Review of Sustainability Practices and Initiatives

Transcription

1 Washington County, OR Review of Sustainability Practices and Initiatives Appendices July 13, 2010

2 List of Appendices I. Audits and Reports II. Potential Audit Topics III. Sample Measures by Focus Area IV. Surveys of Cities and Counties V. Other Sources and References Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

3 I. Audits and Reports This study found examples of the following types of reports: Program, management, or performance audits. We found five reports prepared by an entity external to the city or county (public auditor or consulting firm) that seemed to qualify as performance audits in the traditional sense. These included reviews of a particular program (Metro s Waste Reduction and Outreach program) or sustainability strategies (City of Corvallis). Specialized reviews or reports. We found four reports that examined sustainable purchasing programs and results. Sustainability progress reports. These ranged from simple reports of initiatives that were implemented during a given year to reports describing performance against measurable objectives. Reports reflected the general sustainability goals or framework adopted by each reporting entity. Most of the reports we examined were both community and operationally-focused. Inventories and assessments. These reports documented each city or county s sustainability status or baseline as of a point in time, and were used to prepare for planning. For example, Montgomery County Township, Pennsylvania s sustainability audit analyzed greenhouse gas emissions and the use of water, wastewater, and solid waste disposal services by the governments and community residents and businesses. We also found energy audits and environmental audits. Sample reports are identified below: Appendices 7/13/2010 AI.1 Framework LLC

4 Sample of Performance Audits or Evaluations Performed by External Agencies Jurisdiction Title Audited By Focus A1) Alameda County, CA "Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board Five Year Audit Program Assessment, January 2008." A2) Corvallis, OR "Assessment of Sustainability Performance, Phase 1" and "Sustainability Recommendations", December A3) Metro "Sustainability Management: Focus Efforts and Evaluate Progress, February 2009" A4) Metro "Waste Reduction and Outreach: Shift in Strategy Recommended, November 2008." A5) Metro "Metro Environmental Audit and Sustainability Management System, June 2001." HF&H Consultants, LLC Zero Waste Alliance Metro Auditor Metro Auditor AXIS Performance Advisors Evaluation of member programs' attempt to reach the County's 75% waste diversion goal. Assessment of the city's sustainability efforts to date, with a focus on internal operations. Includes evaluation of organizational elements using ZWA's proprietary "SCORE" tool. Determine if Metro's sustainability efforts were strategically managed to achieve intended results and ensure cost-effectiveness. Determine if the Waste Reduction and Outreach Division used its resources strategically. Environmental audit of four facilities, with additional evaluation of sustainability management activities. Sample of Performance Reports Jurisdiction Title Focus I = Internal Operations C= Community B = Both Notable Elements R1) Clark County, WA "Environmental Quality Indicators 2008" R2) Marin County, CA "Operations Report: Measuring Progress Toward Sustainability", R3) Minneapolis, MN "Minneapolis Greenprint: Environmental Report, 2010"/ Minneapolis Living Well: 2009 Sustainability Report. B B Prepared by the County Auditor, but results were not audited. Organized by department, not focus area. Indicators and targets are not legally binding. Companion indicators were published in C Includes 23 sustainability indicators and 8 living well indicators, each with benchmarks and Appendices 7/13/2010 AI.2 Framework LLC

5 Jurisdiction R4) Multnomah County, OR R5) Portland, OR and Multnomah County, OR R6) San Mateo County, CA Title "Sustainability Report, 2004" "A Progress Report on the City of Portland and Local Action Plan on Global Warming, June 2005" Indicators for a Sustainable San Mateo County, April R7) Santa Monica, CA "Sustainable City Report Card, Fourth Annual, September 18, 2008" R8) Seattle, WA Seattle Climate Protection Initiative, Progress Report 2009 R9) Washington State Department of Corrections "Sustainability Progress Report Year Five, FY 2008." R10) Alachua County, FL Report on the Status of Sustainability in Alachua County Government, The Alachua County Sustainability Projects Ad Hoc Committee, R11) Corvallis, OR 2008 Sustainability Report: Fifth Annual, R12) Benton County, OR Benton County Sustainability Accomplishments R13) Mecklenburg County, NC Annual Report to the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners, Environmental Leadership Policy Implementation, September 2007 R14) Marin County, CA Marin County Final Indicators 2009 Focus I = Internal Operations C= Community B = Both B B B B B I B I B I C Notable Elements targets. Published annually. Presents and measures against the sustainable condition desired. Report card format, plus extensive web-based progress reporting. See also Good examples of internal measures. Report card format. Appendices 7/13/2010 AI.3 Framework LLC

6 Sample of Specialized Reports or Audits Jurisdiction Title Prepared By S1) Multnomah County, OR S2) Clark County, WA Counting Sheets: Multnomah County Paper Policy Progress Report 2007 Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Program, 2006 Annual Report Clark County Green Team Focus Paper procurement and usage Purchasing and procurement S3) King County, WA Environmental Purchasing 2007 Annual Report Environmental Purchasing Program Purchasing and procurement S4) Multnomah County/Portland, OR Sustainable Procurement Strategy: Progress Report City and County Purchasing and procurement Sample of Sustainability Inventories and Initial Assessments Jurisdiction I1) San Miguel County, CO I2) Fulton County, GA I3) Montgomery Township, PA Title Final Report: San Miguel County Sustainability Inventory, ICLEI, Inventory of Fulton County Environmental Programs and Recommendations for Improvement, Fulton County Green Team, December 19, Montgomery Township, PA Sustainability Audit; A Report Prepared by the Center for Sustainable Communities, Temple University, June I4) Olympia, WA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2008 Annual Report Sample Sustainability and Climate Action Plans Jurisdiction P1) Portland and Multnomah County OR Climate Action Plan 2009 Title Appendices 7/13/2010 AI.4 Framework LLC

7 II. Potential Audit Topics (See Appendix I for sources.) Topic Area Focus, goals and objectives Organizational Commitment Organization of sustainability efforts Regional Leadership Measurement & Evaluation Questions (Sources) - Is a commitment to sustainability incorporated into mission and value statements? Is sustainability clearly related to the organization s mission? (A2) (GFOA) - Have organizational goals been developed that reflect sustainability principles both at the jurisdiction-wide and departmental levels? (GFOA) - Have long-term goals been described by resolutions or other formative documents? (A3) - Are measurable short-term goals or objectives clearly identified? Are these tied to longer term goals? (A3) - Are goals and objectives achievable? (A3) - If appropriate, has the selected planning framework (Natural Step, Triple Bottom Line, for example) been successfully integrated into the organization s programs? (A4) - Does policy development support the environmental sustainability of the jurisdiction? (GFOA) - Is the organization committed to sustainability? Is this commitment reflected in organizational values, vision and strategy? (A3) - Are sustainability efforts organized to achieve desired goals? (A3) - Are projects coordinated and evaluated organization-wide? (A3) - Does the current sustainability management structure include sufficient authority, accountability, or control to direct sustainability efforts? (A3) - Do funding sources/constraints adversely impact sustainability efforts? (A3) - Were possible funding sources clearly identified? Was available funding maximized? (A3) - Is the organization effectively modeling sustainability to its larger community? (A3) - Is the County pursuing partnerships and collaborative working relationships with public and private partners? (R&O) - Do sustainability practices contribute to the efficient and effective use of limited resources? (R&O) - Do sustainability practices contribute to best practices, continuous improvement, and creativity? (R&O) - Are processes in place to routinely set priorities for sustainability improvements, monitor results, and institutionalize best practices? (A2) - Has a set of performance measures or metrics been developed? Are these routinely tracked? (A2) - Are measures project specific or overarching? - Do measures link to a specific goal or objective and strategy or group of Appendices 7/13/2010 AII.1 Framework LLC

8 Topic Area Planning (Strategies and Initiatives) strategies? (A4) Questions (Sources) - Do performance measures drive desired performance? (A4) - Are measures or metrics defined and normalized? Is the method for collecting data to support or calculate each measure identified? (A5) - Is the accountability for each measure clearly identified? Responsibility? - Are data available to measure performance? Are data valid? Reliable? - Is baseline data or data about performance prior to program implementation, available? (A3) - Have targets or benchmarks been established? - Are data maintained in a central repository or must they be re-created each time? - Is the County able to track expenditures for sustainability? Do current accounting systems facilitate tracking? (A3) - Does the organization monitor expected and actual results and use these in decision making? Are data being collected and used? (A3) - Are information management systems in place to support sustainability monitoring and evaluation? (A3) - Does the organization have a repository for basic metrics such as greenhouse gas emissions, energy and water usage?(a3) - Does the organization regularly report the results of sustainability efforts to management and stakeholders? (A2) (A4) - Does the organization report on sustainable business practices and goals in annual reports, budget documents, and other core communications? (GFOA) - To what extent has sustainability been integrated into the annual, operational planning process? Long-range planning process? (A5) - Are tools available to allow for evaluation of sustainability options? (A2) - Were costs and benefits and/or possible return on investment evaluated during the selection of strategies? (A2) (A3) - Do the selected strategies offer the biggest bang for the buck? Are expenditures related to the areas with the most significant impact on program goals (energy reduction, greenhouse gas emission reduction, for example) (A3) - Do departments, programs or facilities have control over resource use (energy, water, etc.)? (A3) - Have policies been implemented that encourage or require the use of products certified as sustainable and/or environmentally-friendly? (GFOA) - Have purchasing practices been implemented that support the procurement of sustainable and recycled goods and services, consistent with the jurisdictions financial plans and resources. (GFOA) - Does the organization promote the use of products certified by reputable third-party organizations? (GFOA) Appendices 7/13/2010 AII.2 Framework LLC

9 Topic Area Funding Budgeting & Accounting Comparative Information Outreach & Education Environmental Purchasing Questions (Sources) - Have sustainability principles and guidelines for facility and infrastructure been developed? (GFOA) - Have green building standards, such as LEED, been adopted for construction projects? (GFOA) - Has the organization adopted policies that promote sustainable business practices in governmental operations, such as fleet management, building maintenance, and parks and greenspaces? (These may be guidelines established by independent organizations.) (GFOA) - Have practices and procedures that reduce waste, carbon dioxide emissions, and reliance on non-renewable resources been implemented? Does the organization promote recycling and reuse; and minimize employee exposure to hazardous materials? (GFOA) - Have criteria been developed for funding sustainability initiatives? (A1) - Do funding sources create barriers to effective sustainability management and/or implementation of strategies? (A3) - How does the jurisdiction s tax structure affect its goals for a healthy economy, a healthy environment, and social fairness? (GFOA) - Do accounting mechanisms allow sustainability performance to be optimized as a whole, rather than on a department basis? (A2) - Does the budget process reflect sustainability goals and objectives, measure government performance in realizing those goals and objectives, and benchmark such performance against comparable jurisdictions and/or accepted standards? (GFOA) - Have financing and capital planning processes been developed that systematically identify future costs and allocate those costs equitably across generations? Are life cycle costing and similar analytical tools used? (GFOA) - Have strategies or interventions been evaluated using cost/benefit and/or life cycle cost principles? (R&O) - How does the organization compare with its peers on key sustainability indicators? (A4) - Are stakeholders educated about sustainability efforts? (A2) (R&O) - Is there a mechanism for stakeholders to define their expectations, priorities and concerns? (A2) - Have partnerships been formed with other government agencies and with private and not-for-profit sectors that promote sustainability? (GFOA) - Is there a purchasing policy related to sustainability? How formal is it?(a2) - Are purchasing decisions made on best value rather than low price? Do decisions consider factors such as life span, toxic materials, and social impacts? (S1) (A2) - Are suppliers selected based in part on their sustainability performance? (A2) - Are sustainability criteria included in contracts for services? (A2) Appendices 7/13/2010 AII.3 Framework LLC

10 Topic Area Culture Questions (Sources) - Are there mechanisms in place to incentive purchasers to make sustainable purchases? (A2) - Does the purchasing policy or practice call for end of life product management? (S2) - Does the organization have adequate staffing resources to make environmental purchasing work? (GPI Report) - Do vendors assist with recycling, training and reporting functions? (GPI Report) - Is there a culture of sustainability in the organization? (A2) - Are employees oriented and trained in sustainable practices? Is the sustainability vision clearly communicated to employees? (A2) - Are there incentives to employees for sustainable behavior? (A2) - Is sustainability included in job descriptions and performance reviews? (GFOA) - Does the organization educate and inform employees of the importance of sustainable practices and offer suggestions they can employ in the workplace? (GFOA) - Is there a culture of shared responsibility? Do employees, county residents, businesses and other stakeholders do their part? (R&O) Appendices 7/13/2010 AII.4 Framework LLC

11 III. Sample Measures By Focus Area Overview We found two primary types of sustainability measures in our sampling of reports and audits: - Sustainability indicators. More mature sustainability programs, including those in Seattle, King County, Marin County, San Mateo County, and Minneapolis Minnesota are identifying and measuring higher level sustainability indicators in the categories of environment, economy and social equity to determine if they are closing in on sustainability. These overarching indicators are linked directly to larger policy goals and the values of a community. They generally include environmental, social and economic trends (the so-called triple bottom line of sustainability evaluation). They are also known as headline indicators and sustainable development indicators. An example of an environmental sustainability indicator might be energy consumption per dollar income. Regionally, Sustainable Seattle is a leader in the development of sustainability indicators based on citizen s values and goals for its communities. Multnomah County has used a triple bottom line approach to quantify the environmental, economic and community benefits for each of its reported action areas. - Performance measures. These are the measures traditionally found in government settings, and are more likely to be found in reports about the sustainability activities of internal city or county operations. Within this category, we found: Output measures the quantity of a product or service delivered or confirm the implementation of a specific initiative or action. For example, Number of recycling brochures distributed to employees is an output measure. Outcome measures the degree to which a desired result is achieved. An example would be Percent reduction in the emissions produced by County fleet vehicles. In most reports, these were expressed as measurable objectives that contained a target performance and target date. (Reduce emissions from County fleet vehicles by 30% from baseline over the next three years.) Outcome indicators. Some jurisdictions use these to describe actions that are indicative of the likelihood of reaching a larger outcome. An example of this kind of indicator is: Percent of the City s eligible vehicles and equipment retrofitted with emission control technology. This indicator assumes that retrofits are desirable because they are known to lead to reduced emissions (an outcome), but does not directly measure the expected outcome. The following measures (or measurable objectives) were identified in published city, county, and selected state agency sustainability plans and reports. We included measures that 1) fit into one of the categories in Washington County s current evaluation plan, and 2) focused on internal or operational performance. In several cases, we included older and newer versions of measures for each jurisdiction. Where possible, we included stated or published targets for performance. AIII.1 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

12 Focus Area: Overarching Measures Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Multnomah County, OR Marin County, CA Clallam County, WA Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from County operations by 80% by Reduce amount of greenhouse gas emissions from County government sources (CO2 in tons). Target reduction is 15-20% by Reduce county government emissions (tons CO2) by building and sources such as transportation, sewer system, and solid waste. Pierce County, WA Reduce climate pollution - By 2020, emissions reduced to 1990 levels. By 2035, reduced by another 25%. By 2050, 50% below 1990 levels. Grow the clean energy economy - 25,000 jobs in this sector by Move toward energy independence - Reduce amount spent on imported fuel by 20% by Also shows percent of total each source represents. AIII.2 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

13 Focus Area: Energy Use, Efficiency, and Management City of Seattle, WA Multnomah County, OR Clark County, WA Marin County, CA Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Increase the energy efficiency of existing buildings by 20% (city-wide and internally) Reduce energy consumption by an additional 10% by Require all City and County construction projects to exceed energy code by 20-30% on new construction and 10% on retrofits. Purchase 10 percent of City government electricity load from new renewable sources by Percent of total power purchases that are renewable power. Achieve a 20% reduction in energy use by Total energy use countywide. Reduce total countywide energy use by 2% per year to achieve a 20% reduction by Per capita electricity use countywide. (Reduce consumption of electricity per capita through 2015.) Electricity use per employee in Countyoperated buildings. (KWh/employee) City purchases green tags for power generated at the Stateline Wind Energy Center and also generates its own renewable power. Multnomah County has specific strategies, including minimizing after-hours lighting, standardizing workspace temperatures, banning space heaters, requiring Energy Star appliances configuring computers to shut down at the end of the day, and converting to LED lighting. Clallam County, WA Conducted an energy audit to determine baseline energy usage per County building. Santa Monica, CA Reduce citywide energy use. Examines electricity and natural gas consumption. AIII.3 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

14 Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments San Mateo County, CA La Crosse, WI Reduce use of non-renewable fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) By 2025, reduce overall energy consumption within City facilities from 2007 levels by at least 25%. By 2025, at least 25% of the City s energy needs will be generated from renewable resources. Measure British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy consumed. AIII.4 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

15 Focus Area: Green Building Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Portland, OR The city shall incorporate green building principles and practices into the design, construction and operation of all city facilities, city-funded projects, and infrastructure, to the extent possible. Seattle, WA All city facilities and buildings over 5,000 gross square feet of occupied space shall meet a minimum LEED Silver rating. Marin County, CA Santa Monica, CA San Mateo County, CA La Crosse, WI King County, WA Number of certified Green buildings approved by CDA annually. Increase the number of LEED certified buildings in Santa Monica. Of buildings over 10,000 sq. ft., 20% should attain LEED Silver, 10% LEED Gold, and 2% LEED Platinum certification with the remainder categorized as Certified. All commercial/industrial construction projects over 3,000 sq. ft. must demonstrate LEED certification. All public projects over 5,000 sq. ft. must achieve the highest practicable LEED certification. The City will obtain LEED Silver equivalent ratings in all new City facilities including new buildings and major renovation projects. For all new construction, departments are required to apply LEED criteria in the pre-design and design phase of projects, and are encouraged to seek Uses LEED Green Building rating system, but adds supplemental criteria ( Portland LEED ) City s Sustainable Building Policy requires Seattle to develop an evaluation plan for measuring the costs and benefits of the policy. This objective applies to the city at large as well as city operations. AIII.5 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

16 San Francisco, CA Cook County, IL Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments the highest LEED certification possible. All projects greater than 5000 sq. ft. shall achieve a LEED Silver rating. All County buildings shall be LEED certified. Projects must receive a minimum of 8 credits in the Energy & Atmosphere category to ensure best lifecycle returns. AIII.6 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

17 Focus Area: Fleet Management/Alternative Fuels Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments City of Seattle, WA Reduce six largest city fuel users fuel consumption by 3% or 80,000 gallons in By 2004, 100% of the City s eligible diesel fuel vehicles and equipment will use ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) and be retrofitted with emission control technology. Reduce petroleum fuel use by 10% compared to 2005 levels by Ensure at least 90% of compact sedan purchases are clean and green vehicles by Transition all non-pursuit police vehicles to clean and green starting in 2007 and finishing by Purchase up to 4 medium-duty hybrid, pre-production trucks. Develop and implement an anti-idling policy for City and contractor vehicles in Include anti-idling language in contracts, as appropriate. Inform all employees who use city vehicles about policies and various fuel reduction strategies. City of Portland and Multnomah County, OR Purchase a minimum of 25 city and 5 county hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles with a fuel efficiency of at least 45 mpg. Mecklenburg County, NC Maintain a 100% low emission road fleet. Seattle is nationally recognized for its fleet initiatives and uses the Evergreen Fleets certification program. AIII.7 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

18 Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Marin County, CA Clark County, WA Clallam County, WA Washington DOC Santa Monica, CA La Crosse, WI Reduce gallons of fuel consumed by county-owned vehicles by 15% by Number of zero and partial emission vehicles with a fuel economy of at least 45 miles per gallon in the County Fleet. Achieve a 20% reduction in fuel usage by Achieve a 10% reduction in particulate matter emissions from diesel equipment by Number of commute miles per employee, by vehicle type Annual petroleum use (gallons) by type of fuel Number of vehicles by type in the fleet (hybrids, passenger cars, trucks & buses, heavy equipment) Vehicle miles traveled Vehicle miles traveled (used for all travel in the city) Municipal fleet s percentage of alternative fuel vehicles (nonemergency). By 2025, the City will consume at least 25% less fossil fuel for its transportation fleet. Clallam County developed an internet-based employee survey to measure employee commuting patterns. Employees were asked to provide their commute distance one way and to identify the primary vehicle and fuel type used in their commute. The County made assumptions about the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Vehicle miles traveled are calculated figures based on fuel purchased and average miles per gallon of the vehicle driven AIII.8 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

19 Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments By 2025, at least 25% of the fuel consumed for the City s fleet will come from renewable sources and alternative fuels. Mecklenburg County, NC Reduce average NOX emissions (g/mi) by 5% from FY 07. Maintain 100% low emissions on road fleet. AIII.9 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

20 Focus Area: Waste Reduction and Recycling Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Multnomah County, Oregon Mecklenburg County Marin County, CA Reduce the amount of garbage generated (in pounds). Reduce paper usage to achieve a 15% reduction in reams used from FY01 baseline. Achieve a 50% recycling recovery rate for County facilities in the short term; 65% rate by Metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions prevented by recycling and composting. Reduction in air and water pollution associated with extraction of materials and production of goods Recycle 20% of total waste stream from all County facilities. Match any increase in solid waste generation with increased recycling. Maintain a solid waste diversion rate (County Civic Center) of 7.5% or higher. Percent of County Civic Center waste diverted from landfills. Target: Maintain a diversion rate of 75% or higher. Multnomah County, OR Use less paper. Achieve a 15% reduction in paper usage from FY01 baseline levels. Recycling recovery or recycling rate is the amount of materials recycled (in tons) compared with the total amount of solid waste generated (in tons). Compares each county department s usage with baseline for each department. Measures recycled materials in tons, by type. Examine the use of 30%, 40% and 100% content; average the percent of recycled contentall purchases. Compare usage by County department. Convert reams to sheets to trees to greenhouse gasses. AIII.10 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

21 Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Washington Department of Corrections Tons of office paper recycled Total reams of office paper used, by type (virgin, 30-40% recycled, 50% recycled, and 100% recycled) Total cases of janitorial paper products used, by type Compare cost of recycled paper with cost savings related to reduced paper use. Mecklenburg County 100% compliance with proper disposal of fluorescent bulbs according to State and Federal guidelines. Achieve the EPA Energy Star award. Achieve 20% recycling of total waste stream from all County facilities (including County funded agencies) Clallam County, WA Conducted a baseline waste volume for each county building or facility. Alameda County, CA Waste diversion rate Diversion is the difference between generation and disposal. The diversion rate this difference divided by the amount of waste generated. Santa Monica, CA Waste diverted from landfills La Crosse, WI By 2025, the City will reduce the total amount of waste it generates by at least 25% and of the waste that is generated, the amount that is recycled also increases by at least 25%. Starting in 2009, the City will reduce its paper consumption by a target amount each year. AIII.11 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

22 Focus Area: Water Use Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Marin County, CA Santa Monica, CA Decrease potable water use by County facilities by 5% by Reduce overall water consumption per capita (potable vs. non-potable). Increase the percentage of water that comes from local sources. These are community-wide measure, but could be applied to city operations only. AIII.12 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

23 Focus Area: Environmental Purchasing and Procurement Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Washington Department of Corrections City of Portland and Multnomah County, OR Tons of office paper recycled Total reams of office paper used, by type (virgin, 30-40% recycled, 50% recycled, and 100% recycled) Total cases of janitorial paper products used, by type All paper products purchased by the City and County must meet US EPA s mandates for a minimum of 30% postconsumer recycled fiber content. Multnomah County, OR Use less paper. Achieve a 15% reduction in paper usage from FY01 baseline levels. Clark County, WA Buy paper with more recycled content. Increase the amount of recycled content in paper purchased to 50% or better. Buy paper that is PCF. All copier and general use paper products will be PCF free (processed chlorine-free) Mandate the purchase of reprocessed latex paint and/or low VOC paint (Green Seal) Purchase recycled antifreeze, oil products, retreaded tires and other recycled goods. Achieve 100% compliance for Green List purchased products by Meet EPA guidelines for copy paper, PCF Examine the use of 30%, 40% and 100% content; average the percent of recycled contentall purchases. Compare usage by County department. Converts reams to sheets to trees to greenhouse gasses. Compares cost of recycled paper with cost savings related to reduced paper use. Reports units purchased, dollar value of purchases, by category (office products, facility maintenance products, vehicles and vehicular products, transportation products, and landscape and vegetation maintenance products and AIII.13 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

24 Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Energy Star rated LCD monitors and duplexing printers Soy-based print shop inks Green Seal certified facilities cleaning products Bathroom tissue and paper towels meet EPA guidelines. Plastic can liners contain 10% postconsumer recycled product, by weight A minimum of 70% of ethylene glycol used in producing antifreeze must have been recycled. Use re-refined motor oil. Use re-refined universal tractor fluid. percent compliant with policy. Summarizes by green/non-green and compares costs and savings Converts paper usage to impact on trees, water, gasoline, air pollutants, and electricity. Santa Monica, CA La Crosse, WI Reduce 20 purchased hazardous product categories in volume. Measured by: The number of categories of city purchased products that meet established criteria. Use Green Seal certified cleaning products for high volume, daily use cleaning. By 2025 the City will increase the purchase of environmentally preferred products and services from their current levels by 50%. The City will reduce its demand for high impact products such as laptop and personal computers, wireless devices, personal digital assistants, etc. AIII.14 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

25 Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Seattle, WA San Francisco, CA Encourage and increase the procurement of recycled content products and recyclable products. Reduce use of persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals (PBTs). Preserve resources locally and globally through purchasing practices that include: (i) Maximizing water and energy efficiency and favoring renewable energy sources; (ii) Maximizing post consumer recycled content and readily recyclable or compostable materials; (iii) Favoring long-term use through product durability, repairability, and refuse; and (iv) Considering life cycle economics of a product that includes manufacture, transportation, use and disposal. Uses Life Cycle Cost Assessment to make purchasing decisions. Incorporates environmental, social equity, and fiscal factors into purchasing decisions. Seattle s green cleaning specifications were first in the nation and have served as a model for other jurisdictions. (Green Purchasing Institute Report) Specific objectives are tied to larger goals: Reduce occupational health hazards for City staff as well as reduce exposure of City residents and visitors to potentially toxic chemicals by purchasing products for use in City operations that do not harm human health or the environment; Reduce San Francisco's contribution to global climate change by purchasing products that lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from Commodities; Improve the air quality for San Francisco residents and visitors by purchasing vehicles and motorized equipment that minimize emissions of air pollutants; Protect the quality of San Francisco's ground and surface waters by eliminating the use of chemicals known to contaminate local water resources through toxicity, bioaccumulation or persistence. AIII.15 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

26 Focus Area: Transportation Multnomah County, OR Santa Monica, CA San Mateo County, CA Clallam County, WA Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Enroll employees in a transit pass subsidy program. (Currently, 65% are enrolled). Reduce weekly auto trips to downtown Portland by X%. (Currently, 20% reduction.) Reduce the average number of vehicles per employee. Vehicle miles traveled (used for all travel in the city) Reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips. Increase use of public transit. Number of commute miles per employee, by vehicle type County encourages employee transit use and provides transit tickets for business travel. Measure the Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) or average number of people traveling in a vehicle, of commuters. This objective does not specifically target City employees, but City employee AVR is measured and monitored. Examine the modal split, or different modes of transit used for transportation for both morning and evening commutes. (Verify that this is used internally.) These are countywide objectives. Electronic surveys of employees Washington DOC Vehicle miles traveled Vehicle miles traveled are calculated figures based on fuel purchased and average miles per gallon of the vehicle driven. La Crosse, WI City employees will reduce the amount of fossil fuel used in order to get to and from work. AIII.16 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

27 Focus Area: Pollution Reduction (Toxic Materials, Pest Management) See also Environmental Purchasing and Procurement Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments Marin County, CA Santa Monica, CA San Mateo County, CA Eliminate all class I and II pesticides from County buildings. Reduce risks associated with the use of chemical pesticides and toxic cleaning products. Reduce 20 purchased hazardous product categories in volume. Use Green Seal certified cleaning products for high volume, daily use cleaning. Eliminate herbicides and weed killers from use in city parks and dog runs. Eliminate the most toxic pesticides from use and increase the use of non-toxic management practices. This is a County-wide objective. AIII.17 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

28 Focus Area: Communication & Education Jurisdiction Objectives, Measures & Targets Methodology/Comments La Crosse, WI The City will work to ensure communitywide knowledge and acceptance of the Natural Step framework. This objective may be measurable; it is not clear how the City measures it. AIII.18 Appendices 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

29 IV. Surveys of Cities and Counties We relied on survey data to give us a picture of the categories and types of strategies most or least often implemented by jurisdictions. These surveys were: Sustainability Programs, Strategies and Tools Used by California Local Governments - A survey conducted by the California Sustainability Alliance of 76 California cities (16% of total) about organizational capabilities and initiatives. Local Government Efforts to Promote the Three E s of Sustainable Development ; A 2006 survey of 215 large cities in the U.S. (preliminary report) by the University of Texas at Austin. Green Cities Florida Municipal Sustainability Survey 2009 ; a survey of 100 cities in Central Florida. According to the California Sustainability Alliance Survey, recycling programs are the most mature sustainability programs in California. Sixty-five percent of responding cities have had recycling programs in place for five years or longer. Other programs in California are much less mature. The percent of cities who reported having no program (or a program for less than one year) included: No green building ordinance: 65%. No green building incentives: 67% No renewable energy program: 67% No composting program: 53% The 2006 survey of US cities revealed that 83% or more had adopted water quality protection, curbside recycling, infill development, neighborhood planning, open space preservation, and business retention, and youth opportunity programs. According to the survey, most cities have not adopted programs or activities related to alternative energy, ecological footprint analysis, green procurement, eco-industrial park development, or tax incentives for environmentally-friendly development. The survey also found that many of the activities in the social equity category are currently being performed by less than one-third of the surveyed communities. Green Cities Florida surveyed central Florida cities to find out about current sustainability initiatives. Over 50% of respondents had green building initiatives, a recycling program, and energy and water conservation programs. Appendices 7/13/2010 AIV.1 Framework LLC

30 V. Other Sources Surveys The Partnership for a Sustainable Washington County Community (PSWCC) Asset Map, Draft, 1/21/2010 prepared by Douglas Tsoi. This work in progress summarizes partner initiatives. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Local Governments for Sustainability annual survey of members, reported in Measuring Up Local Leaders in Sustainability Green Counties, by Brooks Rainwater and Cooper Martin, the American Institute of Architects and NACo, Survey of top 200 American counties by population. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) survey of its sustainability advisory committee members to identify the top sustainability issues facing members, reported in ICMA Management Perspective, October Support for Local Government Sustainability Programs, an examination of national, state and local government sustainability practices presented at the University of North Carolina. Other Resources Buying Smart: Experiences of Municipal Green Purchasing Pioneers, Alicia Culver, Green Purchasing Institute, May A Comparative Analysis of Sustainability Community Frameworks, prepared for the ICLEI by Thor Peterson, Synthesis Consultants, and September 14, Sustainability Reporting 10 Years On ; briefing paper prepared by the Global Reporting Initiative, October 18, Indicators of Sustainable Development: Proposals for a Way Forward ; discussion paper prepared for the UN Division for Sustainable Development, December Appendices 7/13/2010 AV.1 Framework LLC

31 Washington County, OR Review of Sustainability Practices and Initiatives Summary July 13, 2010

32 I. Overview On November 3, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners adopted a Resolution and Order formalizing the County s commitment to sustainability and establishing a sustainability program framework. The Resolution and Order defined sustainability for the County as meeting current economic, social, and environmental needs while ensuring that future generations can meet their needs. At the request of the County Auditor, Framework LLC conducted this review to compare Washington County s sustainability initiatives and practices with those implemented in other local governments. The review was also intended to help prepare the sustainability program for future evaluation and audit. Specifically, this review was designed to answer the following questions: 1) How have other local governments implemented sustainability initiatives and practices? 2) How do Washington County s sustainability initiatives and practices compare to those being implemented by other local governments? 3) How have other local governments evaluated the effectiveness of their sustainability efforts? What are other local governments measuring? 4) How should Washington County measure and monitor its progress toward sustainability? Initiatives and practices include strategies that have been implemented by the County as well as actions taken to establish the County s sustainability program. We conducted our research using published examples of sustainability resolutions, plans, reports, audits and measures. Where possible, we used examples from members of relevant regional or national organizations and surveys of cities and counties conducted by other organizations or firms. We compared our findings with Washington County s formation documents, initiative inventories and plans. II. Washington County s Sustainability Program While Washington County s sustainability program is relatively new, the County has been pursuing green or sustainable strategies for several years. The Board s 2009 Resolution and Order created a purpose and structure for existing and future sustainability activities and strategies. The County has established a central organization for sustainability within the Department of Support Services that includes a full-time Sustainability Coordinator and a Green Team consisting of representatives from each County Department. Through the efforts of its Sustainability Coordinator, Washington County has established a network of partners for the purposes of collaboration, sharing of best practices and future benchmarking. These include the Partners for a Sustainable Washington County (PSWCC), users of the Good Company greenhouse gas emissions inventory tool, and others. The sustainability program is featured on Washington County s web site. The program uses the site to educate employees and community members about sustainability and to provide information about strategies the County is actively pursuing. Summary 7/13/2010 S1 Framework LLC

33 III. How Do Washington County s Sustainability Initiatives and Practices Compare to Others? The County is following a path that many jurisdictions have taken to design and implement sustainability programs. To date, the County has: - Started to assess environmental, economic and social equity challenges within the County. In 2007, the County met with partners and stakeholders to recommend functions and structure for a community-wide sustainability organization 1. The County has identified the initiatives and strategies that are currently in place to address its issues. The County has completed energy audits of its facilities and plans to complete water audits and a greenhouse gas inventory. Comparatively, we found that 33% of the 600 cities and counties that are ICLEI USA members have completed their own sustainability assessments. 2 - Identified guiding principles and thirteen measurable objectives to serve as a framework for overall planning. Consistent with other jurisdictions, the County has established objectives relate to energy use, water use, waste reduction, recycling, renewable energy, fleet management, land use, transportation, education and outreach, water conservation, and pollution prevention. - Developed an internal sustainability work plan. The plan is a work in progress, since the County has not yet completed its assessment activities. Many counties and cities have developed plans to specifically address climate mitigation; Washington County has not chosen this path. Only 9% of ICLEI members have completed a sustainability plan; 20% have completed a climate action plan. - Established program infrastructure and implemented a wide variety of initiatives. As noted earlier, the County created a visible, central organization for sustainability. While many of the County s initiatives were in place prior to establishment of a sustainability program, they appear to be consistent with those used by similar organizations and identified by the ICLEI and others. - Began to identify ways to measure performance against the thirteen Resolution and Order objectives. Like many of its peers, most of the County s current activities are environmental in focus. The County has not addressed the other pillars of sustainability referenced in its Resolution and Order; namely, the economy and social equity. - County initiatives include commonly-implemented, mature environmental programs such as waste reduction, recycling, and energy efficiency. - The County s Department of Land Use and Transportation has implemented a number of important economic initiatives to encourage mixed use, transit-oriented and environmentally-sensitive development. We found no other economic initiatives in current sustainability inventories or plans. 1 January 2007 Sustainability Conference, commissioned by the Vision Action Network. The Conference and subsequent Feasibility Study resulted in the creation of the Partners for a Sustainable Washington County (PSWCC), of which Washington County is a member. 2 The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Local Governments for Sustainability reports information about initiatives and planning efforts of 600 member cities and counties in the US. Summary 7/13/2010 S2 Framework LLC

34 - The County s social equity initiatives and programs have not been addressed or identified in sustainability inventories or plans. - Few of the counties and cities we researched attempted to address each of the three pillars in plans or reports. Those who did included the City of Seattle (Sustainable Seattle), Clackamas County, Multnomah County, and the City of Eugene, Oregon. In the shorter term, Washington County has elected to plan for the sustainability of internal operations rather than the sustainability of the community at large. At some point the County will need to address the community-focused objectives set forth in its Resolution and Order. - The County has strongly embraced the Resolution and Order concept of demonstrating sustainable stewardship through its adoption of sustainable business practices for County operations. County leadership has recognized the importance of establishing baseline performance for County performance in energy efficiency, water use, recycling, waste reduction, procurement, and fleet management. - While the Resolution and Order contains community-focused principles and objectives, current County sustainability plans address only those objectives that are internally-focused. - According to its recent inventory, the County has implemented community-focused strategies related to energy efficiency, waste reduction, land use, transportation, water conservation, and education and outreach. It is not clear how (or if) these community elements will be included in future planning, or how they will be evaluated. - Many of the city and county plans we examined placed a greater emphasis on community-wide programs and activities than does Washington County. This could be a function of the age and maturity of other programs. Washington County has defined sustainability but has just begun the difficult task of evaluating progress in achieving it. The County has begun to identify ways to measure the effectiveness of its strategies in reaching ten of thirteen measurable objectives identified in the Resolution and Order. The County has not fully completed the initial assessment it needs to establish baseline performance or collected data to support ongoing measurement. Washington County s preliminary performance objectives and measures appear to be consistent with those used by other cities and counties. However, - The County has not identified overarching goals or primary outcomes for its sustainability efforts, making it difficult to assess the overall impact of County sustainability activities. We found that more mature sustainability programs are identifying and measuring higher level sustainability indicators to determine if they are achieving sustainability. Without monitoring progress against a primary outcome or some higher-level indicators it may be difficult for the County to make the case that it has achieved the benefits of sustainability described in its Resolution and Order. - According to our limited sample, cities and counties are including measures of efficiency with measures of effectiveness and are emphasizing cost savings associated with sustainable actions. Washington County has established an objective to realize economic and resource savings in its building and landscape Summary 7/13/2010 S3 Framework LLC