Author Archive

The following proposal will be pitched to the city commission Monday night.

Proposal for a Neighborhood Ombudsman in Traverse City

Function of an Ombudsman

 An ombudsman is a person within an organization whose job is to advocate for the organization’s constituents. The word ombudsman is a Swedish word meaning, “representative of the people.” Many state and local governments have ombudsmen, and many of the most enlightened and progressive companies have them. That is especially true of companies whose success depends on their relationship with the public.

 An ombudsman in city government advocates for the needs and concerns of city residents, solves problems, and investigates and resolves residents’ complaints. An ombudsman can improve the relationship between the residents and the city because the residents have someone inside the government whose role is to champion their interests.

 City commission members can and will do this to some extent, and frankly it is the most well-received thing we do. However, there are limitations in the city charter as to how we interact with employees, and our status as policy-makers does not position us to be the most effective or helpful advocates within the organization.

 The Ombudsman Idea in Traverse City

 The Residential Retention Task Force called for the creation of a neighborhood ombudsman 20 years ago:

 City staff members were extremely helpful and responsive in providing information to the Task Force, and their dedication is greatly appreciated. It is recommended, however, that local residents would benefit from the creation of a neighborhood ombudsman or community affairs contact person, perhaps as a revised responsibility of an existing staff person. Such an individual would function primarily as a source of information, referral, and follow-up for citizen issues and inquiries.

The past two years we had a part-time Community Development office. The CDO focused on things like film, industrial abatements, brownfield projects, and corridors. The ombudsman would be an advocate for city resident matters in the way the CDO focused on commercial matters. Creation of an ombudsman does not foreclose the commission from revisiting the CDO in the future – the two jobs fulfill different functions.

 Matters that would have, or still could, benefit from an ombudsman include:

• neighborhood signs,
•  street parking in the Boardman neighborhood,
•  railroad cars taking up residence at Lake Ridge,
•  traffic management and park development in Old Town,
•  the Traverse Heights neighborhood watch proposal,
•  the Slab Town effort to restore some beach space at the end of Elmwood Avenue,
•  advancing projects under the new traffic calming program,
•  walkable winter school routes,
•  Orchard Heights’ effort to improve Clancy Park,
•  concerns about the Tabu Lounge,
•  problem rentals in various neighborhoods.

Types of Ombudsmen

 There is a U.S. Ombudsman Association that has a lot of research available on how ombudsmen work. Their website is http://www.usombudsman.org/. They recommend periodic reporting by the ombudsman to the legislative body (the city commission). This makes the commission aware of residents’ concerns, what is being done to address them, and provides the opportunity to ask questions.

 There are two basic types of ombudman: legislative and executive. According to Michael Mills, Ombudsman of the City of Portland, Oregon, the executive ombudsman works for the government’s chief executive officer. While an executive ombudsman can operate in an independent manner, Mills writes that the public tends not to view the official as independent. The materials one can read on ombudsmen all suggest that independence and impartiality is a crucial feature of an ombudsman.

 The legislative ombudsman acts on behalf of the legislative body, and is independent of the rest of the administrative organization. Mills states that the ombudsman must also not be overly controlled by the legislative body, again to provide for a measure of independence and impartiality.

 Options for the Commission

In consulting with the City Attorney, there would seem to be three potential ways in which an ombudsman could be created in Traverse City:

(1) A new position within the administrative staff who is appointed by and works for the City Manager. This would be an executive ombudsman.

(2) A position created by the city charter by a vote of the people that is appointed by the City Commission. This would be a legislative ombudsman. Because it would be embedded in the charter, and approved by a vote of the people, this would be a strong version of the legislative ombudsman.

(3) A contract person hired by the City Commission to assist the commission in the carrying out of its duties. A similar process was envisioned for the management audit proposed as part of COFAC, but that never went forward. This would be a weaker version of the legislative ombudsman because it would not have the mandate of a vote of the people, and because it could be dropped by the commission at any time.

Karrie has suggested model language for the charter amendment:

The City Commission may appoint a City Ombudsman for a term determined by the City Commission who shall hold office at the pleasure of the City Commission. The City Ombudsman shall investigate complaints brought against City officers and employees and shall provide advocacy for residents of the City in their dealings with the City. Findings or recommendations of the City Ombudsman with respect to employees in the administrative service shall be dealt with by the City Manager pursuant to the City Manager’s authority under this Charter. Notwithstanding any provision in the Charter to the contrary, the City Ombudsman shall receive such salary or compensation as may be fixed by the City Commission.

I generally like this language, with three minor suggestions:

 (1) Call it a neighborhood ombudsman. That was what the residential retention task force called it, and it sounds more accessible.

 (2) Emphasize the resident advocate role over the investigation of complaints. The resident advocate role would be the primary job and the main reason for doing this.

 (3) Be clear that any complaints that would be investigated would be those brought by city residents. The job is to serve residents.

Funding

Karrie’s language makes clear that funding of the position is at the discretion of the City Commission. That is important because it would give the commission options such as part-time or contract.

 Funding would need to be found. A possible source could be if we began to contract or re-set the base of the DDA as part of our TIF evaluation, a portion of those funds could be used for this position. Another option is if real estate values begin bouncing back in the city, a portion of the revenue could be allocated to this position.

Other Cities

A casual search reveals ombudsmen both in large and small cities. Examples of large cities include:

• Portland, OR
• Minneapolis, MN
• Boise, ID
• Anchorage, AK
• Toronto, ON, Canada

Examples of medium size cities include:

• Charleston, SC
• Vancouver, WA
• Provo, UT
• Hampton, VA

Examples of small cities include:

• Harrisburg,PA
• Covington, KY
• Davis, CA
• Bisbee, AZ

Editorial Comment

In the last five years, I have noted that certain sectors have advocates within city government, or representatives who engage city government on a regular basis. These include developers, unions, industrial companies, and some non-profit organizations.

There is nothing wrong with these entities having advocates in the government or being regularly engaged with it. But it does mean that a lot of time, attention, and resources get focused on their needs. That is not insidious, but it should not be surprising, either.

An organization with 150 employees and almost 15,000 “owners” ought to have at least a part-time person dedicated solely to shareholder relations. Saying that owner relations is the job of every staff member is not really a good answer, because when everyone is responsible for doing a job, no one person has to answer for its success or failure. Everyone is responsible, and that would continue to be the case – but one person would be the focal point for delivering results.

The neighborhood ombudsman could fulfill this role in Traverse City. He or she could relieve some of this burden from other staff, could help coordinate responses to neighborhood needs in much the way the CDO did for commercial sectors, and could provide city residents with the go-to person in city government they have asked for.

The Division Street steering committee is a group of volunteer stakeholders along the Division Street corridor. It includes neighborhood representatives, businesses, and governmental units. They have been meeting for a year now and have made a list of recommendations for the city commission.

The purpose of the recommendations is to improve Division Street’s user-friendliness and accessibility with some simple projects to be undertaken after the current MDOT re-surfacing. The recommendations should be in front of the commission in August. Thanks to the committee members for their good work.

Recommendations for Division Street

 OBJECTIVE:  To change the character of Division Street to create a City Street that is: 

a)      safer for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians to share, travel along, and to cross

b)      better fits the context of the city and its neighborhoods

c)      unites the east and west sides of the street, and

d)      creates the environment and driver behavior to insure that traffic speeds will be reduced to 30mph.  This must be a demonstrable requirement.

 1.      Improve the sense of a neighborhood atmosphere to slow vehicles:

a.       Plant vegetation and trees to create a canopy and more closed-in feeling.  

b.      Add streetscape designs such as sitting areas and art to let people know that they are in a city.

c.       Change the lighting from “highway lighting” to lower and less intensive “pedestrian lighting” that is contextual with what is typical in the surrounding neighborhoods.

d.      Enhance the sidewalks along the corridor so that pedestrians can feel safe while walking as with any other city street. 

e.       Use more direct feedback such as:

                           i.      permanent radar speed signs that tell you when you are traveling too fast and also give positive feedback when travelling at or below limit.

                           ii.      Extensive and comprehensive educational campaign (PSA’s, banners, brochures, community leaders, etc.)

                           iii.      More visible police speed limit enforcement

 2.      Use the Complete Street concept to include bicycle and pedestrian users in the design: 

a.       Enhance the trail that runs along the west side of Division, particularly from 8^th to 11^th to be more like it is between 11^th and 14^th. Use the TART and CCCC Safety and Education Team in the planning effort

b.      Improve and connect sidewalks on both sides of the street where possible.

 3.      Clearly define the transition from suburban arterial to City Street:

a.       Install elements at and/or south of 14^th and Division to define its sense of place as you approach the intersection. 

b.      Establish the intersection of 14^th and Division as the gateway to the city with a feature/sign/monument to identify that you are coming into a special place. 

 4.      Build intersection design alternatives at important locations:

City Planning must revisit the goals for the Division Street Corridor and if roundabouts at several intersections are the desired change, some thought needs to be given to future land acquisition and development.  Properties, such as at Front and Division, need to be preserved by the city now for future construction.

a.       Pursue a comprehensive study of a roundabout at 14^th and Division as phase 1.  This will be an important step in defining the transition described in item 3.

b.      Pursue a comprehensive study of roundabouts at Grandview, Front, 7-8^th street area, and 11^th with adequate design provisions to protect the adjoining neighborhoods

 5.      Enhance the area-wide transportation network to give motorists options to Division:
Explore options to create a more user-friendly atmosphere for city residents, including boulevards, roundabouts, and ways to move cars out of and around the City.

a.       All efforts need to be made by the city to work with regional agencies and governments to maintain and enhance the transportation grid network.

b.      Provide traffic calming and other measures to prevent and manage improper spillover onto neighborhood residential streets.

 6.      Change the name of Division Street

The name “Division Street” denotes a sense of dividing one area from another.  The goals of this committee include uniting the neighborhoods and giving visitors and residents a sense of place that says, “When you are in Traverse City, you are someplace special.”  Rename the street to reflect the new vision of the city to also include the Commons and the parks that are west of Division.  Consider a public nomination contest to rename Division St.

 7.      Provide an improved and safer pedestrian crossing at Grandview Parkway and Division Street.

The pedestrian crossings at Grandview Parkway and Division Street continue to be dangerous to pedestrians, with many reports of “close calls” due to motorists turning despite pedestrians crossing with the “walk” signal.  The move of the north-south crossing to the east side of Division St has not solved the original safety issues.  Better separation of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts must be considered.

 Division St. Steering Committee - Mike DeVries and Fred Schaafsma, co-chairs

* Coming tomorrow – the neighborhood ombudsman

Thank you for coming out on this beautiful day.  Thank you Governor Milliken for being here and for supporting this project by your association with it.  On behalf of the City, I want to acknowledge our friends at DTE Energy. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues on the parks and recreation commission, planning commission, city commission, and the city staffers who worked so hard to make this project a reality. I also want to thank the National Cherry Festival for welcoming us into the festival, I see members of the board and staff here.

 For as long as humans have occupied this area, we have focused our attention and our lives’ activities on this bay. 

 The native Anishnaabek people first came here at the end of the last Ice Age. They camped in the woods along the ancient shoreline and drew sustenance from the water.  We know from a nearby archaeological site that they did this more or less continuously for 11,000 years.  Their political descendants, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, are actively engaged in the use and stewardship of the bay today.

In the 1700s, French Voyageurs named the bay La Grande Traverse – the long crossing – and plied the waters for fur bearing animals and traded with the native people here. The name was a good one, because it stuck.

In 1847, Captain Boardman purchased land at the mouth of the river that now bears his name. He built a lumber mill that Perry Hannah soon purchased and built a company town focused on sawing logs along the waterfront and shipping them out over the lakes.  After the great Chicago fire of 1871, the mills expanded and our waterfront was busy for years supplying material to rebuild that city.

Once the trees were gone the mills gave way to fruit processing and manufacturing. Decades later, as those factories began to phase out, something extraordinary happened. 

Community leaders began to to look upon that industrial waterfront and to see not what it was but what it could be decades hence.  They began acquiring lands along the shore as they became available.  They envisioned a waterfront that was cleaned up, and open once again to the people.  More than once they went to the residents for financial support, and each time the people voted in favor of the acquistions. 

The last piece fell into place in 2004, when the residents of Traverse City and Garfield Township voted to tax themselves to acquire the old Smith Barney property. The office building came down soon after, and the waterfront was open to the people in an unbroken stretch from the mouth of the river where Captain Boardman built his sawmill all the way to the Leelanau County border.

Two years later, the city closed the Clinch Park zoo.  The property where we are now standing became under-utilized and its future was unknown.  Into that gap stepped Rotary Charities.  Working in partnership with the city, they convened the Your Bay, Your Say process.  They brought in landscape architecture students from UM and MSU to chalkboard some ideas.  They held public forums and considered all manner of possible designs and uses.  They used hundreds of participants to plan the future of the waterfront as something befitting Traverse City. Mike Jackson was the chair of the bayfront planning committee and is now the chairman of our Downtown Development Authority, and he and the other volunteers worked hundreds of hours on the process.

 We took the Your Bay, Your Say report off the shelf in November 2009 and decided we were going to get something done. We started with $100,000 from the DDA to do the preliminary engineering sufficient to apply for grants.  That idea came from the chairman of our Parks and Recreation Commission, Nate Elkins, and we put the parks commission in charge of the project, with help from Mike, city commissioner Jim Carruthers, and planning commissioner Jennifer Jaffe. They worked with the consultants to design the project and took the designs out to the public and the neighborhoods.

 Once we had the engineered designs we went out to the funders for Phase I of the project.  Phase I was for the old zoo property and for Clinch Park beach – the center of our waterfront and one of our most widely enjoyed beaches.  Plans included a children’s natural play area, a rebuilt beach house, canoe and kayak launch, universal access to the beach and boat ramps, a wider trail, ice skating, splash pad, concessions, and the re-routing of an artesian spring that currently empties out of a pipe into the marina as a water feature that would meander through the site. 

 The DDA committed $450,000 to support a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant. For those who don’t know, the trust fund was established using oil and gas revenues from state land to help local governments purchase recreational property and improve parks. That great idea was  signed into law by Governor William G. Milliken, who his first year in office called the preservation of our environment the critical issue of the 1970s, and who called for creation of the trust fund in his 1976 State of the State address. 

 With $900,000 in hand from the DDA and the Trust Fund, Rotary Charities and the Oleson Foundation went out to local funders proposing a collaborative process in which each foundation would make a contribution to Phase I of the Bayfront Project.  The local funders rose to the occasion, creating a partnership effort that was the first of its kind in Michigan.  With their contributions the total raised reached up over $1.2 million.

 One funder we had not heard from yet was the DTE Energy Foundation.  I guess that is because they were saving the best for last.  Recently they contacted the city and said they would donate $150,000 to the children’s stream and they wanted to name it after Governor Milliken. I just about fell out of my chair.

 Every setting needs a center piece, every crown needs a crown jewel, and this stream is going to be ours.  It received the top reviews from the public during the preliminary engineering public process.  It will provide a place for kids to play as part of the natural area and a pleasant environment for their parents to watch them.  In the winter we can use it for ice skating. 

 My friend Gary Howe, who serves on parks and rec, articulated the goal better than I ever could – he said:

 Design a place neat enough to provide comfortable access and messy enough to provide for adventure and dragon habitat.

I had the opportunity to discuss with Governor Milliken the naming of this feature after him. I told him that – having been a part of this project – I was proud to think that our efforts would be associated with him.  I think it helps fulfill the vision our leaders had decades ago when they began obtaining these properties for the people, and I think it will be a source of pride, education, and fun for decades to come.

A group led by TC resident Paul Nepote has turned in signatures to put the city’s non-discrimination ordinance on the November ballot. The signatures still need to be reviewed but there appear to be enough of them.

I supported the non-discrimination ordinance at the city commission and I will support it with my vote as a city resident in November. My reasons were here: http://planfortc.com/2010/08/07/protecting-the-rights-of-everybody-august-8/

Despite the potential for controversy, getting an issue decided directly by the voters is never a bad thing.  I do hope residents will remember the two predictions made by opponents of the ordinance last summer and fall:

1. that it would drive away business from Traverse City

2. that the city would persecute people for their religious or personal beliefs.

It’s been 9 months since the ordinance went into effect.  The complete failure of these predictions to come true is really worth thinking about. 

I’m sure more discussion will follow in the months to come.

Elmwood St rebuilt with narrower width, new sidewalk and traffic calmed intersection -part of the rebuild used water/sewer funds

In the late fall of 2009 the city manager and I discussed a plan to devote more resources and effort to grant-writing. The idea was inspired in part by comments to this site by John Snodgrass and Matt McDonough about the bayfront plan.

At that time, there were already grant writing efforts underway in TC but this represented an increase in focus and emphasis. The city commission embraced and supported the strategy. There were three reasons for it: 

One, there are many quality projects in the Traverse City queue that could enhance our community if we could fund them.

Two, at the time we started it in 2009,  economic forecasts said our local revenues were going to be flat or down, and a greater emphasis on grants was the only viable strategy for increasing the capital and operating dollars we had to work with.

Three, for all the divisive issues the city deals with this was an effort almost everyone could get behind. It offered boards and staff the opportunity to work on legacy projects in addition to the day-to-day business that consumes so much time and energy. It was responsive to the valid concern about city tax dollars often being spent in ways that benefitted the larger community, by bringing some money from the larger community into the city. And many of the grants were made possible through partnerships with stakeholders in the broader community. 

The city recently compiled a list of grants received over the past fiscal year. The city’s total was over $4 million. Highlights in round numbers include:

• 8th St master plan demo project – $100,000 from the U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development for design, engineering and data collection. Info on the project is here: http://planfortc.com/2011/03/31/8th-st-master-plan-demonstration-project/
• Energy efficiency – $16,000 for efficiency upgrades at the wastewater plant, $73,000 for lighting, and $157,000 for partner organizations to do 420 neighborhood residential audits (the energy “sweep”). Info on the sweep project here: http://planfortc.com/2011/03/09/an-energy-sweep-and-the-tabu-lounge-closes/
• Police and fire – $136,000 in Homeland Security and other grants for equipment, training, and enforcement of drug and alcohol laws. 
• Century Inc. expansion – $750,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds that pass through the city for an expansion that will add 35 jobs to the company’s payroll.
• Brown Bridge dam removal – $1 million from the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, which will be added to over $1 million in federal funds obtained by the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and partner organizations for the project. More info here: http://planfortc.com/2010/12/02/another-1-million-for-the-boardman-river/
• Senior Center – $30,000 from the Grand Traverse Band for the Senior Center capital campaign.
• South Campus entrance – $664,000 in MDOT grants for the south campus entrance road to the historic barns and Grand Traverse Commons campus. (about $288,000 of this was money to replace the Grand Vision funds that were lost). More info here: http://planfortc.com/2010/12/19/snow-trash-and-the-south-campus-entrance/
• Bayfront plan – $450,800 from the MI Natural Resources Trust fund, and $452,500 from the local funders collaborative, for a total of over $900,000 of grant funding to which $450,800 of DDA match is added for a total of almost $1.4 million. More info on the trust fund grant is here:  http://planfortc.com/2010/12/01/money-for-the-bayfront/   More info on the funders collaborative is here:  http://planfortc.com/2011/03/11/more-for-the-bayfront-local-version/ The recent grant from DTE for the stream through the old zoo property is mentioned here:  http://planfortc.com/2011/06/02/more-money-for-the-bayfront-from-dte-for-the-stream/

One thing to note is that while the funding is in place, most of these projects have not been done yet – so we are in the next year going to start seeing the fruits of these efforts. 

Another thing to note is that we as a city have gotten good at convincing others that we are a good place to spend money earmarked for making quality communities.  When city planner Russ Soyring and I went to the Trust Fund meeting last November to pitch the bayfront project, MNRTF chairman Dennis Muchmore made a point of noting to the many other applicants that Traverse City seems like it gets more than its share of funding, but that’s because Traverse City always brings forward such quality projects that it would be hard to turn us down.

The success of efforts like these is a real testament to the work of city staff and volunteer board members, and it’s my hope that these kinds of efforts will continue after I leave in the fall.  It’s a strategy that’s working.

Later this week we’ll take a look at funds available internally within the city that could be used for placemaking, and how we could get started this year on more visionary upgrades to our neighborhoods and public spaces.

TCLP's energy efficiency spending 2009-2012 (click for larger size)

The city commission will take a second shot at approving the TCLP budget Monday night. This is a very important vote, for two reasons. One is is the resident dividend concept described a couple entries below on this site.  The other is a ramp up of energy efficiency spending.

The energy efficiency proposal has the potential to be game-changing. Passage of this budget would enable TCLP to save us money, keep more money in the community that we now export for power supply, and position us once again as the green energy leader in Michigan.

TCLP has been spending about what it is required to spend on energy efficiency by Public Act 295 of 2008 – the Michigan Clean Energy law.  The law refers to Energy Optimization, or EO, which is a combination of energy efficiency incentives, conservation measures, and activities to manage peak demand on the utility’s system (also called load management).

In FY 08/09, the utility spent $170,000 on its EO program which was about 0.6% of its revenues, and exceeded the 0.3% energy savings target mandated by the new law by a fair margin.  EO program spending went up to $275,000, or 1.0% of revenues, in FY 09/10 to meet a higher target of 0.5% energy saved under the new law, and again TCLP exceeded the target. In FY 10/11, TCLP spent about $391,000, or 1.3% of revenues, on its EO program to again meet a higher target under the law.

This year, TCLP proposes to spend $526,000 to meet this year’s energy savings target under the law, plus another $500,00 for Increased Energy Optimization Efforts, for a total of $1,026,000 in energy efficiency spending, which would be 3.1% of the utility’s revenues and would be an unprecedented commitment for a utility in Michigan.  This proposed budget would, on a pro rata basis, make TCLP the state’s leader in committing its resources to saving energy. 

What are they proposing to spend the money on?  A whole bunch of things. 

A lot more engineering goes into a good EO program than you might think.  Basically, the program consists of three elements – energy savings measures, determinations of what to spend on each measure to ensure that it gets installed and used, and a determination of how much energy is saved by each measure.

The measures are listed in a database kept and updated through an industry collaborative process at the MI Public Service Commission.  The database is called the MI Energy Measures Database, and you can find it here: http://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/0,1607,7-159-52495_55129—,00.html. (Click on 2011 MEMD master database)

The data base is a spreadsheet that lists categories of users (residential, commercial, industrial), measures that save energy, the amount to be spent on them (usually as an incentive to purchase), and the “deemed energy savings” that is projected to occur if they are in use. 

To use the simplest example, consider a residential CFL light bulb as the measure. The cost to the utility is the cost of the incentive for the light bulb. So if for example TCLP needed to provide a $1 coupon for each bulb to incentivize the customer to purchase it, the cost of the incentive is $1. The deemed savings is determined by taking the energy used by the “base efficiency level” (an incandescent light bulb) minus the energy used by a CFL bulb, over the lifetime of the CFL bulb.

That number is then adjusted by some value to account for the people who would have purchased the bulb without the incentive, for the fraction of the bulbs purchased but not installed, etc. The energy that could be saved by all the bulbs purchased with the coupon is the gross energy savings. The energy savings represented by the bulbs that are actually installed by people who would not have done so without the coupon is the net energy savings. The “net-to-gross” ratio is applied to the total savings of the measure to determine actual savings.   

In order to make the EO program work, the cost of the actual energy savings achieved by the measures must be less than the cost of generating, transmitting, and distributing the energy saved by the measures during their lifetime.  This is called the Utility Cost Test, or UCT.  The UCT is what people are referring to when they say studies show that energy efficiency investments pay for themselves at a rate of $3 in savings for every $1 invested. They are saying that the cost of generating, transmitting, and distributing the energy saved by the measure is three times the cost of the measure.

These calculations are reported as dollars spent per kilowatt hour or Megawatt hour saved ($ per kWh or MWh).  It is not a coincidence that this is the same way a utility measures the cost of generating and selling the electricity to a customer. The UCT test results show that if done right, energy efficiency is a very economic way to spend utility dollars.

The law states that the spending and the energy savings should be roughly proportional to the revenue from each customer class – residential, commercial, and industrial.  That means the biggest savings actually comes in the industrial class, because that’s where the energy is (and where the revenues are too).  This will be even more the case soon, because the federal Energy Independence and Security Act is going to begin phasing out most kinds of incandescent light bulbs next year, meaning that utilities will no longer be able to use CFLs to meet their savings requirements.  As mentioned earlier, an EO measure doesn’t “count” if the energy savings would have occurred anyway, which is always the case with government-mandated measures. 

The concept of paying in your utility rates the cost of providing yourself and others with incentives to install energy savings measures is surprising to many people when they first hear about it.  However, a good EO program gets you a few things in return. 

First and most obviously, it saves the money necessary to generate, transmit, and distribute the energy. If a utility was going to spend $100 to provide a given amount of energy, and the utility could save an extra 1% of that energy with an EO program that had a UCT number of 3:1, that means the utility would spend $99.33 to meet its requirements instead of $100. That’s because the cost of saving $1 worth of the total energy requirement was 33 cents.

It doesn’t sound like much but if you think about a municipal utility with a $30 million budget it adds up fast.  At the rate at which power supply costs are increasing, it will add up faster in the future than it does now. It also has other positive benefits.

One of those other benefits is saving capacity.  Capacity refers to the utility’s need to be able to supply its peak load (usually the peak occurs on a hot summer day due to air conditioners).  Utilities meet their capacity requirements either by owning the generating units to supply peak energy, by having a power purchase agreement with a generating plant that gives “dibs” on an agreed amount of the plant’s capacity, or by buying capacity like a commodity on the market. 

To participate in the energy grid, each utility needs to show the operator of the grid (Midwest Independent System Operator, or MISO) that it has enough capacity to meet its projected summer peak plus a “reserve margin” of perhaps another 10%.  While capacity is cheap now, it is not going to stay cheap. Detroit Edison for example projects the cost of capacity in a few years to be over 300 times what it is now (not going up 300%, going up over 300 times its present cost).  An EO program that saves an additional 1% of energy per year will reduce the utility’s capacity requirement by an additional 10% in 10 years. 

Finally, there is a local vs. out of state component that favors increasing EO spending.  TCLP currently spends about $21 million in power supply costs. These are pass-through costs, most of which represent the cost of coal mined in Wyoming and Appalachia, hauled by train to Michigan, and burned at power plants near Holland, Lansing, and St. Clair. 

If we increase EO spending, and thereby reduce our requirement for power supply, we are keeping more of our money here – by spending it on more energy efficient lighting, appliances, and commercial and industrial equipment, instead of on coal mines and railroad freight tariffs. 

Oh – and we also cut the emissions of carbon, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulates, and other pollution we are responsible for generating.

All of this happens only if the city commission stands with TCLP and supports this kind of innovative, green, and cost-conscious thinking.  The TCLP board has made some adjustments based on some good points offered by city commissioners and the public at the last meeting, but now it’s time for all of us to support this positive and bold new step.

We had a great turnout for the first TCLP budget discussion, but would appreciate hearing from you before or at the meeting if you believe in what our public utility is trying to do. You can also follow other TCLP happenings at Mike Coco’s blog, http://ourtclp.com/. These are great new developments, and we hope the community will embrace them.

The following was delivered at the beginning of Monday night’s CC meeting:

This fall I will not be running for re-election as mayor of Traverse City.

The effort of doing my primary job and this job for two years has worn me down. I’m tired, and in November I’ll be ready to go. I’ll be sad to go but I’ll be ready to go.

I have great co-workers and cases and clients and I need to put more energy there. Most important, I have a great wife Colleen, and we have our own plans and challenges, and I need to put more energy there.

I am proud to have served with this commission. I appreciate how each of you put yourself out there for really nothing more than the good of our city. I’m thankful for the work of the staff, Mr. Bifoss, and Ms. Zeits. I appreciate both of your steadiness, intelligence, and skill.

I am grateful for our volunteers on the planning commission, Traverse City Light and Power, parks and rec, human rights commission, DDA, and others. I have appreciated the many communications from residents during my five years in city government. I’ve appreciated your support when you agreed with me, and the empathetic manner of most of your criticism when you’ve disagreed.

I’m proud of the things we’ve done together: $1.5 million raised for the bay front, funding for streets and sidewalks, an ordinance that protects everyone’s civil rights, reclaiming our city beaches and near-shore waters, supporting affordable housing at the Depot and the Grand Traverse Commons, the traffic calming policy, and the recent millage relief.

The work of improving a community never ends, and we have much still to do in the next five months. If I had to pick just one accomplishment for the time remaining, I hope we will establish the neighborhood ombudsman. I will ask for time in July to pitch that proposal to you.

I want to close by encouraging others to step up and serve – as mayor, city commissioner, or volunteer board member. We have so many bright and talented people in our city I feel comfortable letting go, and confident about our future.

When my brother Mark and I were kids we watched Hockey Night in Canada on the CBC Windsor channel 9 every Saturday night. In the Montreal Canadiens locker room in the old Montreal Forum, inscribed above the door was a line from the World War I poem Flanders Fields. I always remembered it because it’s such a remarkable thing to have inscribed in a locker room:

To you, with failing hands, we throw the torch

be it yours to hold high once again

I’ve taken my turn and done what I could. Now it’s someone else’s turn. I look forward to the next five months, and then I look forward to hanging it up. I love this city, it’s been an honor to serve, and I am truly grateful for the experiences I have had.