Frequency Drives and Soft Starts are another way the City is improving overall energy efficiency. This technology is being implemented on large, 75 horse power or greater, motors utilized within the City’s Water and Wastewater processes. With a soft start starter, the motor uses reduced voltage to start, and when the motor is at full speed, or a timing circuit has timed out, a running by-pass contactor pulls in and the motor continues to run at full base speed. With a variable frequency drive (VFD) the motor will soft start, and you can vary the speed of the motor, by varying the output frequency. So, if you don’t need to vary the speed of the motor, once the motor is up to speed, then the correct solution is a soft start starter. In 2009 an analysis was done on these large motors to determine where to begin applying the technology. As shown on the graph below, the relative cost of electricity for Water and Wastewater is by far the largest consumer of electricity for City operations. The strategic application of variable frequency drives and soft starts is having an immediate effect on those areas of energy consumption.

City of Edmond – FY 2011 Cost of Electricity

$835,337.73, 41%

Water/Wastewater $1,209,699.06, 59%

Other City Facilities

Using this technology, 2009 US Department of Energy money (ARRA) was used to reftrofit five well pumps and two large motors at the Water Resources Plant. Two of those wells, one built in 1975 and the other in 1978 were monitored to follow their efficiency in the use of electric power. The VFDs were installed in April, 2011. A period of three months prior to the installation, and three months after the installation were used to average the monthly kWh/MG of water production. This effective method of measuring efficiency showed a 29.29% increase in performance on the first well, and a 42.49% increase in performance on the second well. The other wells are being monitored, but data has been inconclusive because of the relative time they have been in operation.

8|Page


Measure 3: The use of renewable resources, such as wind, hydro, and geothermal are a priority for Edmond. The 2010 Annual Assessment for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recognized the “Top Ten” in Green Power Sales as a Percentage of Total Retail Electricity Sales, on which Edmond Electric was #2, at 9.9% of electrical load. Currently, that percentage is 11% of electrical load. The following graph is a measure for greenhouse gases (GHG) for City Facilities, based on fiscal year. The dark green indicates what GHG would have been without the Wind Power Program, and the light green indicates what it actually is with Pure and Simple Wind Power. Measure 3 – City Facilities Equivalent Co2 (metric tons) Production Comparison Pure and Simple1 30,000 25,000

23,790

24,510

23,110 21,273

22,833 20,735

20,000 15,000 10,000 6,520

6,416

5,000 0 2008

2009

eCO2 - No Pure and Simple

2010

2011

eCO2 - With Pure and Simple

Analysis: In FY 10 – FY 11 Edmond’s Water Resources division converted all of its facilities over to the Pure & Simple program. Water and Wastewater costs represent roughly 58% of the City’s total cost for electricity and gas, and represent roughly 59% of electricity usage alone. 74% of the City of Edmond Facilities energy usage is currently under the Pure and Simple Wind Program. In January, 2012, this has allowed Edmond to become a member of the EPA Green Leadership Club through EPA’s Green Power Partnership. While total costs have been relatively stable, City Facilities have also been able to achieve an average 72% reduction in greenhouse gases in FY 2010 and FY 2011, over 2009 levels. The two-year average equivalent CO2 reduction has been 17,204 metric tons for all City facilities. According to the EPA’s equivalency table http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html on the next page, these are the equivalent benefits to that reduction for each year (FY 2010 and FY 2011). 1

Pure & Simple is Edmond Electric’s program to support clean, renewable wind energy. It is generated from the Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority (OMPA) wind farm. It’s an affordable and easy way to help our environment.

9|Page


The two year Average eCO2 Reductions for City Facilities utilizing Edmond Electric’s Wind Power Program reduced GHG in Edmond by 17,204 metric tons eCO2, which is equivalent to: Annual greenhouse gas emissions from 3,373 passenger vehicles. CO2 emissions from 1,928,700 gallons of gasoline consumed. CO2 emissions from 40,009 barrels of oil consumed. CO2 emissions from 227 tanker trucks’ worth of gasoline. CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 2,145 homes for one year. CO2 emissions from the energy use of 1,490 homes for one year. Carbon sequestered by 441,128 tree seedlings grown for 10 years. Carbon sequestered annually by 3,668 acres of pine or fir forests. Carbon sequestered annually by 170 acres of forest preserved from deforestation. CO2 emissions from 716,833 propane cylinders used from home barbeques. CO2 emissions from burning 93.7 railcars’ worth of coal. Greenhouse gas emissions avoided by recycling 5,994 tons of waste instead of sending it to the landfill. Annual CO2 emissions of .004 coal fired power plants.

Action: Research the feasibility of converting other Municipal Facilities to the Pure and Simple Wind Power Program.

10 | P a g e


Energy Efficiency, Conservation, and Renewable Energy (cont’d) Community Services Measure 4 & 5: Measurements 4 and 5 are for the Pure and Simple Program. They are based on FY 2008 to 2011, and are measured by electric meter, rather than by customer. The graphs below show the Percentage of Pure & Simple Customers by Sector and Avoided Customer Total Equivalent CO2 (metric tons) through the Pure and Simple Program. These will be used to gauge customer participation in the Pure & Simple Program and to monitor greenhouse gases. The revenue classes (sectors) include City of Edmond, Commercial Business, Industrial, Other Public2, and the Residential Sector.

42.99%

50.00% 45.00%

42.13%

Measure 4 – Percentage of Customers by Sector Pure and Simple (FY ’08 – FY ’11)

0.00%

3.86%

4.06%

3.68%

3.04%

14.29%

2.04%

2.12%

1.89%

5.00%

1.55%

5.07%

10.00%

5.36%

15.00%

13.93%

20.00%

15.00%

14.63%

25.00%

29.07%

23.60%

30.00%

29.07%

35.00%

28.09%

40.00%

City of Edmond

Commercial

Industrial

Other Public

Residential

2008

5.36%

1.55%

23.60%

14.63%

3.04%

2009

5.07%

1.89%

28.09%

15.00%

3.68%

2010

42.99%

2.12%

29.07%

13.93%

4.06%

2011

42.13%

2.04%

29.07%

14.29%

3.86%

2

The “Other Public” Sector includes accounts for the City of Oklahoma City, US Post Office, Edmond Library, US Corp of Engineers, Edmond Public Schools, University of Central Oklahoma, the OK Dept of Wildlife, and the non-profit Edmond Community Action Agency.

11 | P a g e


Measure 5 – Reduced Customer Total Equivalent Co2 (metric tons) for all Revenue Classes Pure and Simple3 80000 70,007 70000

64,861

60000 51,171 50000

46,217

40000 30000 20000 10000 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

eCO2 - Pure & Simple

Analysis: These measurements show a community-wide effort. From Measures 4 & 5, FY 2010 and FY 2011 had a substantial increase in Pure & Simple customers. A relatively small amount of customers are taking advantage of the program in the Commercial and Residential Sectors, however. Interesting to note is that though costs increased last year for Pure and Simple customers, the average cost for residential customers was still only around $8.27/month more than traditional electricity. 2011 showed a 51% increase in greenhouse gases (GHG) avoided from the 2008 levels. The following page represents the greenhouse gas equivalencies for 70,007 metric tons of equivalent CO2, using the EPA’s equivalency table http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html.

3

Pure & Simple is Edmond Electric’s program to support clean, renewable wind energy. It is generated from the Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority (OMPA) wind farm. It’s an affordable and easy way to help our environment.

12 | P a g e


In 2011, customers utilizing Edmond Electric’s Wind Power Program reduced GHG in Edmond by 70,007 metric tons eCO2, which is equivalent to: Annual greenhouse gas emissions from 13,727 passenger vehicles. CO2 emissions from 7,848,318 gallons of gasoline consumed. CO2 emissions from 162,807 barrels of oil consumed. CO2 emissions from 923 tanker trucks’ worth of gasoline. CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 8,729 homes for one year. CO2 emissions from the energy use of 6,061 homes for one year. Carbon sequestered by 1,795,051 tree seedlings grown for 10 years. Carbon sequestered annually by 14,927 acres of pine or fir forests. Carbon sequestered annually by 694 acres of forest preserved from deforestation. CO2 emissions from 2,916,958 propane cylinders used from home barbeques. CO2 emissions from burning 381 railcars’ worth of coal. Greenhouse gas emissions avoided by recycling 24,393 tons of waste instead of sending it to the landfill. Annual CO2 emissions of .017 coal fired power plants.

Action: Promote the use of the Pure and Simple Wind Power program through Edmond’s Marketing Division, and local media outlets.

13 | P a g e


Measure 6: The City of Edmond also offers FREE home energy audits. Edmond Electric’s Home Energy Audit Program helps make qualifying energy efficiency improvements to homes 10 years or older. Trained technicians perform a review of your home, rating its energy efficiency and offering helpful advice to lower your energy costs. This measurement is based on calendar year (Jan – Dec) for 2008 to 2011. Following the number of energy audits will help us to gauge how well we are reaching out to our customers. Measure 6 – Number of Energy Audits 300 263 250 200 162 150

125

130

2008

2009

Energy Audits

100 50 0 2010

2011

Analysis: Using 2008 as a base year, 2011 saw a 110% increase in requests for energy audits performed by Utility Customer Service. Action(s) Action 1: Edmond Electric’s Home Energy Audit Program Edmond Electric’s Home Energy Audit Program is a voluntary program, and the City will continue to seek out residents and businesses interested in discovering how to make their structures more energy efficient. Action 2: Smart Meters for Edmond Electric Customers Edmond Electric is also investigating the use of smart metering technology. This technology would enable Edmond Electric customers to become better managers of their energy usage, and allow them to control their costs, which becomes particularly useful during the hot months. This also benefits Edmond Electric by reducing the amount of energy it must purchase and helps delay the building of new generation plants. In 2011 West Monroe Partners did a consultation for the City of Edmond by providing the Smart Grid Business Case and Technology Road Map.

14 | P a g e


Action 3: Energy Efficiency Building Codes, Training and Equipment Municipal Building Codes are another way the City strives to help improve the overall efficiency of new residential and commercial structures, while reducing the City’s overall carbon footprint. Building codes that would require builders to provide more energy efficient structures are being reviewed by staff in the City’s Building Services department. Included in that review are potential alternatives for framing houses. Optimum Value Engineering (OVE)4, developed thirty years ago by the National Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center, cuts the cost of constructing houses by omitting unnecessary lumber. As an example, such requirements would expect the builder to switch from 2x4 studs at 16 in. spacing to 2x6 studs at 24 in. spacing. Coupled with better insulation detailing, these framing strategies can also reduce the cost of heating and cooling houses, while providing significant savings for the home builders.5 Materials in 40-ft. wall: 35 studs, 10 cripples, 28 insulation pieces Amount of wall that can Be insulated: 68% R-value: 13 Cost of wall framing, sheathing, and housewrap for entire house: $4,039 Annual heating and Cooling costs: $1,003 Materials in 40-ft. wall: 21 studs, 2 cripples, 20 insulation pieces Amount of wall that can be insulated: 75% R-value: 24 (R-19 fiberglass batts, plus R-5 foam sheathing) Cost of wall framing and sheathing for entire house: $1,927 Annual heating and cooling costs: $710

Double top plate

Odd-size cavities are hard to insulate

Standard wall framing

Windows and doors placed without regard to stud layout

2x4s, 16 in. on center

Doors and windows land on stud layout to minimize odd-size cavities

2x6s, 24 in. on center

Extra cripple studs Often are added to fit the layout.

Single top plate

Smart wall framing

In the immediate future, the City will be considering the adoption the State approved 2009 IRC6 residential codes. These amended energy codes are as stringent as Chapter 11 of the 2009 IRC, but less stringent than the 2009 IECC (see DOE analysis of the 2009 IRC). In the near future the City will be adopting the 2009 IECC codes, but a timetable has not been set. In 2009 the Oklahoma Legislature created the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission, charged to review and recommend the minimum building codes (including energy codes) for residential and commercial construction. The codes and standards recommended by the Commission go before the Oklahoma Legislature for approval. Currently, the 2009 IECC is scheduled to be reviewed in 2012 by the Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission, adopted in spring 2013, and effective in the summer of 2013 for the statewide minimum residential building code. According to OCEAN, a Code Environment & Advocacy Network, if Oklahoma began implementing the 2009 IECC Standard 90.1-2007 statewide today, businesses and homeowners would save an estimated $54 million annually by 2020 and $110 million annually by 2030 in energy costs (assuming 2006 prices). Through 2009 US Department of Energy money (ARRA), the City received $75,000 for training and equipping the City’s building inspectors for the new energy codes. Six inspectors and their supervisors received that training this year. This initiative supports Goal #3 in Edmond’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which is to “Reduce total primary energy use for the City’s residential and commercial sectors.” 4

Optimum Value Engineering is the process of comparing alternative materials and methods to determine the least costly combination that will result in the desired end product., NAHB Research Foundation, Inc. Reducing Home Building Costs with Optimum Value Engineered Design and Construction. (NAHB Research Center, Inc., 1977 ) 5 Joseph Lstiburek, 2005, “The Future of Framing is Here”, Fine Homebuilding, p 50-55 6 International Residential Code (IRC), as amended by the OUBCC

15 | P a g e


Measure 7: Edmond’s Rebate Program on Heat Pumps and new Air-Conditioning units allows customers to receive significant discounts, from $100 per ton on new air conditioning units with a SEER 7 rating of 16.0 or higher, to $250 per ton on 15.0 EER8 air-source heat pumps, to $800 per ton on 16.0 SEER ground-source (geothermal) heat pumps. Measure 7 is based on calendar year (Jan – Dec) for 2008 to 2011. Measuring the number of rebates will help us to gauge how well we are reaching out to our customers, encouraging the kind of energy efficiency we would like to promote as a City. Measure 7 – Number of Energy Saving Equipment Rebates 100 87

90 80

73

70

62

60 50

Rebates

40 30 20

15

10 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

Analysis: Measure 7 shows that the number of rebates from 2008 to 2010 increased 480%, and there was a slight decrease of 16% from 2010 to 2011. Savings for these installations can be substantial for property owners. According to the Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority (OMPA), if you replaced your old gas furnace and air-conditioning unit with an air-source or dual-fuel heat pump you could potentially cut your heating and cooling in half. Possible savings are dependent on a number of factors, however: type of heat pump installed, the age, insulation, and size of your home, as well as the owner’s living habits. Action: Edmond Electric’s Energy Saving Equipment Rebates Program is a voluntary program, and the City will continue to seek out residents and businesses interested in rebates for new air conditioning units, airsource, or ground-source heat pumps.

7 8

SEER – Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio EER – Energy Efficiency Ratio

16 | P a g e


Landuse and Transportation Value: Landuse and Transportation are integral to one another. Strategies for managing the costs and impacts of traffic congestion and helping to determine the best use and function for land have been established through the City’s local development regulations and Council resolutions, beginning with a foundation in the Edmond Plan IV9 and the Edmond Transportation Plan, and continuing with a recent resolution for Complete Streets10 in Edmond. A number of community dialogues, studies, and community surveys, including Tommorow’s Edmond (1996), the Edmond Greenprint (2003), Sensitive Area Studies (’03 and ’04), Citizen Satisfaction Surveys (’06, ’08, ’11), and the Green Infrastructure Initiative (2011) also support the enhancement of outdoor recreational amenities and the preservation of natural resources. This is balanced with the necessary growth and development that enables the City to serve the community through a variety of housing choices, commercial opportunity, and City services and amenities provided through sales tax revenues. Goal 1: Quantify community growth and regard sensitive land areas with care by encouraging a balanced approach to land development through techniques such as low impact development (LID)11 and the use of conservation easements. Quantifying undeveloped land will not only help provide a picture for development opportunities, but in terms of what has been defined in the Edmond Plan IV as “Sensitive Areas”, it will also help policymakers quantify the value of the property based upon its pre-developed state. Conservation categories within the Edmond Plan IV include remnant forests, prime farmland, forested areas, and the flood plain. Previous surveys have also identified potential archeological sites. Goal 2: Improve transportation efficiency and decrease emissions through needed roadway capacity expansion, and a combination of additional bike and pedestrian facilities, intelligent transportation systems (ITS)12, and effective zoning13 regulations to help facilitate the flow of traffic. Zoning regulations classify the use of land, buildings and structures within the City, and are based on the Edmond Plan IV. Goal 3: Continue to promote awareness about the importance of commercial business in Edmond and how sales tax is the economic engine for services provided by our local government. Measures 8, 9, 10: As stated previously, population has increased 19.2% from the year 2000. The following map and graphs show where these increases have taken place, and help to determine how and where the community is growing. The Percentage Change in Population (2000 – 2010), and Building Permits for the last ten years are shown.

9

The Edmond Plan IV is the City’s official comprehensive landuse plan, a long-range vision for how the community should grow and develop. It establishes the foundation for local development regulations, while also providing a framework for decision-making. It was adopted by City Ordinance 3094, April 23, 2007. 10 Complete Streets are defined as those that provide safe and convenient transportation facilities for all modes of travel, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, and transit riders that are accessible for users of all ages and all ability levels. 11 Low Impact Development (LID) is an innovative stormwater management approach with a basic principle that is modeled after nature: manage rainfall at the source using uniformly distributed decentralized micro-scale controls. Examples include rainwater harvesting, permeable pavements, rain gardens and bioretention cells, green roofs, and riparian buffers. 12 ITS is a fiber optic, wireless or hybrid communication system that would help monitor and predict traffic volumes. 13 The Zoning Ordinance (Title 22) classifies and regulates the use of land, buildings and structures within the city limits of the City of Edmond. This Title is adopted in pursuance of the authority granted by the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma in Title 11, Sections 43-101, et seq. of the Oklahoma Statutes.

17 | P a g e


Measure 8 – Percentage Change in Population using YR 2000 Census Tract Boundaries CY 2000 to CY 2010

18 | P a g e


Measure 9 – Total Building Permits by 2000 Census Tract (2001 – 2011) Refer to the Map on the Previous Page to see Census Tract Numbers

108312 108304 108303 108217

YR 2000 Census Tracts

108216 108215

2011

108213

2010

108212

2009

108208

2008

108207

2007

108206

2006

108204

2005

108203

2004

108201

2003

108109

2002

108108

2001

108107 108106 108103

0

20

40

60

80 100 Number of Total Permits

120

140

160

180

19 | P a g e


Measure 10 – Total Building Permits by Type (2001 – 2011)

20 | P a g e


Analysis: Measures 8, 9, and 10 show a significant amount of residential growth has occurred east of I-35 and in northern parts of the City, north of Covell Rd. In two census tract areas there was a 97% increase in population, and 111% increase on the east side of Interstate 35. While new residential building permits declined by 66% from ’05 to ’09, residential permits increased by 23% from ’09 to ’10, and by 32% from ’10 to ’11. Population decreases are shown in some of the older parts of Edmond (dark blue on the map) and may be indicative of increased commercialization in some of these areas. Action(s) Action 1: Create a Vacancy Report to see opportunity for revitalization efforts Create a Vacancy Report that will help City officials evaluate where there is opportunity for neighborhood revitalization efforts (sidewalks, parks, housing rehab, etc), or infill14 development. While the City has been fortunate to have continued new growth, we are mindful of the quality of older neighborhoods as well. Action 2: Share Landuse Data with the Edmond Economic Development Authority As part of Edmond’s landuse analysis, it will benefit the Edmond Economic Development Authority (EEDA) and local realtors to provide them with updated landuse data on an annual basis. Measures 11, 12, 13: The following tables show the percentage of land types by category that are considered undeveloped15 (at the time of this report), as well as the percentages of sensitive land types within those categories. Flood plains are not included in these measures because development is prohibited within the FEMA 100 year flood plain, in which case it is protected. The water surface area of Arcadia Lake is also not included in these measures. Large developed landholdings (not undeveloped) are shown in Measure 13 to demonstrate areas that have committed to conservation. This list will grow as more data becomes available, and as other opportunities present themselves.

14

Urbanized Infill is undeveloped land area within the “urbanized area”, as defined by the US Census Bureau. The urbanized area constitutes the largest and most dense area of settlement, and is sometimes used as a guide to determine the best use for external funding. 15 Criteria for undeveloped land depended on where it lay within the City. There are undeveloped, platted lots that were counted in the analysis in urbanized areas. Other areas may be working farms or ranch – style homes that have not been platted. Still, others that were counted are simply not developed according to the current Zoning map and may develop as a higher use in future years.

21 | P a g e


Measure 11 – Percentages in Undeveloped Acres of Land Categorized from Zoning Ordinance (Title 22)

Total Area within City of Edmond

Undeveloped Commercial

54,430.16

acres

Total Acres

Percentage of Total Area of the City

Acres Covered in Forest

Acres in Prime Farmland

Acres in Potential Remnant Forest

Acres in Potential Archeological Site

1,213.01

2.23%

42%

40%

23%

1.63%

Undeveloped Industrial

500.54

0.92%

20%

55%

11%

0.00%

Undeveloped Office

155.24

0.29%

36%

38%

7%

0.26%

Undeveloped Residential

6,694.61

12.30%

46%

40%

20%

0.60%

Undeveloped Agriculture Land

11,649.70

21.40%

53%

33%

30%

6.29%

Totals

20,213.10

37.14%

Measure 12 – Percentages in Undeveloped Acres of Land That is Urbanized Infill16 Total Acres Commercial

Urbanized Infill Acreage

Urbanized Infill Percentage

1213.01

600.56

49.51%

Industrial

500.54

347.81

Office

155.24

87.71

Residential

6694.61

Agriculture Totals

Acres Covered in Forest

Acres in Prime Farmland

Acres in Potential Remnant Forest

Acres in Potential Archeological Site

12.47%

21.00%

3.17%

0.00%

69.49%

6.14%

39.73%

0.06%

0.00%

56.50%

19.53%

24.63%

4.90%

0.00%

2153.67

32.17%

13.66%

15.13%

6.15%

0.01%

11649.7

22.55

0.19%

0.07%

0.14%

0.00%

0.00%

20,213.10

3,212.30

22 | P a g e 16

Urbanized Infill is undeveloped land area within the “urbanized area”, as defined by the US Census Bureau. The urbanized area constitutes the largest and most dense area of settlement, and is sometimes used as a guide to determine the best use for external funding.


Measure 13 – Large Tracts of Land NOT in Undeveloped Acreages and Acres committed to Conservation17

Total Acres

Percentage of Total Land Area

Conservation Acres

Conservation Percentage of Land Category

Type

Total Land Area

54,430.16

City of Edmond

1,527.28

2.81%

371.91

24.35%

Tree Cover

94.29

0.17%

94.29

100.00%

Open Space

2,155.96

3.96%

1130.16

52.42%

Tree Cover

Edmond Public Schools

513.79

0.94%

Unk

Unk

Unk

University of Central Oklahoma

187.68

0.34%

Unk

Unk

Unk

5,581.39

10.25%

Unk

Unk

Unk

414.56

0.76%

Unk

Unk

Unk

19.24%

1,596.36

Edmond Land Conservancy Corps of Engineers (without Arcadia water surface)

FEMA 100 Year Flood Plain Churches

23 | P a g e 17

Recreational landuses such as the City’s Kickingbird Golf Course and the Edmond Service Blake Soccer Complex were not used in this calculation. Also not included in this calculation are platted common areas, detention and retention ponds, or platted greenbelt, trail, and walking easements.


Analysis: Approximately 37% of the land area in Edmond is undeveloped, considering the criteria described previously. There is a considerable amount of land in Edmond to be developed, but also considered in future conservation efforts. These percentages will inevitably change from year to year. The opportunity for conservation efforts will be determined by market factors, and public, private, and non-profit investment in those activities, plus the collective importance that is placed on sensitive areas with each new development. Identification of these areas and consideration about their importance and how they are integrated into the City’s system of busy streets and urbanized areas is a critical component of how the City will continue to develop. Not counting some open space and flood plains, parks, and other recreational facilities, the City as a whole currently has approximately 1,596 acres of land set aside for conservation. Of the 20,213 acres of undeveloped land in Edmond, approximately 3,212 acres, or 16% is in the urbanized area. Here also lies an opportunity for infill development.

Action(s): Action 1: Keep Inventory of Undeveloped Land and Sensitive Areas The City will inventory undeveloped land acreages and sensitive areas, and continue to find ways of protecting or restoring relevant areas where possible, incorporating them into a network of parks, open space, trails, and other natural corridors.

Action 2: Green Infrastructure Initiative The Green Infrastructure Initiative began in 2008 with a grant from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Forestry Services. Through this initiative a committee was formed among local stakeholders and City staff to analyze and mitigate the impacts of development across Edmond in regard to its ecological systems. An informal partnership was created between the City of Edmond and the Edmond Land Conservancy18 – a nonprofit land trust organization committed to preserving, creating, and improving Edmond’s natural, scenic and outdoor recreational environment. Many of the ideas that came forth in the initiative were inspired by an earlier document, The Edmond Greenprint (2003). The general goal of the initiative was to seek a balanced approach to growth that supports these values. After three years of meeting monthly, or bimonthly, and two stakeholder meetings, a report was concluded with several recommendations. Though it is not expected that every recommendation will be followed, they serve as a starting point for specific actions that can be discussed with elected officials, relevant department heads, and City leaders. The vision for the initiative is “to promote environmental stewardship and a healthier community by creating a plan and process that commits Edmond to preserving, protecting, and restoring its interconnected natural resources for the future development of the community.” Those discussions will be ongoing among staff, and there will be a time when it will be appropriate to reconvene those stakeholders that are still interested in the process. One such opportunity should present itself when the City undertakes the Master Parks Study, where discussions are to begin in 2012.

Logo for the Edmond Land Conservancy 18

Edmond Land Conservancy Home Page

24 | P a g e


Measure 14: Traffic Counts largely determine where improvements to the City’s transportation network are needed. The map below is generally reflective of where the heaviest average daily counts were in the City for CY 2011. The City also takes into account where the City is continuing to grow and where it will be in need of future facilities.

Measure 14 – Average Daily Traffic Counts – CY 2011

25 | P a g e


Measure 15: The City’s Traffic Planners are addressing today’s traffic concerns through roadway improvement projects and new traffic management technologies. Keeping traffic moving is important for a number of reasons; one being that increased congestion contributes to increased levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Poor air quality can also result in respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema. In addition, a status of “non-attainment” in the National Ambient Air Quality Standard would require our region to undertake several federally mandated actions that would result in an increased financial burden for local residents, businesses, and government. Below is a map reflecting the current improvement projects that the City has planned, or will soon be underway.

Measure 15 – Planned Traffic Projects

26 | P a g e


Measure 16, 17: The Edmond Trails and Sidewalk Master Plan19 describes a planned network of trails and street bicycle/pedestrian corridors for the City. Below is a map of the current Trails Plan, with overlays for schools and parks, FEMA flood plains, city property, planned street improvements, and current plans for a 66 Route Trail extending from I-35 to Westminster Rd. A measure of existing total trails lengths will tell us how well we are implementing this plan. Measure 16 – Edmond Trail Plan

Measure 17 – Existing Trails and Trail Lengths

19

The Trails and Sidewalk Master Plan was created by LandPlan Consultants, Inc., 1999

27 | P a g e


Analysis: City traffic projects require a significant amount of federal funding, as do most communities in growing urban areas. These dollars, garnered through gasoline taxes, are allocated back to state agencies, based primarily on a region’s population. Without them, it would be difficult to effectively manage the traffic in Edmond. Funding for capital projects such as trail extensions will continue to be a challenge, but recently has gained much support from federal funding agencies20 with the recognition that there needs to be a focus not just on roadway widening, but the accommodation for all modes of travel. See example to the right.21

Action(s) Action 1: Multi-modal transportation means that the City of Edmond is taking every opportunity to encourage other modes of transportation, whether it is walking, riding a bike, taking a bus, or carpooling. On several roadway projects there is the incorporation of 10 foot multi-use trails for bikes and pedestrians, as shown in the table for Measure 15. These are primarily aligned with the Edmond Trails and Sidewalk Master Plan. The City has also recently begun implementation on new trail extensions, and commissioned a new Bicycle Master Plan for the City. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was submitted in FY 2011 to extend the Spring Creek trail east of I-35 to Arcadia Lake. Another extension will connect the eastern portion of the Coffee Creek Trail with the multiuse bicycle/pedestrian facility at the Covell Rd underpass. Bike and pedestrian facilities are needed enhancements, supported by the majority of residents, as shown through community surveys (’06, ’08, ’11). As funding becomes available, whether it is from grants or private investment, or committed sales tax revenues, trail projects will continue to be reviewed and considered for implementation by City staff, the Edmond Bicycle Committee, and the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. Action2: Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) uses modern communications, field devices, computers, and software to accomplish the following goals. Improve Safety and Mobility – ITS should facilitate the management of traffic during congested periods, construction and maintenance activities, weather events, and incidents such as crashes and emergencies. ITS should reduce the number and severity of crashes and improve travel time. One estimate claims that $16 would be saved by motorists for every ITS dollar spent on signal timing. Enhance Security – The system should support the statewide goal of enhancing security by continuous monitoring of the roadway network and providing the tools to respond to emergency situations by quickly allowing the changing of traffic patterns. Increase Agency Efficiency – ITS should assist staff in the overall monitoring of the roadway network for failures, and provide tools to reduce staff time for response to traffic disruptions, troubleshooting, general maintenance activities, and an overall reduction in system failures.

20

The US Department of Transportation (DOT), the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have joined in the common initiative to support sustainable communities. http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/ 21 Ranson, West Virginia aligned planning grants and assistance from the DOT, HUD, and the EPA to integrate affordable housing, economic development, and transportation.

28 | P a g e


Measure 18: City of Edmond sales tax plays a vital role in providing the quality of services that give Edmond residents a higher quality of living. Shoppers in Edmond pay 7.75 percent sales tax on purchases; 4.5 percent of that goes to the State, and 3.25 percent of the money is returned to the city. Edmond has one of the lowest sales tax rates in the state for a city this size, and the City does not collect property tax. The following graph for FY 11-12 is indicative of the yearly percentage that sales tax generates toward Edmond’s Budget. Measure 18 – Sales & Use Tax Revenue Effect on Budget22

Analysis: This measure is listed under Landuse and Transportation because there must be this consideration when there are discussions about landuse decisions in Edmond. Sales tax funds 64% of the City’s General Operating Budget. Other revenues are generated through intergovernmental grants (alcohol and cigarette taxes, vehicle and gas taxes), licenses and permits, fines and forfeitures, charges for services, and interest. Initiatives that promote conservation and mitigate the impacts of development in regard to ecological systems recognize that these systems and resources sometimes need protection for future generations. These types of initiatives work alongside development and the community, to provide a strategic balance for long term growth. Action: Promote shopping in Edmond through Marketing and other Public outreach efforts. 22

Graphic provided by City of Edmond Office of Finance

29 | P a g e


Alternative Fuels and Public Transportation Value: Transitioning to cleaner alternative fuels will reduce GHG emissions and dependence on fossil fuels, while reducing the costs associated with higher gasoline prices. Also, the City began operating its own public transportation service, Citylink, in FY 10. This service has the impact of reducing overall emissions, providing Edmond residents needed mobility, while lessening the number of cars on the road and aiding Central Oklahoma’s efforts towards keeping air quality within acceptable parameters. Goal: Improve transportation efficiency and decrease emissions through the use of alternative fuels, and offering public transportation options. The qualitative goal for alternative fuels is to begin transitioning to CNG, electric hybrids, and LPG23 over the next 5 years. Citylink buses are the first to be converted to CNG. Measures 19, 20, 21, 22: A high percentage of Edmond’s Total Vehicle Fleet is using alternative fuels. Alternative fuels are important to measure as we reduce our emissions, relative fuel costs, and dependence on fossil fuels. Percentages of alternative fuel for the City, fuel costs, equivalent CO2, and vehicle counts for each department with associated eCO2 are shown in the following measures. Measure 19 – City of Edmond Fleet – Alternative Fuel Percentages 60% 50%

50% 46%

44%

43%

Percentage

40%

0%

25%

4%

28%

27% 23%

19%

18%

20% 10%

30%

28%

30%

5%

5%

5%

2008 (07-08)

2009 (08-09)

2010 (09-10)

2011 (10-11)

GASOLINE

50%

46%

43%

44%

DIESEL

4%

5%

5%

5%

E85

18%

19%

25%

23%

B20

28%

30%

27%

28%

E85 and B20 blends24 are favorable to the environment. Due to high maintenance costs, however, one of the City’s primary intents is to gradually move away from these types of fuels and toward other alternatives. 23

Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) is stored as a liquid, primarily consisting of propane. It evaporates into gas in an internal combustion engine, and is also a cleaner burning fuel. It is also non-corrosive and non-toxic, which results in less maintenance costs for vehicles. 24 E85 is a fuel blend that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Ethanol fuel (ethyl alcohol) is made by fermenting and distilling starch crops, such as corn. B20 is a fuel blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum diesel fuel. Biodiesel is a natural and renewable fuel alternative also made mostly from vegetable oils, soy and corn. It is to petroleum diesel fuel what ethanol is to gasoline, as it contributes nothing to the carbondioxide loading of the atmosphere.

30 | P a g e


Measure 20 - City of Edmond Fleet - Fuel Costs $1,200,000.00

$1,092,530.76

$1,075,713.04

$1,000,000.00 $891,011.59

$844,674.98 $800,000.00

$600,000.00

$400,000.00

$200,000.00

$2008 (07-08)

2009 (08-09)

2010 (09-10)

2011 (10-11)

Measure 21 - City of Edmond Fleet - Total Equivalent Co2 (metric tons) 4500 4052 4000

3631 3412

3500 3000

2894

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2008 (07-08)

2009 (08-09)

2010 (09-10)

2011 (10-11)

GHG - equivalent CO2

31 | P a g e


Measure 22 - City of Edmond Fleet Vehicle Counts and Total Equivalent Co2 (metric tons) DEPARTMENT Administrative Services Animal Control Arcadia Lake Building Cemetery Citylink Community Image Drainage Utility Electric Electric Warehouse Emergency Management Engineering-Civil Engineering-Inspections Facility Maintenance Fire IT Mitch Park Parks & Recreation Park-Rec Programs Police Risk Management Sanitation-Commercial Sanitation-Residential Sanitation-Roll-Off Senior Center Street Traffic Control-Sign Traffic Control-Signal Urban Forestry Utility Services Vehicle Maintenance Wastewater Line Maintenance Wastewater Plant Water Line Maintenance Water Plant Water Wells Totals: Vehicle Counts and eCO2

2008 Count 1 6 9 9 5 0 4 2 37 0 1 1 4 5 36 1 3 6 1 137 0 7 20 2 2 44 1 2 1 16 0 17 4 18 6 3 411

GHG (eCO2) 3 19 50 27 5 0 6 3 151 0 0 3 11 13 139 0 7 19 1 975 0 124 521 25 7 308 12 29 1 106 0 135 11 147 12 24 2894

2009 Count 1 6 9 10 5 0 4 2 43 2 2 1 4 8 39 1 3 8 1 135 1 8 22 2 2 42 1 4 1 17 0 18 4 19 8 3 436

GHG (eCO2) 5 41 26 48 6 0 17 4 279 2 11 6 21 24 251 1 14 36 1 894 0 242 538 54 13 320 25 34 1 108 0 131 24 156 22 57 3412

2010 Count 1 6 7 10 5 17 5 2 39 2 1 1 4 7 40 1 3 9 1 158 1 10 18 2 2 46 2 4 1 19 0 20 5 19 6 4 478

GHG (eCO2)

2011 Count

5 45 45 43 7 218 17 5 274 4 1 6 19 29 331 0 14 42 1 767 1 235 490 54 12 374 26 39 1 102 0 154 29 160 24 57 3631

1 6 9 9 4 10 5 2 42 2 1 1 5 8 40 1 3 7 1 156 1 9 18 2 3 42 1 3 2 18 1 17 7 21 8 4 470

GHG (eCO2) 7 59 55 60 8 520 29 2 424 6 1 8 22 41 200 2 20 61 1 535 1 387 460 104 18 344 38 40 5 98 2 145 35 165 61 88 4052

Analysis: Significant strides have been taken by the City in the use of alternative fuels. That effort will continue as better solutions, opportunities, and funding is made available. While there were increases in greenhouse gases due largely to a new bus service in 2010, there were also notable decreases on the parts of such departments as Fire and Police. As part of the Strategic Operating Plan for the City of Edmond, all departments are encouraged to include sustainable practices as a regular part of their processes.

Action(s): Add additional alternative fuel vehicles to the fleet, such as PHEV, CNG, and LPG Action 1: Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV): In 2006 the City approved Resolution 02-06, directing the City Manager to pursue plans supporting the utilization of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Through the US Department of Energy (ARRA), funding was received by Edmond Electric to convert a utility truck with this technology. The truck will serve as an alternative fuel vehicle due to the electricity being utilized, and that electrical power will be provided from the City’s wind power project, thereby making it a renewable alternative fuel vehicle. Action 2: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG): Through the US Department of Energy (ARRA), six buses will also be converted to CNG and LPG. One cost/benefit analysis in 2011 concluded that converting six buses to CNG would save the City an average of $3,939/ month. In 2011 the City’s Solid Waste department was also awarded Central Oklahoma Clean Cities funds to convert two solid waste trucks to CNG or LPG. LPG is a mixture of propane (90%) and other gases. 32 | P a g e


Measure 23, 24, 25: Measuring Citylink passenger counts, as well as wheelchair and bicycle boardings by route helps determine potential infrastructure and accessibility investment required to serve all transportation users. Measures that are important to note are the Citylink Yearly Ridership Comparison, and the Citylink Total Wheelchair and Bicycle Boardings. In addition, one graph is shown from the 2011 Citylink Customer Survey, which is useful for understanding why a transit service is important in Edmond.

Measure 23 – Citylink Yearly Ridership Comparison (FY ’09 – FY ’11) 18000 16000 14000 12000 Metro Transit FY '09

10000

Citylink FY '10

8000

Citylink FY '11

6000 4000 2000 0 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Measure 24 – Citylink Total Wheelchair and Bicycle Boardings (FY ’11) Route

Wheelchairs

Bicycles

Rt. 1

846

467

Rt. 2

420

489

Rt. 3

16

64

Rt. 4

245

170

100X

180

1037

CAPS Total

726

0

2433

2227

33 | P a g e


Measure 25 – Citylink Survey (FY ’11) From 90 respondents, or 41.7% of all respondents, Those Riding 20 or more days a month

Analysis: Ridership increased by 163% from FY 08-09 to FY 10-11. The rising cost of fuel, the convenience of the bus service, the added benefit of accommodating bikes and wheelchairs, the quality of the buses, the efficiency and timeliness of the bus routes, courteous drivers, and the fact that the service is free, have all contributed to increased ridership. All Citylink buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts and bike racks. Free Wi-Fi service is also available on the Expresslink buses as well as throughout Downtown Edmond, including the Citylink Transfer Center. The entire Citylink fleet is fueled with either Compressed Natural Gas or Clean Diesel. As shown in Measure 25, according to the Citylink Customer Survey (Fall, 2011), nearly 42% of passengers use Citylink more than 20 times per month. From those passengers, more than 62% do not have a household vehicle or are unable to drive. Action(s): The City of Edmond plans on expanding the Citylink service as demand warrants and funding becomes available. The Edmond Public Transportation Committee plans to request funds annually for ADA, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along transit routes. Also, a larger, permanent multimodal transfer center is under consideration in the downtown area, which will serve as a hub not only for Citylink and other local services, but will accommodate space for commuter rail, should it be developed in Central Oklahoma. It will also include bicycle facilities and provide for greater pedestrian access to transit and overall connectivity to the downtown area. The buses also may be stored at this location, reducing the multiple daily ‘deadhead’ trips to and from Crosstimbers Vehicle Maintenance located at I-35 and Covell Rd. Converting a fleet this size to CNG requires more than one fueling location; therefore, the City also encourages the development of additional private fueling stations within the corporate limits of Edmond and along I-35. 34 | P a g e


Solid Waste and Recycling Value: Recycling is an important way for residents and businesses to reduce the waste they generate and reduce the negative impact of that waste. Recycling conserves our natural resources, saves landfill space, conserves energy, and reduces water pollution, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Recycling isn’t just good for the environment, but it is good business, driving employment and an innovative industry that re-uses the material for new recycled products. Together, reducing, reusing, recycling, and buying recycled products make up a comprehensive waste and resource reduction strategy that benefits the natural world and the economy. When businesses and residents recycle in Edmond, one hundred percent of the recycled material is taken to the Recycle America Recycling Center in west Oklahoma City, where it is processed and shipped to recycling markets. Goal: The goal is to have an upward trend in the amount of material that is recycled. Measure 26 - 33: The following graphs look at the City of Edmond’s Solid Waste and Recycling Program. 26 Average Percentage of Recycled Material25

30 Curbside Recycling Average Percent Participation Rate

27 Total Volume of Recycled Material in Tons

31 Percentage of Total Waste by Type

28 GHG Reductions MTCO2E from Recycling

32 Recycled Material as a % of Residential Waste Generated

29 Total Stops for Curbside Recycling

33 Recycled Material as a Percentage of All Waste Generated

Measure 26 - Average Percentage of Recycled Material (CY 2008 – 2011)

3%

5%

1%

24%

Newspaper Cardboard Aluminum Cans Ferrous Steel Glass

2% 1%

59% 5%

HDPE PET Other

25

The “other” category is made up of office paper, mixed paper, wood pallets, LDPE, and mixed plastics. These were grouped together because of their relatively small quantities. HDPE is high-density polyethylene and consists of bottles, grocery bags, milk jugs, agricultural pipe, etc. PET is polyethylene terephthalate and consists of mostly soft drink bottles. LDPE is low density polyethylene and consists of plastic bags, 6 pack rings, and various containers, as well as dispensing bottles. These are not all-inclusive lists. The symbols are used primarily for the efficient separation of different polymer types in the recycling process.

35 | P a g e


Measure 27 - Total Volume of Recycled Material in Tons (CY 2008 – 2011) 3,500 3,051

2,970

3,000

2,890 2,537

2,500 2,000 Volume Collected in Tons

1,500 1,000 500 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

Measure 28 - GHG Reductions MTCO2E from Recycling (CY 2008 – 2011) 8,000 7,000

6,960 6,588

6,380

6,000

5,401

5,000 4,000

GHG Reductions

3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

36 | P a g e


Data Provided by WM Recycle America OKC Recycling Benefits for the City of Edmond

Measure 29 - Total Stops for Curbside Recycling (CY 2008 – 2011) 580,000 563,781 560,000 544,041 540,000 520,084 520,000

Total Stops 499,793

500,000

480,000

460,000 2008

2009

2010

2011

37 | P a g e


Measure 30 - Curbside Recycling Average Percent Participation Rate (CY 2008 – 2011) 42.00 41.10 41.00 40.00 39.00 37.91

38.00

36.99

36.84

37.00

Average Participation Rate= # of Stops/Total Units Billed

36.00 35.00 34.00 2008

2009

2010

2011

Measure 31 - Percentage of Total Waste by Type (CY 2008 – 2011)

11% 8%

RESIDENTIAL TONS 48% COMMERCIAL TONS ROLL OFF TONS

32% OTHER COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER TONS

38 | P a g e


Measure 32 - Recycled Material as a Percentage of Residential Waste Generated (CY 2008 – 2011) 7.80% 7.75%

7.74% 7.60%

7.40%

7.41% Recycled Material as a Percentage of Residential Waste Generated

7.20%

7.07%

7.00%

6.80%

6.60% 2008

2009

2010

2011

Measure 33 - Recycled Material as a Percentage of All Waste Generated (CY 2008 – 2011) 4.10% 4.03% 4.00% 3.90%

3.90%

3.80% 3.72% 3.70%

Percent of Recycled 3.57%

3.60% 3.50% 3.40% 3.30% 2008

2009

2010

2011

39 | P a g e


Analysis: From 2008 to 2011 the total volume of recycled material has dropped off, and the total number of stops for curbside recycling has declined by 11%. From years 2009 – 2011 the average number of customers participating in the program is around 37%. There is no one clear indication as to why recycling participation has been dropping off in recent years. Evident from Measure 31, however, is that there may be significant opportunity to capture recycled material from the Commercial sector, where they represent 32% of total waste for the City. Important to note, too, is that according to Waste Management roughly 10% of all residential waste is yard waste, which we don’t currently have an effective way of removing from the waste stream. In 2011, approximately 33,665 tons of waste came from residential households. 10% of that would be 3,367 tons, which is greater than the entire amount of material recycled in the most productive year, 2008.

Action(s) Action 1: The City of Edmond Waste Management department and the Edmond Marketing department are

making arrangements for a new Recycle Marketing Campaign, beginning March 1st, 2012. Staff has also met with WM personnel to discuss ways of bolstering our recycling numbers, and there are discussions about converting the Oklahoma City processing facility to single stream. Single stream refers to a system in which all recyclables are mixed in the collection truck, instead of being sorted into different compartments, which may result in reduced costs and increased flexibility for Edmond’s Recycling Program, also allowing for more material types to be recycled. In the case that WM moves to single stream it is the City’s recommendation that 96 gallon bins replace the current smaller bins, beginning when the City’s contract is renewed in June, 2013.

Action 2: In 2010 a Composting Feasibility Study was completed by Coker Composting & Consulting. The scope of services included the following: feedstocks characterization, preliminary manufacturing plan market evaluation permitting requirements public participation & outreach

technology evaluation siting analysis facility plan a preliminary operations plan

Members on the project team had multiple years of composting experience and have worked all over the US. They were able to bring a realistic understanding of what has worked, and more importantly, what has not worked, elsewhere. The project boundaries that were established stated that it should be a City-owned and operated facility (i.e. not a privatized operation), that it needed to be a project that could be done for minimal capital costs, and that it provide enough flexibility so the City could expand it in the future if it chose to do so. The estimated added user cost to finance the design, construction, and operation of a compost facility was $1.16/month. To rent a 96 gallon container would be $3.80/month. However, due primarily to the up-front costs of this facility, Edmond has decided to implement the project in phases. The first phase will be a small green waste drop-off site and “low tech” composting facility. The original Feasibility Study by Coker Composting & Consulting was thorough, and provided invaluable insight to proceed with a composting project. Therefore, Coker Composting & Consulting has been retained to refine the Feasibility Study to incorporate the first phase. Their Scope of Works includes: update topographic study for site plan evaluation of available utilities finalize a site layout for the first phase

identify types and costs of needed equipment paperwork to obtain ODEQ permits

The Coker Consulting update should be complete by June 2012. Once that work is done, the City will determine how to move the project forward. The other municipal yard trimmings composter in Oklahoma is the City of Norman.

40 | P a g e


Urban Forestry Value: The City’s Urban Forestry department seeks to promote, preserve, and enhance Edmond’s regional urban forest and overall environment through active forest resource management. Historically, Edmond’s landscape has been densely covered by cross-timber forests, with trees such as post oak, blackjack oak, red bud, elm, hackberry, and the eastern red cedar. Over time, this historic “remnant” forest has shrunk due to settlement and the effects of population growth. Trees improve air quality, protect water supply, provide stormwater management, preserve biodiversity and wildlife, provide outdoor recreational opportunities, promote health, provide aesthetics, and create value on property. Goal: The goal is to plant more trees through Urban Forestry programs and initiatives than are removed. Measure 34: Number of Trees Planted and Removed

Measure 34 - Number of Trees Planted and Removed 350 305 300

275

250 200 163 150

131

124

91

100

70

50 0 2007

2008 Trees Planted

2009

2010

2011

Trees Removed

Analysis: In 2010, 48 trees were planted through Foster-A-Tree and 83 trees were planted in streetscapes. In 2011, the trees planted included 62 through Foster-A-Tree26 and 101 through Streetscape Plantings. Prior to 2010, all tree planting totals come from streetscape plantings. Records were not available as to the number of trees removed from previous years. Action: The Urban Forestry Department will continue aggressive planting strategies, including the promotion and enhancement of the Foster-A-Tree program, streetscape plantings, tree distributions, and partnership plantings. Additional efforts include improving the health of existing trees through tree care by volunteer groups, and the new maintenance worker position. These efforts lengthen the life span of urban trees, and also reduce outsourcing costs for the city.

26

Edmond's Foster-A-Tree Program enables residents to take part in caring for young trees in the right-of-way, provided they agree to water the tree for two years until it has established a strong root system and can fend for itself.

41 | P a g e


Park and Recreation Facilities Value: City Parks provide the recreational and aesthetic value necessary to the quality of urban neighborhoods. They also play a larger role, such as job opportunities, youth development, public health, and community building. Studies show that parks are valued even by those who do not use them. A park’s value to neighborhood quality is further reinforced by studies that find a statistically significant link between property values and the proximity to green space, including neighborhood parks and urban forested areas .27 Goal: The City Parks Department will continue seeking opportunities for green space and recreational activity. Measure 35: This table shows the current acreage for all public parks in Edmond, whether they are Community Parks, Recreational, or Local Neighborhood Parks.

Measure 35 – City Parks Acreage and Attributes NAME

PARK_TYPE

ATTRIBUTES

A.C. CAPLINGER SPORTS COMPLEX SERVICE-BLAKE SOCCER COMPLEX KICKINGBIRD TENNIS CENTER KICKINGBIRD GOLF COURSE MATHIS SKATE PARK J.L. MITCH PARK SPORTS FIELD PELICAN BAY AQUATIC CENTER BICKHAM SOFTBALL COMPLEX EDMOND PARK CENTRAL STATE PARK SPRING CREEK PARK SCISSOR TAIL PARK MITCH PARK BICKHAM-RUDKIN PARK E.C. HAFER PARK SHANNON MILLER PARK STEPHENSON PARK FINK PARK BROOKHAVEN PARK KELLY PARK GOSSETT PARK CLERGEN PARK CHITWOOD PARK JOHNSON PARK WHISPERING HEIGHTS PARK DAVID PENICK PARK CENTENNIAL PARK MEADOW LAKE PARK WESTBOROUGH PARK

SPORTS COMPLEX SPORTS COMPLEX SPORTS COMPLEX SPORTS COMPLEX SPORTS COMPLEX SPORTS COMPLEX AQUATIC COMPLEX SPORTS COMPLEX LAKE PARK/REGIONAL LAKE PARK/REGIONAL LAKE PARK/REGIONAL LAKE PARK/REGIONAL COMMUNITY PARK COMMUNITY PARK COMMUNITY PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK

NUMEROUS BASEBALL FIELDS SPORTS-SOCCER, NUMEROUS SOCCER FIELDS 12 LIGHTED TENNIS COURTS, INCLUDING A STADIUM COURT, PRO SHOP, CONC. AREA 18 HOLES, DRIVING RANGE, 2 CHIPPING GREENS, PUTTING GREENS, OUTDOOR PAV. SKATEBOARD COMPLEX BASEBALL FIELDS, SOFTBALL FIELDS, AND BASKETBALL COURTS SWIMMING, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF E C HAFER PARK LOCATED OFF MIDWEST BLVD MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITIES, JOGGING TRAILS MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITIES, JOGGING TRAILS DAY USE, BOAT RAMP, BEACH, DISC GOLF CAMPING-ELECTRICAL HOOK-UPS MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITIES, JOGGING TRAILS CONTAINS LAKE, GRASSY FIELDS, AND TREES ALONG THE CREEK MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITIES, JOGGING TRAILS PASSIVE PARK NAMED FOR EDMOND GYMNAST OLDER, LARGER PARK WITH TENNIS, PAVILION OLDER, LARGER PARK WITH NATURAL BEAUTY HEAVILY WOODED. ADJACENT TO CREEK PLAYGROUND HAS BASKETBALL COURT AND PECAN TREES SMALLEST PARK OLDER, LARGER PARK WITH PAVILION CLOSE TO UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA SOUTHERN MOST PARK, HAS PAVILION NEWEST “MEMBER” OF THE PARKS NAMED FOR DEDICATION OF STATEHOOD HAS BASKETBALL, TENNIS, AND BACK STOP ADJACENT TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

TED ANDERSON PARK

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK

LARGE, OPEN SPACES WITH BACK STOP

TOTAL PARK AREA

ACRES 33.52 58.31 5.60 148.06 2.34 39.00 3.82 14.29 131.44 249.03 194.40 140.99 237.85 49.41 87.08 1.10 4.78 7.42 2.28 0.49 2.22 0.21 3.51 1.08 1.58 3.55 4.87 5.39 3.16 3.21 1439.97

Analysis: In the U.S., in 2007 the 60 largest cities averaged 16.72 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. 28 The 2010 census puts Edmond’s population at 81,405. Including all of the recreational facilities, the City of Edmond averages about 17.69 acres per 1,000 residents. Action: New Parks and Park Expansions include a new park and softball complex at the northeast corner of Hwy 66 and Post Rd. Also, the Service Blake Soccer Complex will be expanding to accommodate additional fields, and a Master Parks Plan has been commissioned by the City, and is planned for 2012.

27

Correll, Mark R., Jane H. Lillydahl, and Larry D. Singell. 1978. “The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space.” Land Economics 54(2): 207-17 28 The Trust for Public Land, Center for City Park Excellence, “Cities Getting Greener, But Not Fast Enough to Keep Up,” July 2008

42 | P a g e


Water and Wastewater Resources Water Resources Value: As Edmond’s population grows, Edmond’s water usage also increases. This is a common thread throughout most cities in the United States. To help ensure that our water supply is utilized properly, while recognizing the value of water conservation, it has become the goal of Edmond’s Water Resources Department to examine ways to reduce water demand. Edmond’s 50 year water supply plan29 calls for “Level 1” and “Level 2” conservation options. Other similar options in the plan call for “stormwater beneficial reuse” and “non-potable” reuse. The average annual yield for Level 1 and Level 2 conservation options comes to 2,240 acre feet per year, and 4,480 acre feet per year. That translates to 2,190,000,000 gallons per year that are called on to be conserved as part of the overall strategy. To put that number into perspective, the current 2011 annual production for Water Resources was 4,428,337,702 gallons. Conservation measures call for roughly 50% of the current annual production. The breakout of that water production in gallons is: Water Plant – 2,331,617,539; Water Wells – 1,987,214,163; and Oklahoma City – 109,506,000. The amount supplied from Oklahoma City in 2011 is possibly the highest figure ever received, according to the City’s Water Resources Superintendent. For Edmond’s Water Resources Department, landscape irrigation is the number one target for conservation measures due to the very high increase in summer time water demand. Edmond’s water demand is approximately 8.0 million gallons per day (MGD) in winter months. Water usage increases to nearly 20.0 MGD on average summer months. Goal 1: Reduce potable water demand, targeting landscape irrigation in summer time use. Goal 2: Increase community involvement in water conservation measures. Measure 36, 37, 38, 39, 40: Following are two maps that are an illustration of how landscape irrigation dramatically increases the amount of water demand. They show the increase in killogallon usage for the individual months of January and June, 2011. Measure 38 is a graph showing Edmond’s water consumption by Sector (City of Edmond, Public30, Commercial, Industrial, Residential), and measures 40 and 41 break out the water utility costs for City operations.

Measures for Water Resources Water Usage Increases by Areas and by Sector 36 Water Usage (Jan, 2011) Figure A 37 Water Usage (June, 2011) Figure B 38 Utility Water Consumption by Sector (2007 – 2010)

Water Usage Sector and City Costs 39 Total Water Utility Costs for City Facilities 40 Breakdown of Total Water Costs for City Facilities

29

50 Year Water Supply Plan, Camp Dresser & McKee, May, 2009 The “Public” Sector includes accounts for the City of Oklahoma City, US Post Office, Edmond Library, US Corp of Engineers, Edmond Public Schools, University of Central Oklahoma, the OK Dept of Wildlife, and the non-profit Edmond Community Action Agency. 30

43 | P a g e


Measure 36 – Water Usage by Areas (January, 2011) Figure A

44 | P a g e


Measure 37 – Water Usage by Areas (June, 2011) Figure B

45 | P a g e


Measure 38 – Utility31 Water Consumption by Sector ( FY 2008 – 2011) Quantities in Kilogallons 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000

2008 - 2,728,013 Total 2009 - 3,019,285 Total

1500000

2010 - 3,202,131 Total 2011 - 3,845,459 Total

1000000 500000 0 City of Edmond

Public

Commercial Industrial Residential

Measure 39 – Total Water Utility Costs for City Facilities $250,000.00 $219,822 $200,000.00

$152,947 $150,000.00

$140,079 COST

$107,372 $100,000.00

$50,000.00

$0.00 2008

31

2009

2010

2011

These sums do not include those property owners with a private well.

46 | P a g e


Measure 40 – Breakdown of Total Water Costs for City Facilities

Animal Welfare Arcadia Lake Project Office City First Building Community Image Convention & Visitors Bureau Downtown Administration Downtown Community Center Downtown Municipal Building Edmond Historical Museum Electric Substations Fire Gracelawn Cemetery Kickingbird Golf and Tennis Miscellaneous Other Mobile Meals Multi-Activity Center (MAC) Building Old Electric and Vehicle Maintenance Parks Pelican Bay Aquatic Center Planning/Public Works Building Police Facilities Vehicle Maintenance Water/Wastewater Xtimb Admin Building Xtimb Operations Building Xtimb Storage TOTAL

2008 COST $4,936.23 $282.76 $250.68 $12,539.8 1 $157.29 $666.51 $598.83 $457.61 $266.92 $407.99 $5,086.86 $129.36 $577.20 $621.42 $75.24 $2,023.26 $109.68 $41,775.3 1 $14,205.7 1 $576.58 $852.84 $3,426.78 $2,663.83 $342.32 $14,150.4 7 $190.72 $107,372. 21

2008 KGAL 1,105 63 5 2,838 36 131 106 109 37 32 918 17 136 60 18 397 0 8,235 2,937 100 174 758 645 58 3,240 14 22,169

2009 COST $5,747.28 $224.86 $330.93 $6,983.53 $342.74 $762.51 $614.88 $762.86 $238.67 $339.84 $11,753.9 4 $1,023.91 $1,761.10 $1,009.28 $98.04 $3,257.26 $109.68 $62,813.9 2 $14,683.3 6 $538.53 $963.44 $9,418.08 $2,537.40 $350.42 $13,199.3 2 $213.47 $140,079. 25

2009 KGAL 1,224 48 34 1,643 79 148 106 175 28 15 2,330 222 385 185 24 648 0 12,215 2,890 87 180 2,022 455 58 2,860 21 28,082

2010 COST $4,356.28 $201.91 $349.38 $9,759.45 $209.89 $701.71 $722.58 $640.01 $413.17 $604.39 $12,629.2 0 $582.51 $5,357.07 $1,074.78 $304.09 $2,733.21 $345.73 $51,688.3 4 $20,128.2 6 $647.78 $886.24 $6,826.28 $2,378.45 $387.47 $28,830.7 2 $188.37 $152,947. 27

AVG 08-10 $5,013.26 $236.51 $310.33 $9,760.93 $236.64 $710.24 $645.43 $620.16 $306.25 $450.74 $9,823.33 $578.59 $2,565.12 $901.83 $159.12 $2,671.24 $188.36 $52,092.5 2 $16,339.1 1 $587.63 $900.84 $6,557.05 $2,526.56 $360.07 $18,726.8 4 $197.52 $133,466. 24

2010 KGAL 892 41 38 2,371 45 129 126 143 67 73 2,449 115 1,115 217 71 515 53 9,305 3,936 110 156 1,412 385 65 6,060 13 29,902

2011 COST $6,654.04 $595.26 $390.77 $17,253.8 9 $626.27 $652.26 $1,060.07 $705.70 $329.95 $445.71 $11,946.5 5 $1,339.67 $6,440.73 $1,062.02 $124.10 $5,768.88 $118.80 $106,265. 48 $19,807.4 2 $679.79 $926.68 $3,998.34 $8,357.35 $414.10 $23,642.0 9 $216.30 $219,822. 22

2011 KGAL 1,319 118 41 3,241 134 110 181 146 49 34 2,158 273 1,280 177 28 1,103 2 19,858 3,714 106 150 798 1,505 64 4,771 18 41,378

% COST DIFF 33% 152% 26% 77% 165% -8% 64% 14% 8% -1% 22% 132% 151% 18% -22% 116% -37% 104% 21% 16% 3% -39% * 335% 15% 26% 10% 65%

Analysis: In 2011 a statewide analysis by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, titled the Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP), which considered all factors impacting Oklahoma’s water use throughout the next 50 years, predicted that future consumptive demands will put a strain on surface and groundwater supplies in most areas of the state.32 While water supply on a scale for the whole state is a complex issue, and in the OCWP a primary conclusion was the need to adequately fund new infrastructure, the City of Edmond can use its own resources to promote water conservation, and reach out to customers at the local level. For residential customers, Measure 39 shows a 45.29% increase in consumption from 2008 to 2011. The City government shows an 86.65% increase from 2008 to 2011, though the volume is about 2.9 million kgal less than residential consumption. High temperatures, for an extended time in the summer of 2011, and changes in water rates have contributed to many of the cost increases for FY 2011. Also notable, is a report currently being completed by the US Geological Survey (USGS), Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG), and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB). They are in the final stages of a study on the Garber-Wellington aquifer. This study is due to be published in 2012 and will define the actual limit for ground water withdrawal per acre of land. Currently, we can withdraw 2.0 acre feet, roughly 652,000 gallons, of water for each acre of land permitted by Edmond through OWRB. This maximum yield will very likely be reduced when the study is complete.

* The significant increase in Measure 41 for Water/Wastewater (335%) was due to a water main break at the Water Resources Breakpoint Chlorination Facility. 32

Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Executive Report, (August 2011)

47 | P a g e


Action(s) Action 1: Edmond’s Water Conservation Plan is aimed at conserving and controlling summer water use. The plan, which is in effect from June 1 to October 1, has four levels and is designed to keep the public aware of the level of conservation we need in order to have adequate water supplies for safety and public health. Level 1 is voluntary and the public is asked to use the watering schedule listed on Edmond's website33. When water demand is high Levels 2, 3, and 4 will be implemented as needed. Level Two indicates that the outdoor water schedule becomes mandatory, and charity car washes and flushing of fire hydrants become prohibited. For more information on each subsequent level, please refer to the Edmond's Water Conservation Plan.

Action 2: Edmond’s Water Conservation Program (EWCP) is still in Draft, though the Water Resources Department is moving forward with dedicated funds for this program for the next 5 years of that department’s budget. The program will consist of the following: Distribution of water conservation education and awareness material for adults, schools and group organizations

Sponsoring water efficiency rebates for installation of water efficient appliances

Providing outdoor water guidelines

Sponsoring a retrofit rebate program

Sponsoring irrigation sensor and controller rebates

Performing home and business water audits

Providing in-home water saving devices Measures will include the number of customers taking advantage of rebates and water audits, as well as the number of water saving devices and rain harvesting materials distributed by the City.

Action 3: Rain Harvesting and Xeriscape Demonstration Garden at Bickham-Rudkin Park At Bickham-Rudkin Park rainfall is collected via downspouts and stored for reuse in two large cisterns. Rain barrels and cisterns are typically used to store water for landscaping. Today’s rain barrels (e.g. the 40 gallon terra cotta barrel to the left) come in all shapes and sizes, decorative and plain. Promoting their use for residential irrigation will be an initial goal for the ECWP. The demonstration garden at the park uses signs placed around the garden area to describe the xeriscaping technique and provides several tips on water conservation and irrigation. 33

http://www.edmondok.com/index.aspx?NID=691

48 | P a g e


Wastewater Resources Value: Edmond’s Water Resource Department has also engaged for several years in the reuse of sludge from the Coffee Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. The terms “sludge”, or biosolids, may be used interchangeably. Sludge is the bi-product of the wastewater treatment process. It is produced via an extended aeration process and is further treated in Facultative Treatment Lagoons. The City utilizes agricultural reuse via land application for the biosolids disposal. Five points must be made: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

This methodology meets or exceeds all Federal, State and local requirements for biosolids disposal; Suitable land application sites are available in the near vicinity of the Treatment Plant; Local farmers are amenable to agronomic biosolids reuse as a nutrient source and soil conditioner; Biosolids reuse has proven to be an environmentally sound practice; and The agronomic reuse of biosolids is a cost effective methodology resulting in increased efficiency for the Treatment Plant, while providing a beneficial use for the biosolids.

Goal: Continue this practice, benefiting the City’s operations and local farmers. Measure 40, 41: Two measures demonstrate how this program is working. The first measure shows the total lbs of biosolids utilized per year from the wastewater treatment plant. Measure 42 shows the total number of acres where the biosolids have been applied. Measure 41 – Total lbs of Biosolids 6,000,000 4,919,477

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000 2,131,152

2,116,329

2,000,000 1,125,144 1,000,000

0 2008

2009

2010

2011

Total lbs of Biosolids

49 | P a g e


Measure 42 – Total Number of Acres where Biosolids are Applied 500 452

450 400 350

328

356

300 247

250 200 150 100 50 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

total acres

Analysis: The total lbs of biosolids used for agriculture reuse has increased by 131% from 2008 to 2011, and the number of acres increased by 38%. Action: The City will continue the reuse of biosolids from the Coffee Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, applying the technique where and whenever possible.

50 | P a g e


APPENDIX City Actions toward Better Efficiency and Conservation

Action: LED Lighting Replacements for Traffic Signals and Street Lamps ........................................................................ 5 Action: Energy Management Systems for Municipal Buildings ....................................................................................... 6 Action: Geothermal Energy for Municipal Buildings ........................................................................................................ 7 Action: T12 Lighting Retrofit for Municipal Buildings ...................................................................................................... 7 Action: Variable Frequency Drives and Soft Starts for Water Resources ........................................................................ 8 Action: Research Converting Other Municipal Facilities to Pure and Simple Wind Power............................................ 10 Action: Promote the use of the Pure and Simple Wind Power program ....................................................................... 13 Action: Edmond Electric’s Home Energy Audit Program................................................................................................ 14 Action: Smart Meters for Edmond Electric Customers .................................................................................................. 14 Action: Energy Efficiency Building Codes, Training and Equipment............................................................................... 15 Action: Edmond Electric’s Energy Saving Equipment Rebates ....................................................................................... 16 Action: Create a Vacancy Report to see opportunity for revitalization efforts ............................................................. 21 Action: Share Landuse Data with the Edmond Economic Development Authority ....................................................... 21 Action: Keep Inventory of Undeveloped Land and Sensitive Areas ............................................................................... 24 Action: Green Infrastructure Initiative ........................................................................................................................... 24 Action: Multi-modal Transportation ……………................................................................................................................ 28 Action: Intelligent Transportation Systems ….……………………………………………………………………….………………………..28 Action: Promote shopping in Edmond through Marketing and other Public outreach efforts. .................................... 29 Action: Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehciles (PHEV) ............................................................................................................. 32 Action: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)…………………………………….…………..…………..32 Action: The City of Edmond plans on expanding the Citylink service. ........................................................................... 34 Action: Recycle Marketing Campaign............................................................................................................................. 40 Action: Composting Study for Citywide Operations....................................................................................................... 40 Action: Urban Forestry continues Aggressive Planting Strategies ................................................................................. 41 Action: New Parks and Park Expansions ........................................................................................................................ 42 Action: Edmond Water Conservation Plan ……….……………………………………………………….……………………………………48 Action: Edmond Water Conservation Program .............................................................................................................. 48 Action: Rain Harvesting and Xeriscape Demonstration Garden at Bickham-Rudkin Park ............................................. 48 Action: Reuse of Biosolids from the Coffee Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant for land application ......................... 50 51 | P a g e


Sustainability Report

Natural Resources

Energy Management

Outreach

Economic Development

Built Environment

Waste Reduction

Transportation

Landuse

City of Edmond Planning Department Community Development Division 03/08/2012


2012 City of Edmond Sustainability Report