Washington County, OR firm that helps clients to ... evaluate the local government and its community...

Washington County, OR

Review of Sustainability Practices and Initiatives

Findings and Recommendations July 13, 2010

Review of Sustainability Practices and Initiatives Framework LLC Findings & Recommendations 7/13/2010

Review of Sustainability Practices and Initiatives Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1

A. OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................... 1 B. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 1 C. WHAT IS “SUSTAINABILITY”?................................................................................................................ 2

II. WASHINGTON COUNTY’S SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM .............................................................. 3

III. COMPARISON OF SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMS & PRACTICES................................................ 4

A. ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 4 B. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................... 5 C. PLANNING .......................................................................................................................................... 6 D. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................... 8

IV. SUSTAINABILITY MONITORING & EVALUATION ......................................................................... 12

A. SUSTAINABILITY AUDITING AND REPORTING ....................................................................................... 12 B. MEASUREMENT ................................................................................................................................ 12 C. COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND MEASUREMENT, BY TOPIC .................................... 14

V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ONGOING EVALUATION .................................................................. 20

A. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ................................................................................................................. 20 B. SUGGESTIONS FOR THE COUNTY’S PROPOSED EVALUATION/MEASUREMENT PLAN ............................. 21

Review of Sustainability Practices and Initiatives Page 1 of 26 Findings & Recommendations 7/13/2010 Framework LLC

I. Introduction

A. 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, principles, and objectives.

� 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?

B. Scope and Methodology

� For the purposes of this report “Initiatives and practices” include strategies that have been implemented by the County as well as actions taken to establish the County’s sustainability program (assessment, goal-setting, planning, and evaluation).

� 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, including:

- Members of the Partnership for a Sustainable Washington County Community (PSWCC). This regional organization includes Washington County and ten area cities and districts.

- Members of and jurisdictions identified by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Local Governments for Sustainability. This organization, founded in 1990, reports information about initiatives and planning efforts of 1,107 member cities, counties, and towns worldwide.

- Counties that signed the “Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration” since July 16, 2007. This declaration was initiated by Fairfax County Virginia, King County Washington, and Nassau County, N.Y.

- “Good Company” clients and/or software users. Good Company is a research and consulting firm that helps clients to measure, manage and market their social and environmental performance. Several regional governments, including Washington County, Clackamas County, Metro, and the cities of Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Corvallis, and Gresham use these tools or services.

� We collected information about best practices from sources including:


- International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Local Governments for Sustainability

- The American Planning Association

- The United States Conference of Mayors

- The National Association of Counties (NACo)

- The SustainLane 2008 US City Rankings of the 50 most-populous cities

- The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)

- The International City/County Management Association (ICMA)

� Where possible, we also used published surveys of sustainability practices to inform our research. These are identified in Appendix IV.

� We compared our findings with Washington County’s Resolution and Order, formation documents, initiative inventories and plans.

C. What is “Sustainability”?

� The most generally-accepted definition of sustainability comes from the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations in 1987: "Meeting the needs of the present generation

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." 1

� The Oregon Sustainability Act defines sustainability as “using, developing, and protecting recourses in a manner that enables people to meet current needs and provides that future generations can also meet future needs, from the joint perspective of environmental, economic, and community objectives.” (The “three pillars” of environmental, social, and economic sustainability were first identified by the United Nations General Assembly at its 2005 World Summit, and are included in many definitions of sustainability.)

� Washington County uses a hybrid of these definitions, defining sustainability as “meeting current economic, social, and environmental needs while ensuring that future generations can meet their needs.”2

� “Sustainability” is an elusive concept. It is viewed by some jurisdictions as a destination having quantifiable limits and by others as a process or a journey. For this reason, sustainability has been called “a dialog of values that defies consensual definition.”3

1 United Nations General Assembly, “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our

Common Future”, 1987. 2 Washington County Board Resolution and Order 09-93, adopted November 3, 2009.

3 Ratner, B.D., “Sustainability as a Dialog of Values: Challenges to the Sociology of Development”, Sociological

Inquiry, 74(1), 2004.


II. Washington County’s Sustainability Program

� Washington County’s sustainability program operates under the Department of Support Services. Since December 2008, the County has employed a full-time Sustainability Coordinator who identifies opportunities for education, identifies networking opportunities, maintains partner relationships, and assists employee teams.

� The County has created an employee-based “Green Team” to advance sustainable practices in its day to day operations. Each county department has at least one representative or Sustainability Liaison to the Green Team. Green Team members help to distribute information between their departments and the sustainability program, and can provide feedback on new ideas and current practices.

� The County participates in the Partners for a Sustainable Washington County Community (PSWCC). This county-wide partnership was formed as a result of a 2007 feasibility study completed by the private non-profit Vision Action Network4. PSWCC is designed to encourage and promote sustainability among eleven jurisdictions, including Washington County, the cities of Beaverton, Banks, Cornelius, Hillsboro, and Tualatin, Clean Water Services, Portland Community College – Rock Creek, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District, and the Tualatin Valley Water District.

� While Washington County’s sustainability program is relatively new, the County has been pursuing green or sustainable strategies for several years. As of October 2009 the County had implemented specific sustainability initiatives or activities in each of the following categories:

- Energy Efficiency and Waste Reduction

- Renewable Energy

- Fleet

- Land Use

- Transportation

- Education and Outreach

- Water Conservation

- Pollution Prevention

� 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.

4 “Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study”, Vision Action Network, December 28

th, 2007.


III. Comparison of Sustainability Programs & Practices

To structure our discussion of the implementation of local government sustainability practices, we examined city and county progress in five categories.5

� Assessment

� Goals and objectives

� Planning

� Implementation

� Monitoring and Evaluation

We reviewed reports from ICLEI, national surveys of local governments, and published plans and reports from a sample of cities and counties. Our findings about local government implementation of sustainability practices as compared to Washington County’s practices are described by category in the next two sections of this report.

A. Assessment

� Sustainability assessment involves researching and identifying environmental, economic and/or social equity challenges within a jurisdiction and identifying the programs that are already in place to address those issues. In some jurisdictions, the assessment may also determine the extent to which local activities are generating greenhouse gasses or may evaluate the local government and its community using key sustainability indicators. The assessment may gather baseline data about facility energy and water usage to help identify challenges to be addressed in the sustainability plan. Usually, the assessment involves stakeholders to help define issues and priorities.

� Washington County has taken important steps to identify its issues and needs and to describe its own sustainability efforts.

- In 2007, Washington County participated in the Vision Action Network’s Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study. During the study, the County worked closely with regional partners and community stakeholders to identify some of the key issues and needs confronting Washington County.

- In June of 2008, the County created an inventory of its sustainability efforts and activities as of that date. The inventory was updated in October of 2009.

� The County has not fully completed the initial assessment needed to establish baseline performance.

5 These are very similar to the planning framework adopted in Washington County’s Resolution and Order and to the

ICLEI’s “Five Milestones for Sustainability”. Since the ICLEI tracks member performance against these milestones, we used ICLEI data to help make comparisons between other cities and counties and Washington County.

How have other local governments implemented sustainability initiatives and practices?

How do Washington County’s initiatives and practices compare to those being implemented by other local governments?


- The County’s published Sustainability Framework, Principles and Objectives6 calls for the County to “prepare a baseline emissions inventory and forecast for 1) County operations and as resources allow 2) the community.” The County plans to complete a greenhouse gas emission inventory for internal county operations by June of 2010. Until this assessment is complete, it is not possible for the County to determine where its most significant sources of emissions are concentrated. (Only 200 or 33% of the ICLEI USA’s 600 city and county members had completed a sustainability assessment including a baseline emissions inventory as of November 2009.7)

- The County is using the proprietary carbon calculator created by Eugene-based consultants “Good Company”. This will allow the County to share comparative or benchmark data with other regional users of the software, including Clackamas County, Metro, and the cities of Eugene, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Corvallis, and Gresham.

- The County monitors its energy usage and costs using the EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Management Tool. The County has not yet quantified water used by County operations. The County plans to implement a comprehensive energy tracking and management system, which is intended to support ongoing assessment of energy usage.

B. Goals and Objectives

� Goals define the purpose and scope of the sustainability program and set the tone for future planning. Goals should reflect and address challenges identified during the sustainability assessment. Objectives (with measurable targets) and strategies should be linked to these goals. Some cities and counties have adopted one or more sustainability frameworks to help them define and organize goals and objectives and to evaluate sustainability programs and strategies.

� Washington County did not adopt a single conceptual framework for sustainability. Instead, the County created its own internal framework that synthesizes elements from several frameworks and is consistent with concepts advanced by the ICLEI and others.

- Washington County’s definition of sustainability in its Resolution and Order references the “three pillars” of environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

- The Resolution and Order also incorporates elements of The Natural Step Framework’s four system conditions for sustainability. The Natural Step Framework is a comprehensive model for strategic planning and decision making that identifies four system conditions for sustainability. Paraphrased, they are:

� Reduced dependence on fossil fuels and extracted metals and minerals.

� Reduced dependence on manufactured substances that can accumulate in nature.

� Reduced dependence on activities that harm the eco-system.

� Ability to meet basic human needs.

- The County’s “Sustainability Framework, Principles and Objectives” document lays out a basic framework that is endorsed by the ICLEI and other planning organizations:

6 Attachment A to the November 3, 2009 Board Resolution and Order.

7 “ICLEI USA 2009 Annual Report, “Measuring Up: A Detailed Look at the Impressive Goals and Climate Action

Progress of US Cities and Counties”, ICLEI USA, Local Governments for Sustainability, November 2009.


� Assess opportunities,

� Create action plans,

� Implement action plans, and

� Evaluate results.

� Washington County’s Resolution and Order suggests, but does not clearly identify, the County’s primary or overarching goals for sustainability.

- Many city and county governments in the US have embraced a primary goal of mitigating climate impacts through reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Commitment to this overarching goal is reinforced through resolutions, orders, and law. In these jurisdictions, planned strategies or action steps may be tied to this goal.

- Washington County has identified some of integral components or benefits of sustainability in its Resolution and Order that could function as overarching or unifying goals (see Table III-1). Some of these concepts include, for example a “reduced carbon footprint”, “reduced emissions”, “a healthy and sustainable environment”, and “sustainable stewardship” of County resources.

� The County’s Resolution and Order clearly identifies thirteen specific, and for the most part measurable, objectives that are currently driving sustainability planning efforts. Objectives reflect community priorities that were identified in the Vision Action Network’s feasibility study. As indicated in Table III-2, many of these objectives are internally-focused; that is, focused on County operations and performance. Only a few of the objectives are directed to sustainability outside of County operations.

� For the most part, the County’s stated priorities are consistent with those of other jurisdictions nationwide. According to a survey of 76 California cities completed in June of 20098, water efficiency, energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction and waste reduction and recycling were identified as the most important sustainability priorities for cities. International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Advisory Committee members identified smart growth, climate change, and fiscal viability as their top three sustainability issues.9

C. Planning

� A sustainability plan identifies specific actions or strategies to accomplish a community’s goals and objectives. Based on our research, we found that jurisdictions fall into one of the following three planning states:

- The jurisdiction has taken no reported or published action regarding sustainability.

- The Board or Council has approved a resolution for action only; there is no published evidence that additional planning has been completed.

- A Sustainability Plan and/or Climate Action Plan has been completed. Regionally, Clackamas County, the cities of Bend, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, West Linn, Milwaukie, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Spokane, and the Tualatin Valley Water District have completed Sustainability Plans. The cities of Lake Oswego, Bellingham, Kirkland, Burien, Spokane, Edmonds, Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, Portland and

8 “Sustainability Programs, Strategies and Tools Used by California Local Governments”, a survey conducted by the

California Sustainability Alliance, 6/9/2009. 9 “ICMA Management Perspective”, October 2007.


Table III-1 Sustainability Benefits Identified in Resolution and Order 09-93

A healthy and sustainable environment is intertwined with:

� Health, balance and prosperity of residents.

� Livability of neighborhoods and communities.

� Healthy urban and rural communities.

Reducing the County’s carbon footprint and increasing energy efficiency results in:

� Decreased air pollution.

� Job creation.

� Reduced energy expenditures.

� Savings for local government, businesses, and residents.

Sustainable stewardship results in:

� Reduced operating costs.

� Healthy work environments for staff and visitors.

� Protecting, conserving and enhancing County’s resources.

� Establishing best practices for sustainable business operations.

Sustainable development:

� Creates family wage jobs.

� Celebrates diversity.

� Improves the environment and quality of life.

� Strengthens the economy.

Table III-2 Sustainability Objectives Identified in Resolution and Order 09-93

Internal Internal and Community Community

� Realize economic and resource savings through the construction, operation, and maintenance of high performance public buildings and landscapes.

� Enhance the fuel efficiency of County fleet vehicles and use of alternative fuels as practicable.

� Develop sustainable procurement strategies for all County operations where practicable.

� Invest in facilities and durable goods that reflect the highest feasible efficiency and the lowest life cycle costs.

� Enhance recycling rates in County operations and in the community and promote waste reduction at the source.

� Prioritize energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable energy.

� Support transportation programs and infrastructure that address capacity, multi-modal options, trip reduction, and the use of public transportation and car pooling.

� Develop and implement communication and education plans to promote and report on the County’s sustainability initiatives and “best practices”, share information, and develop collaborative programs and efforts.

� Participate with the PSWCC and other collaborations.

� Monitor and measure progress and report periodically to the BCC.

� Support legislative and economic development initiatives consistent with the County’s interests.

� Emphasize land use planning, development, and building policies and practices that promote sustainable communities.

� Protect and foster productive and healthy agriculture, greenspaces, and natural resource lands.


Clallam and Whatcom Counties have completed Climate Action Plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

- Sustainability principles and initiatives may also be integrated in the jurisdiction’s strategic or comprehensive plan. The City of Edmonds, Washington is a regional example. National examples include La Plata County Colorado and Marin County California.

� Washington County has approved a Sustainability Resolution and Order, but has not yet published a sustainability plan since assessment activities are not yet complete. This is not unusual; as of 11/30, 2009, only 56 or 9% of ICLEI member cities or counties had initiated or completed sustainability plans.10

� The County has identified action steps in two internal documents:

- A 2009-2011 internal work plan includes activities (action steps), a responsible organization, and tracks status by target area.

- A draft “Sustainability Evaluation and Measurement Plan” contains resolution objectives, activities, expected outcomes and tentative measures.

� In the near term, the County’s work plan and draft evaluation plan focus on meeting objectives related to internal County operations. This reflects the County Administration’s desire to demonstrate sustainable stewardship for County facilities and resources before attempting to fully address external objectives.

� The County’s draft plans do not currently address Resolution and Order objectives related to enhancing community recycling rates, land use planning, development, building policies, agriculture, green spaces, resource lands, and transportation issues of the larger community. (However, the County had already implemented a significant number of community-focused initiatives prior to the adoption of its sustainability program.)

� Many of the city and county plans we examined included goals and strategies related to the community at large as well as internal or operational goals and strategies. As might be expected, cities and counties with Climate Action Plans focused on ways to engage the community (residents and businesses) in climate mitigation activities.11 However, many of the Sustainability Plans we examined also included the broader community in planned actions and activities. Fewer of the published plans we reviewed were limited to internal county or city government operations.

� We recognize that County sustainability plans are work in process, and that they will be updated as further assessments are completed.

D. Implementation

� “Implementation” includes both the establishment of a sustainability structure as well as the initiation of specific programs or strategies. The ICLEI USA reports several notable implementation trends in its 2009 annual report that have also been observed at Washington County:

10

ICLEI USA 2009 Annual Report, “Measuring Up: A Detailed Look at the Impressive Goals and Climate Action Progress of US Cities and Counties”, ICLEI USA, Local Governments for Sustainability, November 2009. 11

As of 11/20/2009 the ICLEI reported that 121 or 20% of its members have developed and published goals and a Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


- Staffing and institutionalization of sustainability. Local governments of all sizes across the country are now hiring staff specifically focused on coordinating sustainability, climate and energy initiatives. Washington County hired its own Sustainability Coordinator in December 2008.

- Community-wide impacts. Local governments are developing innovative programs to finance energy efficiency and clean energy projects for residents and businesses. Washington County’s Department of Land Use and Transportation (LUT) is exploring the possibility of using land use and development code changes to promote energy efficiency and conservation.

- Leading by Example. Many local governments are developing aggressive plans to reduce emissions from their own internal operations. Washington County continues to model sustainability through its focus on improving the sustainability of County operations.

- Innovative Partnerships. Cities and counties are developing and facilitating partnerships within neighborhoods and among other local governments and constituents. Washington County has begun to participate in and facilitate partnerships with other local governments and constituents.

- Economic Connection. Cities and counties are taking action to ensure that sustainability and economic development go hand in hand by developing green jobs training programs, drawing local powers of land use, zoning and building code enforcement, and making sustainable infrastructure investments. LUT has begun to make some of these connections.

� While it has not published a sustainability plan, Washington County continues to execute the action items in its annual working plans.12

� Like many of its peers, most of Washington County’s activities are environmental in focus and do not fully address the other “pillars” of sustainability; namely, the economy and social equity. Table III-3 summarizes the County’s activities by category. In general, the County has implemented:

- Common, mature environmental programs or initiatives such as waste reduction, recycling, and energy efficiency. According to our limited review of city and county published plans, reports, and surveys many jurisdictions have implemented (or plan to implement) energy efficiency energy efficiency, transportation, waste reduction and recycling programs or strategies. Air quality, green infrastructure, and green landscape maintenance programs are less common. (See Appendix IV.)

- Some notable economic initiatives. The County’s Land Use and Transportation Department has implemented initiatives to encourage mixed use, transit-oriented and environmentally-sensitive development.

- Almost no social equity initiatives, at least according to the most recent inventory of sustainability programs. This is not unusual. A 2006 survey revealed that many of the activities in the “social equity” category are currently being performed by less than one-third of large cities.13 The County does conduct community engagement and

12

As of November 2009, only 32 or 5.3% of ICLEI’s 600 members had implemented a Climate Action Plan or Sustainability Plan’s policies and measures. Source: ICLEI USA 2009 Annual Report previously cited. 13

“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

.


outreach activities, but any other County programs that might be included in the “social equity” category (such as affordable housing or day care programs, for example) are not yet linked to “sustainability” in County documents or plans.

� Regionally, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties and the cities of Corvallis and Eugene have implemented (or plan to implement) initiatives in each of the “three pillar” categories.


Table III-3: Types of Sustainability Initiatives, by Category14

ENVIRONMENT WA County?

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WA County?

COMMUNITY/EQUITY WA County?

Climate Change/GHG Reduction Community revitalization Social justice

Smart Growth �� Cluster/targeted development Community engagement/ education/outreach

��

Transportation15

�� Infill development Fiscal viability

Recycling/Waste Reduction �� Business retention programs Sustainable food programs

Energy Conservation/Efficiency �� Incentive/exclusionary zoning Living wage ordinance

Habitat and Land Conservation (2) �� Brownfield reclamation Day care for service sector/low income

��

Energy independence/efficiency �� Empowerment/enterprise zones Jobs-housing balance

Water quality protection/ conservation/efficiency

�� Local business incubator program Subsidized mass transit (community)

Environmental site design regulations

� Tax incentives for environmentally- friendly development

Women and minority owned business programs

Composting program Eco-industrial park development Neighborhood planning

Ecological footprint analysis Purchase/transfer of devel. rights Youth & anti-gang programs ��

Green procurement/purchasing � Agricultural protection zoning Affordable housing provisions ��

Alternative energy source for customers

� Mixed use development �� Homeless prevention & intervention

��

Green building policies � Transit-oriented development ��

Renewable energy use - govt. � Environmentally-sensitive devel. ��

Fleet/hybrid/biodiesel program �

Green maintenance practices/landscape management

Environmental education �

14

Only Washington County initiatives reported in a sustainability inventory, plan, or other document are included here. County programs that are not formally linked to the sustainability program are marked with an asterisk. Categories were developed using surveys identified in Appendix IV. 15

Includes subsidized mass transit for employees.


IV. Sustainability Monitoring & Evaluation

A. Sustainability Auditing and Reporting

� Washington County has not yet designed or published a sustainability progress report or conducted or planned a formal performance audit. Our research suggests that audits are not common among cities and counties, but that cities and counties are publishing performance reports.

- We conducted an internet search to identify sustainability audits, performance audits with a sustainability focus, performance reports, or any other specialized reports that might inform our discussion about the monitoring or evaluation of county and city sustainability efforts. (The reports in our limited sample are identified and described in Appendix I.)

- We found only five reports that seemed to qualify as performance audits in the traditional sense. These were prepared by an entity external to the city or county (public auditor or consulting firm.)

- Some cities and counties publish regular sustainability progress reports, ranging 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.

- Several jurisdictions published specialized reviews or reports about elements of their sustainability programs (purchasing, for example.)

� Based on our limited sample, there appears to be no consistent format for sustainability reporting that is widely adopted by counties and cities. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has developed a standardized approach to reporting that is used by more than 1,000 private and public sector organizations. There does not yet appear to be a specific format for reporting in the public sector.

B. Measurement

� Washington County has just started to describe how it might measure performance against its objectives. The County’s draft “Sustainability Evaluation and Measurement Plan” identifies expected outcomes and possible measurement strategies for most, but not all, of objectives identified in the Resolution and Order.

� For the most part, the County’s draft measures are consistent with those used by other jurisdictions, and the County has appropriately identified desired outcomes (as opposed to outputs) for its objectives. 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.

How have other local governments evaluated the effectiveness of sustainability efforts? What are other local governments measuring?

What is Washington County attempting to measure?


� 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 assess their sustainability.

� These overarching indicators are linked directly to larger policy goals and the values of a community. They may 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”.

- Washington County has established an objective to “realize economic and resource savings” in its building and landscape maintenance but has not yet included measures of savings or efficiency in its proposed performance measures. 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. For example, Multnomah County identifies savings realized by reducing paper use. Clark County reports savings related to green procurement practices. The City of Seattle examines life cycle costs and savings when evaluating purchases. Cities and counties are also attempting to evaluate the efficiency (cost per unit) of energy and water use.

- Many cities and counties assess the ongoing impact of strategies and initiatives on greenhouse gas emissions. The County is in the process of creating a baseline greenhouse gas inventory, and has only recently identified reduced emissions as a performance objective.

� Washington County has focused its initial sustainability planning efforts on county operations. As such, the County has not yet identified desired outcomes or measures for four of its Resolution Objectives. They are:

- Emphasize land use planning, development, and building policies and practices that promote sustainable communities;

- Protect and foster productive and healthy agriculture, green spaces and natural resource lands;

- Support legislative and economic development initiatives consistent with the County’s interests.

- Invest in facilities, equipment, and durable goods that reflect the highest feasible efficiency and lowest life cycle costs.

� Some cities and counties have established baseline performance for key performance objectives. They have documented performance in a year prior to the implementation of initiatives or have established the baseline at the time that the initial assessment is completed. Since Washington County’s preliminary assessments (greenhouse gas inventory, water audit) have not yet been completed, the County may not have sufficient information to identify a baseline year for comparing performance or to identify challenging but reachable performance targets.

� “Benchmarking”, or comparison of performance with that of similar jurisdictions, is mentioned in the literature as a best practice and has been attempted by some of the more mature cities and counties we reviewed. Benchmarking is made difficult by the following:


- Differences in greenhouse gas inventory methodologies and tools.

- Differences in adoption of standards. Users of LEED green building standards, Green Seal standards for purchased products and paint, and Energy Star guidelines can more easily make comparisons.

- Differences in sustainability frameworks and program direction. Sustainability programs in each jurisdiction are defined by the choice of overarching goals and the desired focus or objectives of each local community.

C. Comparison of Performance Objectives and Measurement, by Topic

Table IV-1 offers examples of measurable objectives we found in our sample of reports. For comparative purposes, these are organized according to programs or topics addressed in Washington County’s draft sustainability plan. Additional examples from cities, counties and other organizations are included in Appendix III.


Table IV-1 Comparison of Sample City and County Objectives and Measures with Washington County’s Measures

Overarching Measure – Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Typical Objectives Examples from Cities/Counties Proposed by WA County

� Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

� Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from County operations below 2001 levels (percent reduction) (Multnomah County)

� Reduce amount of greenhouse gas emissions from County government sources (CO2 in tons). Target reduction is 15-20% by 2015. (Marin County)

� Reduce county government emissions (tons CO2) by building and sources such as transportation, sewer system, and solid waste. (Clallam County)

� Reduce the County’s greenhouse gas emissions.

� Reduce the ecological footprint.

� Reduce the County’s ecological footprint (acres per person). (San Mateo County)

Energy Use, Efficiency and Management

Typical Objectives Examples from Cities/Counties Proposed by WA County

Reduce energy consumption.

� Reduce total countywide energy use by 2% per year to achieve a 20% reduction by 2015. (Marin County)

� Reduce energy use in County buildings by at least 10% from 2008 to 2013. Make annual progress toward this goal.

Increase use of renewable sources of energy.

� Purchase 10 percent of City government electricity load from new renewable sources by 2003. (Multnomah County)

� By 2025, at least 25% of the City’s energy needs will be generated from renewable resources.

Overall energy efficiency.

� Increase the energy efficiency of existing buildings by 20% (Seattle)

� Require all City and County construction projects to exceed energy code by 20-30% on new construction and 10% on retrofits. (Portland, Multnomah County)


Green Building

Typical Objectives Examples Proposed by WA County

� Specific LEED certifications

� The City will obtain LEED Silver equivalent ratings in all new City facilities including new buildings and major renovation projects. (La Crosse)

� All city facilities and buildings over 5,000 gross square feet of occupied space shall meet a minimum LEED Silver rating. (Seattle)

� 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”. (Santa Monica)

� Highest possible LEED certification

� All public projects over 5,000 sq. ft. must achieve the “highest practicable” LEED certification. (San Mateo County)

� 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 the highest LEED certification possible. (King County)

� “Green building” principles

� 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. (Portland)

� Implement green building standards for all new and renovated County facilities.

Fleet Management/Alternative Fuels


� Reduce fuel consumption

� Reduce gallons of fuel consumed by county-owned vehicles by 15% by 2015. (Marin County)

� By 2025, the City will consume at least 25% less fossil fuel for its transportation fleet. (La Crosse)

� Improve fuel efficiency of County fleet.

� Reduce fleet emissions

� Achieve a 10% reduction in particulate matter emissions from diesel equipment by 2008. (Clark County)

� Reduce emissions by County fleet vehicles.

� Increase use of alternative fuels

� By 2025, at least 25% of the fuel consumed for the City’s fleet will come from renewable sources and alternative fuels. (La Crosse)



� Expand purchasing of green vehicles

� Purchase a minimum of 25 city and 5 county hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles with a fuel efficiency of at least 45 mpg. (Multnomah County)

� Maintain a 100% low emission road fleet. (Mecklenburg County)

� Increase use of electric vehicles in the County Fleet.

� Reduce employee commute miles

� Number of commute miles per employee, by vehicle type. (Clallam County)

� Vehicle miles traveled (Washington DOC)

� Maintain at least a 10% employee trip reduction from baseline as required by DEQ’s ECO program.

Waste Reduction and Recycling


� Reduce volume of garbage/waste produced

� Reduce the amount of garbage generated (in pounds). (Multnomah County)

� 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%. (La Crosse)

� Increase recycling rate (recovery rate, diversion rate)

� Recycle 20% of total waste stream from all County facilities. (Mecklenburg County)

� Maintain a solid waste diversion rate (County Civic Center) of 7.5% or higher. Percent of County Civic Center waste diverted from landfills. (Marin County)

� Waste diversion rate (Alameda County)

� Increase recycling rates in County operations.

� Reduce waste put into the waste stream in County operations.

� Increase recycling of specific products

� Tons of office paper recycled. (WA DOC)

� Improve disposal � 100% compliance with proper disposal of fluorescent bulbs according to State and Federal guidelines. (Mecklenburg County)

� Reduce usage � Achieve a 15% reduction in paper usage from FY01 baseline levels. (Multnomah County)

� Reduce GHG � Metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions prevented by recycling and composting. (Multnomah County)


Water Use


� Decrease potable water use

� Decrease potable water use by County facilities by 5% by 2015. (Marin County)

� Reduce potable water use in all County facilities.

� Reduce overall water consumption

� Reduce overall water consumption per capita (potable vs. non-potable). (Santa Monica)

Employee/Customer Transportation


� Reduce vehicle miles traveled.

� Number of commute miles per employee, by vehicle type. (Clallam County)

� Reduce the number of trips

� Reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips. (San Mateo County)

� Maintain at least a 10% employee trip reduction in compliance with DEQ’s ECO program.

� Increase the number of services or service requests handled electronically.

� Reduce single occupancy vehicle trips

� Reduce the average number of vehicles per employee. (Santa Monica)

� Increase transit ridership

� Enroll employees in a transit pass subsidy program. (Currently, 65% are enrolled). (Multnomah County)

Pollution Reduction (Toxic Materials, Pest Management)


� Reduce use of toxic chemicals

� Eliminate all class I and II pesticides from County buildings. (Marin County)

� Reduce 20 purchased hazardous product categories in volume. (Santa Monica)

� Use Green Seal certified cleaning products for high volume, daily use cleaning. (Santa Monica)

� Eliminate the most toxic pesticides from use and increase the use of non-toxic management practices. (San Mateo County)

� Reduce use of toxic chemicals for pest management.


Environmental Purchasing and Procurement


� Increase purchase of environmentally-preferred products (Green Seal or other)

� By 2025 the City will increase the purchase of environmentally preferred products and services from their current levels by 50%. (La Crosse)

� Buy paper that is PCF. All copier and general use paper products will be PCF free (processed chlorine-free) (Multnomah County

� Achieve 100% compliance for Green List purchased products by 2008. (Clark County)

� Purchase Energy Star rated LCD monitors and duplexing printers (Clark County)

� Increase purchase of recycled products or materials.

� All paper products purchased by the City and County must meet US EPA’s mandates for a minimum of 30% post-consumer recycled fiber content. (Portland/Multnomah County)

� Buy paper with more recycled content. Increase the amount of recycled content in paper purchased to 50% or better. (Multnomah County)

� A minimum of 70% of ethylene glycol used in producing antifreeze must have been recycled. (Clark County)

� Improve the proportion of paper purchased by the County that is 30% post-consumer waste or better.

� Reduce purchase of hazardous products.

� Reduce 20 purchased hazardous product categories in volume, as measured by the number of categories of city purchased products that meet established criteria. (Santa Monica)

Communication & Education


� No typical objectives identified in our limited sample.

� The City will work to ensure community-wide knowledge and acceptance of the Natural Step framework. (La Crosse)

� Increase visibility of sustainability issues in the organization.

� Increase employee awareness of sustainability issues.

� Increase employee use of sustainable practices/behaviors.

� Increase community awareness of County’s sustainability efforts.


V. Recommendations for Ongoing Evaluation

A. Recommended Actions

We recommend that the County take the following actions to ensure effective sustainability evaluation and reporting:

In the short term:

1) Consider identifying one or more primary outcomes for Washington County’s sustainability efforts. These should be consistent with the concepts outlined in the Resolution and Order should be applicable to internal (operational) activities as well as community needs and interests. Link resolution objectives to these outcomes. Some examples of primary outcomes include:

- Reduced carbon footprint

- Reduced emissions

- A healthy environment

- A vibrant economy

2) Develop a comprehensive sustainability plan that includes objectives, activities/ strategies, expected outcomes, and measures for all Resolution Objectives, including the community-focused objectives that are not yet addressed by the current draft work plans or evaluation plans. Identify measures for the sustainability activities/strategies that were implemented prior to the adoption of the Resolution and Order.

3) Fully define performance measures for each desired outcome. Review the spectrum of measures used by peers to help identify appropriate measures that meet internal monitoring needs as well as benchmarking or comparative needs. Normalize data in where possible (per FTE position, per dollar spent, per square foot), and describe calculation methods.

4) Establish baseline (current or historical) performance, performance targets, and expected performance time frames for each desired outcome. If historical data are available, the baseline should be performance for a time period that occurred before the implementation of initiatives to be evaluated. In the absence of historical data, baselines should be established as of the time initial assessments are completed. Targets should be established for both the short-term and for the medium-term and should be challenging yet achievable.

5) Emphasize efficiency in every reporting category, where appropriate. Calculate and report costs savings associated with each expected outcome, or demonstrate efficacy based on full lifecycle cost analysis.

6) Design and develop performance reports for both the Board of County Commissioners and the general public.

How should Washington County measure and monitor its progress toward sustainability?


- Create an annual performance report for the Board of County Commissioners that includes performance for the current reporting period and at least two previous periods. Show performance against baseline and targets.

- Create a report for the general public that would be suitable for publication on the County’s web site.

Two good examples of reporting include Santa Monica, California’s “Sustainable City Progress Report” and “Indicators for a Sustainable San Mateo County, Thirteenth Annual Report Card”, April 2009.

7) Continue to identify potential benchmark partners and begin to collect and share data. In the short term, rely on local partners and the following for benchmarking:

- “Good Company” carbon emissions software users.

- Users of commonly applied standards that the County plans to use or is using (Energy Star, LEED, Green Seal).

In the longer term:

8) As soon as basic program implementation is stable and baseline data are in place, conduct a performance evaluation of sustainability management, programs and functions using topics and questions that have been extracted from other jurisdiction’s reports, good practices, and the County’s objectives and expected outcomes as a guide. (Possible topics and questions are included in Appendix II.)

9) Work with community partners and stakeholders to identify sustainability indicators that can be used to monitor Washington County’s primary outcomes and to report progress to the community.

10) Reference the County’s relevant economic and social equity activities in sustainability plans, evaluations, and reports. Find ways to demonstrate that the County is addressing these elements of Washington County’s definition of sustainability.

B. Suggestions for the County’s Proposed Evaluation/Measurement Plan

Table V-1 suggests additions to Washington County’s proposed evaluation plan based on our limited review of objectives, outcomes and measures used by other jurisdictions. In general, we recommend that the County:

� Construct measures that meet internal monitoring needs as well as benchmarking or comparative needs.

� Identify a target performance and expected time frame for each measure.

� Compare current performance with performance in a baseline period.

� Calculate and report cost savings (or total lifecycle costs) associated with the measure where possible.

� Consider measuring the impact of initiatives on greenhouse gas emissions.

� Use normalized data (per FTE, per square foot) to help establish measures that can be compared between other jurisdictions.


Table V-1 Identified and Suggested Outcomes and Measures, by Resolution Objective

Resolution Objectives

Expected Outcomes: Identified by County

16

Expected Outcomes: Suggested Additions

Possible Measurement

Realize economic and resource savings through the construction, operation, and maintenance of high performance public buildings and landscapes.

� Reduce energy use in County buildings by at least 10% from 2008 to 2013. Make annual progress toward this goal. (Approved by County; benchmark established.)

� Implement green building standards for all new and renovated County facilities.

� Reduce the use of toxic chemicals for pest management.

� Reduce energy costs (expenditures for energy) from baseline.

� Reduce maintenance costs from baseline.

� Eliminate all Class 1 and Class II pesticides from County buildings.

� Ensure that County buildings meet LEED certification standards. (Actual objectives and measures should be determined after policy is developed.)

� Energy use (in kWh) by building

� Energy use (in kWh) per FTE position or building square foot

� Energy use by type (lighting, heating, etc.)

� Total energy savings realized from reduced use and other strategies as measured from a baseline

Enhance the fuel efficiency of County fleet vehicles and use of alternative fuels as practicable.

� Achieve and maintain fleet certification. (Approved by County; certification achieved.)



� Increase use of alternative fuel/electric vehicles in the County Fleet to <?>% of the fleet.

� Reduce fuel consumption of the County fleet by <?>% from baseline.

(Add outcomes and measures that describe specific fleet certification standards.)

� EPA rated fuel efficiency of vehicles (average or individual standard)

� Average actual miles per gallon of all fleet vehicles, by type (passenger, light truck, heavy equipment)

� Total costs savings realized

16

Only four outcome measures have been approved by the County as of May 2010. These are noted. All other County measures are tentative.




16



Enhance recycling rates in County operations and in the community and promote waste reduction at the source.

� Increase recycling rates in County operations. Make annual progress toward this goal.

� Reduce waste put into the waste stream in County operations.


� Reduce total paper use from baseline.

� Reduce use of non-recycled content paper from baseline.

Longer-term:

� Increase community recycling rates.

� Increase community waste reduction.

� Total volume and percent of materials recycled/diverted from landfill (by Department, if feasible).

� Total volume of materials recycled/diverted from landfill by FTE position.

� Facilities water consumption per FTE position, (potable and total)

Develop sustainable procurement strategies for all County operations where practicable.

� Improve the proportion of paper purchased by the County that is 30% post-consumer waste or better.

Add outcomes and measures that reflect policy, once developed. Consider:

� Ensure that <?>% of all purchased paper is processed chlorine-free (PCF).

� Ensure that janitorial paper meets certain post-consumer waste content standards.

� Increase purchase of recycled antifreeze and re-refined motor oil.

� Increase purchase of energy-efficient light bulbs/lamps.

� Track purchase and use of post-consumer waste content paper by recycled content (virgin, 30%, 40% and 100%) to observe movements in categories over time.

Emphasize land use planning, develop-ment, and building policies and practices that promote sustain-able communities.

� None identified. � Not addressed. � Not addressed.

Protect and foster productive and healthy agriculture, greenspaces, and natural resource lands.

� None identified � Not addressed. � Not addressed.




16



Prioritize energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable energy.

� Reduce energy use in County buildings by at least 10% from 2008 to 2013. (Approved by County; benchmark established.)

� Receive Energy Star designation for the Public Services Building by 2012, and assess which additional buildings might be appropriate for work toward an “Energy Star” designation in the future. (Approved by County.)



� Reduce energy costs (expenditures for energy) from baseline.

� Total energy savings realized from reduced use and other strategies as measured from a baseline.

� EPA rated fuel efficiency of vehicles (average or individual standard).

� Average actual miles per gallon of all fleet vehicles, by type (passenger, light truck, heavy equipment).

� Percent of facilities and operations’ energy that comes from renewable sources.

� Total costs savings realized

Support transportation programs and infrastructure that address capacity, multi-modal options, trip reduction, and the use of public transportation and car pooling.

� Maintain at least a 10% employee trip reduction in compliance with DEQ’s ECO program. (Approved by County; benchmark established.)



� Reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by employees to commute or conduct County business from baseline.

� Reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by customers to conduct County business from baseline.

� Increase use of alternative fuel/electric vehicles in the County Fleet to <?>% of the fleet.

� Number of vehicle miles traveled by employee for commute or County business (actual fuel purchased/average miles per gallon of vehicles used).

� Number of customer trips averted by use of County e-commerce facilities. (May be possible to estimate using on-line transaction data.)




16



Invest in facilities, equipment, and durable goods that reflect the highest feasible efficiency and lowest life cycle costs.

� Reduce energy use in County buildings by at least 10% from 2008 to 2013. Make annual progress toward this goal. (Approved by County; benchmark established.)


� Improve the efficiency of the County fleet.


� Implement green building standards for all new and renovated facilities.

� Reduce building operating costs per square foot (energy, water, maintenance) from baseline.

� Reduce equipment operating costs per mile from baseline.

(See also related outcomes for other objectives.)

� Use Life Cycle Cost Analysis to analyze overall energy costs, maintenance costs, and water costs (see City of Seattle for examples.)

Develop and implement communication and education plans to promote and report on the County’s sustainability activities and “best practices.”

� Increase visibility of sustainability issues in the organization.

� Increase employee awareness of sustainability issues.

� Increase employee use of sustainable practices/behaviors.

� Increase community awareness of County’s sustainability efforts.

� Percent of employees who are aware of and are using sustainable practices, as measured by an employee survey.

� Percent of County residents who are aware of and are using sustainable practices, as measured by an employee survey.

Support legislative and economic development initiatives consistent with the County’s interest.

� None identified. � Not addressed. � Not addressed.




16



Participate with the Partnership for a Sustainable Washington County Community (PSWCC) and other collaborations to document “best practices,” share information, and develop collaborative programs and efforts.

� None identified. � Strengthen relationship with community partners.

� Partner assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the collaboration, based on periodic survey or focus group with partners.

� Describe partnership activities and initiatives in performance reports.

Monitor and measure progress and report periodically to the Board of Commissioners.

� Reduce the County’s greenhouse gas emissions.

� Measure County building energy use (see previous).

� Report County status in achieving resolution objectives to the Board and the public on an annual basis.

� See all previous.

Washington County, OR firm that helps clients to ... evaluate the local government and its community...

Documents

Transcript of Washington County, OR firm that helps clients to ... evaluate the local government and its community...