Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study
Vision Action A V Network rf Ii achinglon(:vOnl) ......... ......, SustainabilityOrganization - , ,, , ,... „„.„ .... _ , ,-. ...,--::-, _.. FeasibilityStud 101 ouN ^ , , ,,..,,,,,,,,f ...,Cen-,. .` 71'.'4'°41--_ Il.. ,,-,..‘ " .fix Final Report ..,,,,,,,- „ ,.., _,_,z4,,,._ , --, ][ �� -� December 28, 2007 f I -"Nfl M1 { �H i�1 _. v `t � � Prepared by .ir a ;� COGAN �/ ,, OWENS .1 COGAN .i. with oftk e visibe(1111 : VISION ACTION NETWORK SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY r1 Staff Sia Lindstrom, Executive Director Charla Chamberlain, Staff Assistant Operations Team /1 Bruce Cordon, Clean Water Services Theresa Koppang, Washington County /111 Jan McGowan, SOLV Sia Lindstrom, Vision Action Network Cheryl Welch, Tualatin Valley Water District Leadership Team Bob Davis, Washington County ,.� Greg DiLoreto, Tualatin Valley Water District Rob Dixon, City of Hillsboro Mayor Rob Drake, City of Beaverton Bruce Roll, Clean Water Services Michael Jordan, Metro Sherilyn Lombos, City of Tualatin Craig Prosser, City of Tigard Interviewees Mayor Tom Hughes, City of Hillsboro Mayor Richard Kidd III, City of Forest Grove Mayor Craig Dirksen, City of Tigard --� Mayor Lou Ogden, City of Tualatin r-� Don Bohn, Washington County Deputy Administrator Kathryn Harrington, Metro Councilor •-� Jonathan Schlueter, Executive Director, Westside Economic Alliance Focus Group Members Jonae Armstrong Jim Hough Kendra Morgan Karen Frost Dari Jongsma Dick Schouten Barbara Fryer Roy Kim Walt Peck Ron Garst Steve Krautscheid Greg Sampson Michael Geller Chal Landgren Tom Vanderplaat Emily Gottfried Gregory Malinowski Dave Waffle Eric Hesse John McDonald Consulting Team Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC Arnold Cogan, FAICP, Principal-in-Charge Bob Wise, Project Manager P. Elise Scolnick, AICP, Associate .r AXIS Performance Advisors, Inc. Darcy Hitchcock, President Me, Marsha Willard, CEO Visible Strategies December 28, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 OVERVIEW 5 METHODOLOGY 5 NEED FOR AN ORGANIZATION 7 FUNCTIONS 7 _ TYPE OF ENTITY 13 FUNDING 17 MEASURING SUCCESS 18 CONCLUSIONS 21 TABLES & FIGURES TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES: `, LEADERSHIP TEAM, INTERVIEWEES AND FOCUS GROUPS 12 TABLE 2. OPTIONS FOR A SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATION IN WASHINGTON COUNTY 14 FIGURE 1. AUTHORITY/RELATIONSHIP MATRIX 15 TABLE 3. OREGON SUSTAINABILITY BOARD TOOLKIT 20 .. APPENDICES APPENDIX A- UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABILITY 23 APPENDIX B-RESEARCH ON SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATIONS CHART 37 APPENDIX C-SUPPLEMENTAL RESEARCH ON SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATIONS 49 APPENDIX D-VISIBLE STRATEGIES WEB TOOLS AND METRICS 51 APPENDIX E-SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS 58 APPENDIX F-LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING SUMMARIES 80 APPENDIX G-SUSTAINABILE SEATTLE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION 88 APPENDIX H-SUSTAINABLE SEATTLE BYLAWS 94 ,— APPENDIX I-INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PORTLAND AND MULTNOMAH COUNTY 101 �' APPENDIX J-SUSTAINABILITY RESOURCE LIST 108 FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 2 OWNS ,aa COGAN Vision Action Network Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study Final Report Executive Summary Overview Vision Action Network (VAN) commissioned a Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study as a follow up to the outcomes of a January 2007 Sustainability Conference they sponsored with other community organizations. The purpose of the study is to: • research relevant data and background materials on existing sustainability organizations; • identify important issues and opportunities surrounding sustainability; • assess the need for, and interest in, creating a structure to coordinate sustainability efforts within the community of Washington County; and • provide guidance on alternatives to local decision-makers regarding the functions, structure, funding and metrics of a sustainability entity. This report summarizes the findings of the research, interviews, focus groups and Leadership Team (LT) meetings, which conclude that there is a desire for a sustainability entity to provide a variety of functions, including coordination, education, research, information and referral, and benchmarking. The report examines various functions and organizational forms, as well as funding options. The LT is charged with making the final ,.� decision about a sustainability entity in Washington County after review and discussion of the results of this report. r1 Consultants Cogan Owens Cogan (COC) and AXIS Performance Advisors, Inc. (Axis) conducted research, seven interviews, two focus groups and three meetings with a ouN Leadership Team LT , composed of elected and appointed) p officials, convened by VAN. Overseeing the study is the Operations Team (OT) composed of VAN, SOLV, Clean ;.� Water Services and Tualatin Valley Water District staff. The outcome of these tasks is to provide information to the Leadership Team to facilitate an informed discussion and decision on whether to institute a sustainability entity in Washington County. Need The need to coordinate sustainability efforts was strongly expressed by both interviewees and focus groups. All but two of the interviewees and focus group participants agreed that some form of sustainability entity is needed within the county. There was, naturally, a variety of needs identified that such an entity could address. Functions A key question of this study is: "What functions should a sustainability entity assume?" It is important to note that functions will ultimately guide the organizational form. Based on the perspectives of participants, recommended functions are identified that focus on coordination, public outreach, education, green building, recycling, water use, energy conservation, recognition and awards, benchmarking and metrics, and collaboration across sectors. wannowarans FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 3 OW ENS :►•'�� '� _... COGAN What Type of Entity? Based on interviews, focus groups and LT discussions, the forms of entity most often mentioned are non-profit and intergovernmental organizations. The question for consideration is what form would best serve the needs of the community? The LT and some interviewees favored an intergovernmental organization. Focus groups and some interviewees expressed interest in some form of a non-governmental organizational that is inclusive, broad-based and collaborative. Funding Options Potential funding for a sustainability organization can come from a variety of sources. Establishment of the legal entity for the organization is crucial to determining the funding sources available. If the sustainability entity is organized under an intergovernmental agreement, the bulk of funding will likely be provided by the jurisdictions who participate in the agreement. A number of large corporations are located within Washington County and could participate in a sustainability organization financially. Funding of a non-profit could be through donations, corporate contributions, philanthropic grants or government grants. A membership organization could establish fees, payable on an annual basis or charge for services. Other funding may be available from a variety of federal, state, regional, philanthropic and other sources. L. Conclusions The consulting team has provided research and background information on a number of options for a sustainability entity. Based upon the feedback of Washington County stakeholders, a sustainability organization is desired. Two preferred alternatives for an organizational form are presented: non-profit and intergovernmental. Funding alternatives are recommended in the report, but which will be pursued will depend on the organizational form chosen by the Leadership Team. Next steps include assessing interest more fully, and decision-making about functions, form, membership and funding. Once these are decided, establishing the organization and developing a strategic and business plan for a three-year period with a sunset provision is recommended to test the concept and assess the benefits. FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 4 OWENS (:OGAN Vision Action Network Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study Final Report OVERVIEW Vision Action Network (VAN) commissioned a Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study as a follow up to the outcomes of an January 2007 Sustainability Conference they sponsored with other community organizations. The purpose of the study is to: • research relevant data and background materials on existing sustainability organizations; • identify important issues and opportunities surrounding sustainability; • assess the need for, and interest in, creating a structure to coordinate sustainability efforts within the community of Washington County; and • provide guidance on alternatives to local decision-makers regarding the functions, structure, funding and metrics of a sustainability entity. — This report summarizes the findings of the research, interviews, focus groups and Leadership Team (LT) meetings, which conclude that there is a desire for a sustainability entity to provide a variety of functions, including coordination, education, research, information and referral, and benchmarking. The report examines various functions and organizational forms, as well as funding options. The LT is charged with making the final decision about a sustainability entity in Washington County after review and discussion of the results of this report. Consultants Cogan Owens Cogan (COC) and AXIS Performance Advisors, Inc. (Axis) conducted research, seven interviews, two focus groups and three meetings with a Leadership Team (LT), composed of elected and appointed officials, convened by VAN. Overseeing the study is the Operations Team (OT) composed of VAN, SOLV, Clean Water Services and Tualatin Valley Water District staff. The outcome of these tasks is to provide information to the Leadership Team to facilitate an informed discussion and decision on whether to institute a sustainability entity in Washington County. METHODOLOGY The first meeting of the LT provided an overview of sustainability' (Appendix A), reviewed research on sustainability organizations (Appendix B) 2 and identified issues to address in stakeholder interviews and focus groups. Discussion in the meeting also addressed sustainability issues of importance to the LT and how best to address them in upcoming tasks. The Oregon Sustainability Act provided a working definition of sustainability that participants could utilize in discussions and interviews. 1 "Sustainability means using,developing and protecting resources 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" - Oregon Sustainability Act 2 Additional research by Metro staff on region-wide sustainability activities was received toward the end of the project. This information is included in Appendix B. FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN a Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 5 OWENS COCAN Two focus groups and seven one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders were held, for a total participant count of 27 people. The interviews and focus groups were held during the week of October 15 - 19, 2007. The purpose of the stakeholder outreach and interviews was to: �•► • identify important issues and opportunities surrounding sustainability • assess the need for, and interest in creating a structure to coordinate sustainability efforts within the community of Washington County The questions used for both interviews and focus groups included: 1) What are the chief sustainability issues faced by your community and organization? 2) What are the chief sustainability opportunities that are being worked on by your organization? a) What are the chief sustainability opportunities you would like to see be addressed? 3) Given these issues and opportunities, are there existing entities in Washington County, that you are aware of, you think address these (sustainability L.- opportunities)? .:opportunities)? a) What should a sustainability entity be charged with doing, and b) Who should be at the table? .. c) If no entity currently exists, what form, e.g. network, organization or program would be desirable? 4) How important is it to your community that such an entity exists? Very important Somewhat important Somewhat unimportant Very unimportant 5) How might you (or your organization) participate in a local sustainability effort or entity? L 6) How might such an entity, e.g. organization, program or network be funded? 7) Are there any other resources, Web sites, organizations, etc. you think would be of interest for our research? Please identify them here. In the second meeting, the LT reviewed a summary report (Appendix E) of the results of the one-on-one interviews with elected officials and business leaders, and two focus groups. Participants responded to questions concerning key sustainability issues, whether or not to form a sustainability entity in Washington County, roles and activities such an entity should engage in, participants and funding sources. After coming to consensus on establishing some form of entity, the discussion centered on focus of the entity and what form it should take, accountability, strategy for its creation, roles and funding. Based on LT guidance, an intergovernmental agreement and non-profit organization were identified as the two alternatives exploration. This report examines the characteristics of the two models in terms of governance, legal requirements, participating sectors, process and procedures, roles and responsibilities, and funding options and sources. Specific examples of each model are identified and recommendations are made on implementation in Washington County. xma FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 6 OWENS COGAN ...................___._....___..... ...... attglandri NEED FOR AN ORGANIZATION 1 Differing Needs in Washington County The need to coordinate sustainability efforts was strongly expressed by both interviewees and focus groups. All but two of the interviewees and focus group participants agreed that some form of sustainability entity is needed within the county. There was, naturally, a variety of needs identified that such an entity could address. There were some differing definitions of need among public, private, and non- governmental representatives. Generally, public agencies, possibly because several already have sustainability initiatives underway, believe that there is a need for coordination and exchange of information on "best practices" in sustainability and outreach to the public. Some private and non-governmental representatives are more focused on the need for a sustainability vision and metrics as a framework for sustainability. Public agencies generally saw the need for an entity to serve as a convener of public agencies and utilities, while private and non-governmental representatives believe a broad public-private or public-nongovernmental partnership is needed. o'1 There appears to be agreement that major challenges such as climate change, carbon management, peak oil pricing, water conservation, and recycling need to be addressed across all sectors. There is also a recognition that a sustainability entity would be beneficial for the county in a variety of ways including efficient sharing of information and promoting cooperation. There is currently a Sustainability Network of Washington County group. However, this ;.� group may not be the appropriate setting for a more formal organizational structure. Almost all participating stakeholders voiced the need for a broader organization, one that links together the diverse sustainability efforts taking place within the county. oo1 In summary, there is a strong majority opinion, among study participants, to support some form of sustainability entity for Washington County. Without one, informal "1 networks may continue to form and operate, but leave out key stakeholders and lack cohesiveness. They may also lack the capacity to engage, encourage and support structured cooperation and integration of efforts aimed at promoting, measuring and celebrating sustainability efforts. A'1 FUNCTIONS A key question of this study is: "What functions should a sustainability entity assume?" It is important to note that functions will ultimately guide the organizational form. Functions/Roles of Some West Coast Sustainability Organizations -� The list below highlights roles that other sustainability organizations play based on the ,••Ik consultant's research. The full list is shown in Appendix B. These include: . Defining sustainability visions and guiding principles ,..� • Setting indicators; measuring impacts FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COG A:N Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 7 OWENS COGAN • Working with city (ies)/county (ies) to open channels of communication with service agencies • Education and outreach • Green Buildings and neighborhoods (green building, streetscapes and infrastructure) • Sustainable economic development ... • Recycling strategies and programs • Zero Waste (waste reduction & reuse, recycling, composting, public disposal) • Global warming action plan • Peak oil policy • Pursuing use of renewable energy • BEST awards (Businesses for Energy & Sustainable Tomorrow) • BEST business center in partnership with Energy Trust • Environmental justice (energy, air quality, food security, health, land use) • Toxics reduction (pest management, hazardous materials, home & body products) • Urban nature (trees, parks and open spaces animals) • Water management, use/reuse (waste and storm water, water conservation) • Energy use (climate change, cleaner fuels & vehicles, driving alternatives) • Air quality and transportation (pollution prevention, cleaner fuels &vehicles, driving alternatives) • Planning: urban development, redevelopment, economic development, housing: 1) Sustainable agency operations, working with city and county staff to green up processes; 2) Sustainable economic development plan, 3) Sustainable indicators (partnered with Portland State University) that would resonate with the public— 4) Establishing performance indicators e.g. number of trees planted in the city; revised zoning and building codes, interpretations • Coordinating a learning and support group for agency personnel that have sustainability as part or all of their job assignments Washington County Priority Functions A number of functions or roles that a sustainability entity could assume were identified through stakeholder research and the LT discussions. The LT and stakeholders L suggested the following priorities. There are many more potential roles, as noted above, that can be performed by a sustainability organization or entity. These appear to have the most interest and support. • Government purchasing coordination • Coordination of existing organization, business, agency sustainability efforts • Web site with links to member organizations, sustainability information sites and other relevant sites • Centralized sustainability information sharing and referral, • Recycling (enhanced and specialized services) • Education (including business, public, interagency, academic institutions) • Green Building (LEED or other) standards and information • Water supply, storm water management and conservation • Land use and transportation planning, trip reduction strategies, incentives • Metrics/Benchmarking • Research and sharing "best practices" FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 8 OWENS COGAN • Recognition of best practices/awards • Regulatory vs. non-regulatory roles to be assumed by an organization There is an interest in sharing best practices across several functions. Concern about whether there is a regulatory component to a sustainability entity or not was expressed by one member of the LT. This issue is addressed below under the section "Regulatory vs. Non-regulatory Roles". r-N Priority Focus Areas At its October 2007 meeting, the Leadership Team expressed a desire to choose a few top-tier priorities for roles of a sustainability entity. Interviewees and focus group participants, with a few exceptions, identified similar goals. Such priority roles will help to define the organizational structure and funding. Government Purchasing Coordination The Leadership Team expressed an interest in a coordinated sustainability purchasing program. Examples exist locally of jurisdictions implementing such a program, but not on a county-wide basis. In 2006, Portland City Council adopted a resolution to create the Sustainable City Government Partnership. This is an example of a collaborative citywide effort to integrate sustainable practices and resource efficiency into municipal operations. The City of Portland also has a sustainable purchasing initiative. Washington County's local jurisdictions can review how this partnership is operating and perhaps examine joining in adoption of an inter-governmental approach to purchasing. Although not a purchaser's group, the metro area Sustainable Products Purchasers Coalition demonstrates the desire of purchasers to buy sustainable products. ;y See http://www.sppcoalition.orq/text/about.html for more details. ', Coordination of Existing Sustainabilitv Efforts The coordination function was high on the list of all participants. There is an interest in bringing together public and private sectors, non-profits, faith and other communities of ofts interest around sustainability efforts. The existing Sustainability Network of Washington County is a good resource for initial contacts for coordination. See http://www.vision- west.org/sustain8.htm for more details. Web Site A Web site for the sustainability entity can be developed and cover a number of informational needs. Through Visible Strategies, a Vancouver, B.C. based company, a site that links the goals, objectives and strategies of the entity and conveys progress in measuring the impacts of sustainability-related efforts can be developed. The City of Beaverton is currently working with Visible Strategies' see-itTM technology on such a site. See http://beavertoncentral.visiblestrategies.com/. See Appendix D. •1 Links to sponsoring, supporting and related organizations can be provided. Content on local sustainability topics can be provided either as new content or through links to other sources. .-� FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network C:'( AN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 9 OWENS 7, _ COGAN `- Centralized Information Sharing, Public Education There is no "one-stop shopping" within the county to link public, businesses, non-profits and government offices to sustainability information. Having a dedicated single gateway or coordinator of sustainability education, information and referral can save valuable time and resources for a multitude of organizations and residents. A number of examples exist of single purpose education and information and referral services. Currently a number of groups and agencies provide these services in Washington County. Such agencies include Solid Waste and Recycling, Clean Water Services, water districts, Vision Action Network, the OSU Extension Service, Hillsboro and Tigard Resource Centers, and other individual cities. Many other private companies answer recycling, agriculture, forestry and energy conservation questions. These efforts, however, are not linked. Academic Education There are two components to the topic of academic education. First, is public or staff education-- providing information and training on sustainability topics. Secondly, is the coordination with educational institutions in their sustainability programs. One such program is Cascadia Regional Institute for Sustainability Education (C-Rise), led by Portland Community College. There are also sustainability coordinators in each of the regional higher education institutions and academic programs focused on sustainability topics are rapidly expanding. An opportunity exists to use the programs already established by these institutions to help inform businesses and other organizations in `. pursuing sustainability strategies on small and large-scale bases. Recycling Recycling was mentioned by several stakeholders as an area to be addressed by an entity. Information on recycling, and especially of electronic equipment, as well as support of recycling industries was identified as important. Bringing together industry, ' government, and the public to enhance and coordinate recycling services and provide information and referral is a role that an entity can undertake. Green Building Standards In the LT meetings, interviews and focus groups, the consulting team heard from public and private sector participants that education on, and coordination and implementation of, green building standards is a service that they would like to see made available. Jurisdictions use the International Building Code (IBC) and the State of Oregon administers and interprets the codes that builders must follow in constructing their projects. There are also several green building rating systems such as the LEED program of the US Green Building Council that are gaining market share. sps Participants expressed the need to advocate for changes in the codes to allow green building practices to gain in construction, public works and building code/inspection. `s The consulting team heard from both the interviewees and LT that a forum for coordinating people involved in green building in Washington County is desired. One example is the Cascadia, or C-RISE (Regional Institute for Sustainability Education) program at the Sylvania Campus of Portland Community College. Another resource is the Cascadia Green Building Council. Metro, the regional government agency, might establish a green building hotline with investment from Washington County, city and other partners. 11914,1 FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 10 OWENS C'OGAN 1./ Water Supply, Conservation and Storm water Management The Washington County water districts, watershed councils and Clean Water Services have taken leadership roles with regard to water-related sustainability issues. Including these community sustainability leaders is important. They are knowledgeable and a resource for sustainability leadership. There appears to be an opportunity to share expertise on water conservation and on-site storm water solutions across the County. Land Use and Transportation Land use and transportation, in particular, are broad and tied to many facets of the sustainability umbrella. Several organizations within the region address these concerns: Metro, local planning agencies, Westside Economic Alliance, Westside Transportation Alliance, Tri-Met and others. Metrics/Benchmarkinq Benchmarks for several organizations, based upon county-wide sustainability goals, can be developed through a sustainability organization. These benchmarks will help in determining if goals are being met and the strategies being used successful. An example of metrics being used is in the Beaverton Central efforts. Visible Strategies TM has developed see-itTM, a Web site that shows community goals, objectives and strategies, then allows for recording and displaying of data gathered to measure the status of each one. See http://beavertoncentral.visiblestrategies.com/ and Appendix D for more details. Research Research into local sustainability issues can be conducted through academic partners, volunteers or staff dedicated to representing organizations within the sustainability entity, or coordinated through it for a variety of purposes. The research may tie in with other functions such as education, outreach, regulation or other needs. r'` Recognition of Best PracticeslAwards #0.-, By recognizing outstanding efforts toward sustainable practices, incentives can be used to encourage adoption of these practices and participation within businesses and organizations. This promotional activity can be important to individuals, businesses and #'1 organizations that enhance the community through their everyday actions. The BEST Awards (Businesses for Energy & Sustainable Tomorrow) and Washington County's ems GEARS award programs are examples of such a local programs. r'1 Regulatory vs. Non-regulatory Roles The consulting team heard a couple of distinct messages during the feasibility study-- interviewees and focus group participants desired a non-profit, non-regulatory organization/entity. On the other hand, the LT suggested an intergovernmental organization with the option of a regulatory component of the entity being left on the table for discussion. Only governmental entities can assume a regulatory role in -� designing, implementing and legally enforcing sustainability-related codes or ordinances. --� FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 i i OWENS .1,1°4:41,71, COGAN The options: 1. Non-profit/Non-regulatory 2. Intergovernmental/Non-regulatory 3. Intergovernmental/Regulatory Whichever the chosen sustainability entity model is, the LT should recognize the federal, state and local regulations already in place and their relationships to sustainability practices. Within the governmental regulatory environment, compliance is assigned to the applicable agencies. L Having an additional regulatory agency focused on sustainability may be redundant or even counter-productive, depending on the goals desired. This should be carefully L considered. Li Li The educational component of regulatory compliance could, at a minimum, be a service provided by either a governmental or a non-profit sustainability entity. ,.. Table 1. Summary of Responses `.. This table summarizes the input from stakeholders who participated in the study on their preferred organizational structure, governance, roles, membership and funding for a sustainability entity in Washington County. `, TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES: LEADERSHIP TEAM, INTERVIEWEES `. AND FOCUS GROUPS L Leadership Interviewees Group 1 Group 2 Team Organizational Local, inter- Non-governmental Responses Community-based Structure jurisdictional or coordination ranged from organization public-private organization tapping into partnership existing resource like Metro, to ... using VAN or Coalition for a Livable Future as models. Governance IGA or Non-profit Non-profit Various Non-regulatory Roles Purchasing, Global warming- Coordination, Coordination, use education, Climate change, education, science-based centralized Building sustainable centralized analysis, access information & communities, information & resources, referral, Outreach, education, referral, green education, create L- coordination, information sharing building- community vision _ green building- and networking development and goals, development opportunities, standards, measure success standards Advocacy for recognition- using a scorecard, implementation awards metrics strategies, such as revision of the statewide building code to allow L sustainable building L vommommol FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 12 OWENS L. ,, -F, COGANwsztatime_ `.. Leadership Interviewees Group 1 Group 2 Team practices, securing a dedicated city water source, retraining employees with goal of instilling a sustainability ethic Membership Public sector or Inclusive, broad Inclusive broad Inclusive broad public-private representation representation representation partnership Funding Jurisdiction's Fees, grants, Fees, grants, Fees, grants, contributions, contributions contributions contributions fees, regional, state &federal grants Focus Group #1--composed primarily of business, city, county and agency personnel-- -- expressed a desire to find a less structured way to focus community-wide sustainability efforts. They want to know where the public is in terms of readiness for discussion on issues like climate change and other sustainability topics and to assess public opinion about a sustainability organization. They wanted to tap into existing resources, such as Metro. They desire coordination and education functions to be a significant part of the charge for an entity as well. Focus Group #2, a mixed group of private, non-profit and public sector representatives, had different priorities for urban and rural interest roles in a sustainability entity. While urban representatives discussed land use, transportation, sustainable economic development, water quality, recycling, community education and awards, the rural members addressed soil and water conservation, land use conflicts, farmer's markets and other rural-related components of sustainability. Though not exclusive to the rural constituency, these concerns had slightly more importance to the environmental, farm and faith community representatives. This group's ideas on functions/roles for a sustainability organization were more encompassing of a wide range of programs, services and community-based activities that crossed sectors and included the desire for a sustainability vision and the use of metrics to measure attainment of sustainability goals. WHICH TYPE OF ENTITY? Based on interviews, focus groups and LT discussions, the types or forms of entity most often mentioned are non-profit and intergovernmental. The question for consideration is what form would best serve the needs of the community? The LT and some interviewees favored an intergovernmental organization. Two LT members favored a public-private partnership. Focus group and some interview participants expressed _ interest in some form of a non-governmental organizational that is inclusive, broad- based and collaborative. Some discussion took place on the potential organizing role of Metro or Portland State University, but the LT decided to focus at the local county level. The option of seeking contributions and collaboration from these two organizations was left open for consideration. FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN ,.� Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 13 OWENS COGAN The consulting team focused on intergovernmental and non-profit organization options. -- Each type of entity has its own advantages and disadvantages. The legal structure would dictate the activities that could or could not be undertaken. For example, an intergovernmental entity is unlikely to receive foundation or other charitable contributions. Non-profit organizations are generally precluded from lobbying. However, ,.... non-profits can accept public and private contributions, apply for philanthropic and governmental grants, and are not subject to the same public notice and open meeting laws as a governmental entity. _ `.. During the LT meetings the concept of having an organization that would sunset after a given period (3-5 years) was discussed. Several members suggested that a sunset L provision would limit a long-term commitment to funding if the organizational structure L. did not function as intended. There was also consideration given to launching the Le initiative within an existing program or agency. L/ This chart summarizes the characteristics of the two types of organizations suggested by the LT for examination in this study. L✓ TABLE 2. OPTIONS FOR A SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATION IN WASHINGTON COUNTY Characteristics Non-Profit Intergovernmental ." Governance/ Board of Directors, non-regulatory Council, Commission, Committee, `- Decision-making Example: Sustainable North Carolina Board; non-regulatory, advisory group — (SNC) & Sustainable Seattle have Example: Multnomah/Portland L, each a board of directors and provide Sustainable Development Commission support to members. (SDC) L. Participating Private, public, non-profit, academic, Public, private, academic L.- Sectors business representatives. Members selected by — Example: SNC appears to be mostly participating jurisdictions focused on business but has both Example: SDC `- business and government members, 1... as well as participation of universities, institutions and non-profits. .....- Legal ,Legal Structure, Articles of Incorporation under Government agencies agree to form L. Process & Oregon law, federal and state organization, intergovernmental Procedures registration as a non-profit agreement approved by participants. `-- organization, adopted bylaws open or Subject to open public meetings, T closed meetings, majority rule, Administrative Procedures Act. (See consensus model, informed consent Appendix I) model(See Appendices G & H) , Roles & Non-regulatory: Coordination, Non-regulatory: Responsibilities networking/events, education, interagency/intergovernmental information &referral, community- planning, program coordination, based social marketing, advocacy, education, information & referral, grant administration, metrics, metrics, setting benchmarks, reporting .- benchmark reporting, research, Regulatory: Setting standards, promotion, awards certification criteria, metrics, setting Example: Sustainable Seattle benchmarks, reporting, enforcement focuses on education and indicators Example: Clean Water Services, Lane L- and has an award program; IIINAMINARIN FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN \-- Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 14 OWENS COGAN 1 Characteristics Non-Profit Intergovernmental Sustainable North Carolina provides Co. Council of Governments, SDC education, networking and an award program Funding Membership or utilization fees, private Governmental grants (federal, state, and business contributions, grants regional), intergovernmental (philanthropic, governmental) contributions When the consulting team researched organizations related to sustainability, the organizations were graphed on two axes: the degree of centralization or decentralization, and degree of formality or informality. Based on the results of the interviews and focus groups, it appears that what most study participants want is something fairly formal but not centralized or regulatory in nature. However, as mentioned earlier, one LT member asked that regulation be kept on the table for discussion. We have shaded the general location of where a desired entity falls on the chart below. FIGURE 1. AUTHORITY/RELATIONSHIP MATRIX 0 Communityof N Network Practice/Forum c a) U a) -� 0 Society or Alliance Task Force Non-profit agency Intergovernmental Intermediary/foundation agreement organization 2 L aGovernment Agency eINU Formal Informal ."1 Examples of Non-Profit Sustainability Organization A Board of Directors governs a non-profit. The board's role is to determine the mission and strategies used to accomplish it, provide direction for committees, fundraising, monitoring the performance and impact of the organization, ensuring fiscal responsibility, selecting and monitoring staff (if any), and supporting the overall organization. Volunteers are key to the success of any non-profit. Board members should have a high level of commitment to the mission and entity. Composition of a non-profit board should be carefully considered as the issue of sustainability involves a wide cross-section of individuals, organizations and sectors. avammu •� FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 15 OWENS 4tx COGAN `S `S The success of the organization rides on inclusion and the ability to hear and address the priorities of the group. Non-profits are independent organizations solely responsible �✓ to their Board of Directors. Two comparable sustainability organizations that most closely align with the purposes described by the LT are summarized below--Sustainable North Carolina and Sustainable Seattle. Vision Action Network, which is a Washington County non-profit model, is another example, though with a much broader charge than sustainability issues. These organizations have relatively small staffs and benefit from multiple funding sources. Neither of the sustainability organizations precisely matches the desired purpose(s) reflected by the LT, focus groups and interviewee who participated in this project. However, they do provide proof-of-concept as well as viable funding and structural models. Sustainable North Carolina Founded in 1998 as a 501(c) (3), Sustainable North Carolina's purpose is to accelerate the adoption of practices that optimize economic prosperity, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship. Their funding comes largely from memberships and corporate sponsorships, although a grant helped fund its creation and they are currently pursuing a grant for a specific program. See Appendix C for more information. `• Sustainable Seattle Sustainable Seattle was started by citizens that wanted to measure sustainability in their community. They never developed an official relationship with city government. The organization is all privately funded, approximately 70 percent by foundations and the rest from individual contributions. Their purpose is to be a catalyst for sustainability and currently their focus is on enabling individuals to make sustainable choices. Example of Intergovernmental Collaboration The formation of an intergovernmental organization would include existing jurisdictions under an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) umbrella. Representation could be limited to participating jurisdictions or there could be a structure set up to invite voting or non- voting members-at-large or non-profit representatives. The advantages of having an IGA in place are that it defines expectations for participation, responsibilities, including monetary contributions, procedures, administrative responsibilities, and a sunset clause (if desired). The disadvantages of an IGA are that there are limitations on what funding sources can �.. be pursued and what programs and activities can be funded. There is also the need to adhere to strict recordkeeping, open public meeting laws and the State Administrative Procedures Act. Options for Staffing 1. Each agency/group dedicates some amount of staff time, but not a new FTE staff member within an existing organization or agency. FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 16 OWENS L. :46. COGAN 2. Appoint one or two staff members in a single agency/organization as a county- ^ wide sustainability coordinator, funded from IGA member jurisdictions. ,.� 3. Hire new staff member(s) within a completely new organization or department or division. A copy of the City of Portland/Multnomah County Sustainable Development Commission IGA is attached as Appendix I. This model has the Commission addressing a policy and program advisory functions with both the City and County, without decision-making authority on regulatory matters. The Commission is composed of seventeen members appointed by the jurisdictions; ten from the City and seven from the County. The Portland Office of Sustainable Development and the Multnomah County Sustainability Initiative staff the Commission. FUNDING enN n Potential funding for a sustainability organization can come from a variety of sources. Establishment of the legal entity under which the organization will fall is crucial to determining the funding sources available. Building organizational capacity would be the next step. Grants for core support of sustainability organizations are less available and harder to find. We have identified some funding options for such an organization or entity. Funding that is dedicated to specific topical initiatives will probably be easier to obtain through funds for general support. Grants for agricultural, forestry, food security, land use, transportation, toxics, green building, energy use, water resources, research, education, etc. are easily researched and possibly obtained. Potential Funding Sources If the sustainability entity is organized under an intergovernmental agreement, the bulk of funding will likely be provided by the jurisdictions who participate in the agreement. A number of large corporations are located within Washington County and could participate in a sustainability organization financially. ✓'1 Funding of a non-profit could be through donations, corporate contributions, philanthropic grants or government grants. A membership organization could establish fees, payable on an annual basis or charge for services. Other funding may be available i1 from a variety of federal, state, regional, philanthropic and other sources including the ,1 following: '1 The Urban Land Institutes' Community Action Grants of up to $25,000 are available to fund non-profit and public projects that foster creative, innovative community outreach, research, or education programs. Sustainability and community building fall within the grant criteria and categories for funding. Grant cycles for 2008 are in March and Aeo September. See http://www.uli.orq/AM/Template.cfm?Section=My Community for more details. The Meyer Memorial Trust administers Responsive, Capacity Building and Grassroots ^ grants for a variety of causes and non-profits. Grant cycles vary by the type of grant sought and have quarterly submission cycles. See http://www.mmt.orq/grants programs/for more information. FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 17 Ott ENS pmCOGAN The M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust serves the Pacific Northwest with a focus on education, arts and culture and scientific research grants. Funding for leadership development, increasing organizational capacity and more is also available. See http://www.murdock-trust.orq/ for more details. Jesse Smith Noyes Foundation http://www.noyes.orq/apply.html makes grants for �.- sustainability organizations. This foundation would be appropriate for grants to address issues related to sustainable agricultural and food systems. Intel, with a large presence in Washington County, has a grant program with a focus on environmental issues. See http://www.intel.com/community/grant.htm for more details. Oregon Community Foundation provides competitive community grants. See http://www.ocfl.orq/grant programs/grant programs.html for more details. The federal Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Education Grants may be the source for funds related to sustainability education. See http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/grants apply.html for more details. Closing date for 2008 is 12/20/07. From Sustainable Design for Nonprofit Organizations: Finding Funding to Support Sustainability by Holly Lennihan: Bank of America S✓ "Grants for programs that foster sustainable practices on a community level often focus on convening leaders from the public and private sectors. The goal of y many of these program (sic) is to create consensus about how to best articulate long-term goals with respect to sustainability. One example is the Bank of America's partnership with the Urban Land Institute to promote 'smart growth.- 1 Kresge Foundation "Since 2003, the Michigan-based Kresge Foundation, through its Green Building Initiative, has awarded 64 planning grants totaling more than $4.1 million "to increase the awareness of sustainable or green building practices among nonprofits and [to] encourage them to consider building green. The foundation, `,/ which is known for its challenge grants for capital projects, is an early proponent of sustainable design practices for nonprofits, and as such offers a nice range of educational materials on its Web site, including three case studies." `d MEASURING SUCCESS Measuring success of any organization can be challenging. In each of the stakeholder focus groups, the consulting team heard that measuring the success of sustainability efforts is important. There are many components to measuring the impacts of sustainable practices including economic health, community benefits, environmental health, and social well-being. Developing the metrics that reflect the values of county residents and businesses can be an important task of the sustainability organization. .. pmgve FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 18 OWENS COGAN mr 1.i pus The chart on the following page shows the top 13 sustainability strategies that make the most impact on communities. When assessing the roles and responsibilities of a sustainability entity, the chart is used to help prioritize goals, objectives, implementation strategies, and resources available. It can also help in measuring success. As mentioned under the Web site discussion above, the see-itTM tool by Visible Strategies is an innovative way to measure, record and report on impacts (Appendix D). Such Web-based software can display goals, strategies, actions, performance measures and serve as a vehicle for stakeholder involvement. 01 f1 ris //ta,1 r1 INOMSVISIN FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 19 OWENS A COGAN \.. `A." L L 3flu 3 NH N. p OCO CZ -. 1 57) Cil A w) N -s Cl)W N — ';' B 3 f co m -- yy �. h v a CD Cl) Cl) CD g s v � o ort' X b v ..- p < m CO o am � _• o a (I) . L b _ 0 o m 7 to �, _ .Ks Q CD w 7 m 7 D (0 O m v v 3 0 0. o CQ LI o co O x CS v a0 ' 7 = 0 5 _� % X < ='CO• co, con o m n cn m i� mcny 7n H LO Cn CD CD -i O 'NCD Cn 7- CU � 07- C?� a COD ;. cc, c Cp C7 O _ O Q CD IX . O CD N i n �T Cn Cn O m a CD M 0 l o x )4 X x x x x x x x x a) 3 n CD 0 5 �• O C� Z - m a � 7 O , N 0- O o -, 'O O i',lit ivc � CD 3 , -. 7 0- Cn (r) CDCD O .,,� co v " o `noo 3o 0 3 T) CD ' (0 0 7 �' CD C n o m O v (0 o -a cn 3 .,..• 0 0 v D- -. D) 5. = -. c x x x x x. x x x x xx o 3 c5' �_ -• a3 3 vCD cn3a 0 o CD p N D) (D <D •.. 7 (D -6 < G) CI) o x x x x x x x x x x 0)3 _. w Q- (i) CT) 3 3 ca a; r: ooccnn 303 fir' (2) < cn cDCD 7vmv CI CD Z 7 0o -1 v ./ CO O 0 a 7 - O O 7. N N O 3• `< CD _. CD XX x x x x x x x _ C - � (0 5_. FD' 0 c> m oCDN m 0vv O / - CD N . c m co7 (IDQ ; DO CD Q� 0 o c ad C ) CD 0 ,n-- co m XX x x x x x x x n n c CD Sv CD <, c �• o Cn = 0 0 CD i , O ocn v - 7 vmc "/ O cn a X -o SD co 0 CQ Q v ., o0- =O co 5 0- 5. F.,- C 7 7 (n 0 No 7 -0 O N 1111 -% D CQ Cr 7 0 0 0 < r". 3 CD 7 O r i./ �, - a � C o .101 p V `0 CONCLUSIONS This research project is intended to answer a series of questions: • Is there a need for an entity to coordinate sustainability efforts in Washington County? • What would it do? • What type or form of organization should be considered? • How would it be funded? iTh Is there a need? The answer to the first question is a qualified `yes.' When asked how important is it to your community that this (entity) happen? Fifteen focus group members and interviewees indicated that it was very important, and eight indicated it is somewhat important; three participants indicated it is somewhat not important. None said it was not important. Throughout this study, the consulting team heard that it would be important for the Washington County communities to be served by a sustainability entity. There is also a clear trend among existing public and private (major employer) organizations within the county, region and globally to increase their interest in, and capacity to address e"1 sustainability issues. What would it do? Answers to this question ranged widely and varied based on the perspective of the participants in the interviews and focus groups. Those in government saw a need to help their own agencies be more sustainable, coordinate dissemination of "best practices" information, and provide coordinated outreach to the community. The cross- e'1 sector focus group tended to see opportunities to set a broader strategic agenda for the el) county, setting benchmarks for the future, and collaborate and coordinate across sectors. r1 There are ranges of possibilities for such an entity including developing and managing: • A sustainability vision and guiding principles • Metrics and benchmarks h • Research applied to local sustainability challenges • Focused initiatives to advance subjects such a recycling, water conservation, green building and development across organizations • Sharing "best practices" among organizations on specific subjects r1 • Conference, workshops, education and training programs ANN • Public outreach • Award and recognition programs • Participation in similar efforts in the region, nationally, and internationally • Web page connectivity (See Visible Strategies work in Beaverton, http://beavertoncentral.visblestrategies.com ) FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 21 OWEN COGAN • Clearinghouse for information and resources on sustainability Most participants were quite adamant that this body should not be regulatory, although it could provide research for and advice to regulatory bodies. What type of organization should be considered? Noe Based on focus groups, interviews, and discussions with the Leadership Team, the consulting team recommends two types of organizations for consideration. (See pp. 12- 15 for more detail.) Option 1. Intergovernmental agreement organization. This type of organization is familiar to local government officials, and is created by intergovernmental agreement among the participating public agencies. Such an organization would focus on public agency needs and issues. The best example of this model is the Portland-Multnomah Sustainable Development Commission. Option 2. Non-governmental organization. This type of entity could be structured similarly to the Vision Action Network but with a different set of purposes. The best examples of this model are Sustainable Seattle and Sustainable North Carolina. The consulting team believes either type of organization could serve the county well and there are ways the two models might be combined. For example, an intergovernmental agreement organization could create a coordinating body to set priorities, incubate further initiatives and develop a business plan or strategic plan for the future. Funding from non-governmental sources could be sought through an existing non-profit organization or academic institution as partners for specific projects. How would it be funded? Discussions on how the entity should be funded were understandably non-committal. Interviews and focus groups identified a broad range of possibilities. The Leadership Team, in discussing an intergovernmental agreement organization, identified the potential of several public agencies contributing funds and/or loaned personnel. The '' consulting team identified several potential funding sources for a sustainability organization. Generally, a government-led organization may not be eligible for the same philanthropic or tax-deductible funding as a private non-profit. Private non-profits may be excluded from applying for certain federal, state, regional or local grants. Next steps Based on these findings, we believe the most productive path forward is to: 1. Identify the parties, among the Leadership Team, that care enough about creating such an entity that they are willing to put forth time and/or money to make it happen. The core of this initiative appears to be the public sector agencies. 2. Identify resources (financial and personnel) necessary to manage the incubation process. 3. Go through a chartering process to scope out its purpose and services. Decide if it should be chartered as an intergovernmental agreement organization or a private non-profit, or some combination over time. Tannon FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGA. `- Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 22 OWES L. COGAN I 1 4. Develop a clear but flexible set of purposes for the organization and do not limit the scope unnecessarily. 5. Shop the idea around to others who might come on board, help fund or provide other resources. 6. Develop a funding plan for a three-year period with a sunset provision. 7. Legally charter the organization either as an intergovernmental agreement or "1 non- governmental organization. 8. Launch the organization. 9. Develop a strategic plan and business plan for the first three years of operation. Possible Additional Research for the Leadership Team Additional research for consideration by the Leadership Team can: 1. Determine the interest among large employers and major institutions in forming, funding or participating in a sustainability organization. 2. Determine if it is possible to leverage existing funding or current functions to initiate the entity (e.g., recycling or energy conservation programs) 3. Determine the interests of the general public. A question might be added to a survey initiated for other purposes to gauge public support and interest. 4. Define a contact person at Portland State University, Oregon Graduate Institute, r'1 and/or Portland Community College to consider as key partners. 5. Define the role desired for Metro to play and their willingness to play it. r1 r1 "1 i1 FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 23 OWENS t " i COGAN i'1 r1 ,., APPENDIX A Understanding Sustainability r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 n r1 r1 r1 r1 rN FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 24 OWENS COGAN r'1 eiN eiN 111 I1 Ir 0 r1 n /:*; /1 ,.� Everyone living well within the limits of nature WHAT IS SUSTAINABILITY? 26 THE BIRTH OF THE SUSTAINABILITY MOVEMENT 27 THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN SUSTAINABILITY 28 01 SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMS PRODUCE MULTIPLE BENEFITS 30 LEVERS FOR CHANGE 31 THE TOP 13 ACTIONS 32 RESOURCES 33 A voirsoftsmasi FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network (0(i AN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 25 C? ;S •01 kild L•9 What is Sustainability? -- Sustainability is a concept that is getting a lot of attention in business and governments around the world. ,NV;•.,,t,„., Sustainability recognizes that the health of our economy, communities and •-- FNVIRONMENiTAL ',17 146:kleroNi:' environment are all interconnected. In the ___--- past, we have favored one over the other, for example, sacrificing the environment or .... human health for economic growth. But ...(97 these strategies often backfire. For — example, China now suspects that their economic Figure 1:Triple Bottom Line.Visual N.... growth, reported to be around 8-10 percent per courtesy of Charles Carroll year, may be much less or even negative if they 1../ take into account the environmental costs (e.g., massive flooding in the Yangtze from \..I deforestation) and health costs (e.g., people becoming ill from air pollution.) The only .../ path to long-term community well-being is to make decisions that benefit all three elements: economic, social and environmental. When you weave them together, you get <.." a stronger society. ....., In industrialized nations, much of the focus is on reducing or eliminating the ..., environmental impacts of a consumptive society. In the developing world, such social issues as education, family planning and AIDS may be the primary focus. However, in all cases, sustainability prompts people to come up with creative win-win-win solutions, instead of sacrificing one for another. — Figure 2: Think about how each of these 'buckets' of problems affects the others Sustainability ? ,4- Our Challenges Are Interconnected . . , , • ...... 4 prilic—t- ; 4 a '.' .... .k\AikP 1,,4-,,3,lawk Unemployment ir a 3 Climate change -•4:z 64..,,,,h _ Income disparity Ozone hole •..t — '' 7',.. - Illegal if,-V-- „ ,k '?°,4'.w ,•:,:t7' • • ' ,.... Pollution '-‘ MUM-1.1111 V*. * immigration A „of Fisheries Poverty Outsourcing .,.. 4, i,,,?,,4 Rainforests AIDS Oil prices L.. zz 17!!"-, Extinctions Healthcare I Sweatshops Fresh water Education "-------- .... 4 a Crime Terrorism Population i••• intets ‘0,1 FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 26 OWENS ...,/ 41:Xlizt COGAN ise• ..,/ The Birth st i ilii Movement Sustainability emerged as an outgrowth of and distinct from the environmental movement around the 1960's. The following timelines show some of the key events, both at a global and local level. Decade Global Local 1960's 1962 Silent Spring published. 1967 Oregon Beach Bill 1966 Endangered Species Act created in US 1968 International Conference for Rational Use and Conservation of the Biosphere(Paris, France) 1970's 1970-First Earth Day held as a national teach-in on the 1971 Oregon Bottle Bill environment. 1973 Oregon creates first raiN 1972,the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment land use planning laws marked the first international meeting on how human activities were 1977 Urban Growth harming the environment and putting humans at risk. Boundary formed 1979 METRO formed 1980's 1987,the UN-sponsored Brundtland Commission released Our Common Future,a report that captured widespread concerns about the environment and poverty in many parts of the world. 1988- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established to assess the most up-to-date scientific,technical and socioeconomic research in the field. 1989 Montreal Protocol put into effect to reduce ozone depleting substances 1990's 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development aka the 1993 Portland first US Rio Summit Created Agenda 21 as a blueprint for action in the 21st city to have Local Action century Plan on Global Warming 1992 'Kyoto Protocol' aka U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, Egypt) —1 1995 United States President's Council on Sustainable Development(United States)Released report, Sustainable America--A New Consensus 2000 to 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development(Johannesburg, 2000 Portland Office of present South Africa) Sustainable Development 2002-Global Reporting Initiative(GRI).After five years of a formed. multistakeholder, consensus-building process, GRI releases its 2001 Sustainability Act guidelines for how organizations should report on the economic, 2003 Sustainability environmental and social dimensions of their business activities. Executive Order drives 2005-Kyoto Protocol enters into force, legally binding developed most agencies to create a country Parties to goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, plan and establishing the Clean Development Mechanism for developing 2006 Executive Order, countries. Sustainability for the 21st 2005- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment released. 1,300 experts Century from 95 countries provide scientific information concerning the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being. INS i'1 FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 27 OMENS COGAN `./ The Role r Sustainability `. This section excerpted from The Business Guide to Sustainability(Hitchcock&Willard,2006 Earthscan) \.. Government has a huge role to play in sustainability. Administrations use a large amount of resources and employ a lot of people,but more importantly they are also responsible for protecting the `commons': air sheds,watersheds, fisheries and huge tracks of publicly-owned land. Through infrastructure and incentives,they set the stage upon which the rest of civilization acts. Their decisions determine to a large extent the livability of our communities and the environmental impacts of our lifestyles. For example, China has been heralded as having dramatic economic growth,but the World �.. Bank recently estimated that they are losing 8 percent of GDP in environmental costs. Governments must see their communities as a whole system,making decisions that simultaneously improve the health of the community, the economy and the environment. Often, the necessary vision and courage is not in evidence. And even when the vision is there, it can be hard for government to make significant changes. Bombarded by competing interests,public servants often retreat to safe, tried-and-tested but unsustainable practices. In the US, much of the public no longer respects or values the �- role of government, yet they still want good roads, great schools and better security, exactly the services government provides. The US is caught in a Catch-22 situation: people need more leadership from government but government waits for pressure from its constituents, many of whom have a vested interest in the status quo. In this chapter, we highlight those who have taken risks and made, at times, unpopular decisions to drive us 1✓ toward a more sustainable world. We need more heroes like these! According to Susan Anderson at Portland, Oregon's Office of Sustainable Development, partnerships are key. Government plays a host of roles—modeling, facilitating, educating, regulating—but can only go so far on their own. The most successful efforts integrate government, non-profit organizations and business. What do we need and expect of government in order to move toward a sustainable society? The list is long and the challenges daunting. Spending revenue wisely, maximizing the benefits to society. We want government to provide its services efficiently. However, governments operate within a tangle of `.. legislative rules and mandates. Ideas that sound great on the floor of the legislature often cause problems in practice. For example, when a homeowner in Oregon installs a new furnace, the job is inspected twice. The electrical and gas pressure test are done before the system is turned over to the homeowner for use. But the homeowner may get a call several months later by another inspector required to look at furnaces and air conditioners prompted by paperwork turned in by the contractor. In these cases, the inspection is completely redundant. Right now, a supervisor is trying to find a way around this,but it 'S takes initiative to overcome the senselessness of certain rules. FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network C°OGA J 'S Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 28 OWENS COCA 1 Agencies, in their stovepipes, often pass on costs and problems to other agencies, leading to sub-optimal results. For example, consider the problem of rainwater. Traditionally, ;.� buildings are constructed with gutters that dump huge quantities of water into the rainwater system. At the same time, roads funnel rainwater into the same pipes. As more and more impermeable surfaces expand on the landscape, wastewater treatment centers become overloaded. Treating all this water is expensive. Because we rarely use the rainwater, we also need large potable water systems and reservoirs. The solution should not be bigger pipes, more dams and larger wastewater treatment centers. Instead, we need to rethink how we construct buildings, communities and roads. In Portland, Oregon, some houses have been legally permitted to use rainwater in the home, including r1 for drinking water. With the area's legendary rainfall, these homes easily provide enough storage for most of the year. They simultaneously reduce the pulse of rainwater and reduce the need for drinking water supplies. Bioswales could collect street run-off. The technologies exist to solve this problem. It is a matter of design. Agencies need to collaborate and understand their interdependencies. Providing infrastructure and security. Enrique Penalosa, the former mayor of Bogota, Colombia, said that solving traffic congestion by building more roads was like solving obesity by giving people larger belts. But this is exactly the strategy of many transportation departments. Already in many US cities 50 per cent or more of the urban landscape— streets and parking lots—is devoted to cars. The choices governments make determine the quality of neighborhoods, the viability of public transportation, air quality and the fitness of citizens. By building roads, they create suburban sprawl, which is more expensive for government to serve with infrastructure. Protecting the commons. Government is the guardian of all public resources, those things critical for life but which may not have been assigned a market value or owner. Without sufficient regulation, protection and enforcement, we can experience a `tragedy of the commons', the tendency to over-exploit public resources. Sometimes governments make things worse rather than better. Take fisheries for example: when stocks of cod, which had been abundant for centuries off the coast of Canada,began to decline, the '1 actions of government actually precipitated the collapse. To shore up the economies based on the cod, government subsidized the fishermen, keeping prices low and harvest , .s high. Now the fishery is closed and few expect it ever to recover. Creating a level playing field. Government sets the stage for commerce, but often the stage is tilted, and not toward the audience. Government is rife with perverse incentives. As Paul Hawken, author of Natural Capitalism explains, 'The US government subsidizes ;.� energy costs so that farmers can deplete aquifers to grow alfalfa to feed cows that make milk that is stored in warehouses as surplus cheese that does not feed the hungry.' Conservative estimates calculate the total cost of subsidies as USD2.6 trillion per year, approximately five times corporate profits. By some estimates, around 77 per cent of ,.,, these are perverse, having serious, unintended negative side-effects. Protecting and helping peole who need it. Here again,problems et passed from agency to agency. In the US, mental institutions have been closed to protect the rights of FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 29 OLENS COGAN `/ `/ those inside, paradoxically resulting in many becoming homeless, shivering on the streets and begging for food. Overwhelmed social service agencies lose track of at-risk children who end up in foster homes, correction facilities or on the police roster of missing ... persons. Even the progressive Oregon Health Plan, providing health insurance to the neediest Oregonians, lost funding during an economic downturn; but the savings may have been illusory because more people ended up in emergency rooms and jails after losing their access to essential prescriptions and health services. These costs were paid out of different budgets but may have cost the state even more. `/ Guiding us towards a better future. Government is the only institution clearly tasked to attend to the long-term. Community growth plans are drawn up for a period of 20 years. Energy policy sets the direction for half a century. Schools prepare students for -- their lifetimes. Too often vested interests preserve the status quo; many communities, however, like those cited below, have set visionary goals in place that have affected the quality of life for generations. A sustainable economic development strategy is part of this role, of course. Few states want to endure the boom-and-bust cycles of Alaska. Picking the right `horses' to ride and knowing when to begin switching to a new `mount' is key. Many communities in Oregon are still reeling from the changes in the timber business. Many states and regions are now looking to cleantech as the next long-term economic boom. According to the Clean Tech Revolution, this industry, which includes sustainability-related innovations in energy, transportation, materials and water, is now one of the largest areas for venture capital. And `green' jobs such as environmental engineers and hydrologists, will grow at"much higher than average" rates of 27 percent or more through 2014, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. So communities that want to have a vibrant economy need to pay attention to these trends. Sustainability Prr lti l Benefits Example Program Environment Social/Community Economic Green building Reduces impact on Reduces exposure to Saves energy/money natural resources indoor toxics to operate Smart growth Contains sprawl Improves livability Reduces area requiring infrastructure Renewable energy Reduces greenhouse Removes major Creates jobs gas emissions source of mercury Reduces volatility pollution of energy prices `— Biofuels Can reduce Reduces exposure to Supports farming as greenhouse gases benzene, other a viable lifestyle carcinogens and asthma triggers FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 30 OWENS 4 4 COGAN 0111 Levers for Change Governments must act both internally and externally. Look for actions that are going to be powerful levers for change. fr,. Figure 3. Levers for change Levers for Change Internally, represented by the inner External/Mission: Outside world circle, governmental agencies should and use Manning streamline what they do in their daily axation work to become more sustainable by �nternal reducing the need for energy and -Training — natural resources and eliminating -Purchasing D waste and toxics. Training employees • cannot only help them apply jsustainable principles to their work; it may also spill into their home lives. r-� Similarly, implementing sustainable purchasing practices will help drive the marketplace. Many agencies develop sustainability policies and practices to improve the social, economic and environmental benefits of their decisions and actions. r1 Governments also have critical external, mission-related opportunities as well and these are even more important to the creation of a sustainable society. Each agency has a different unique role to play regarding sustainability. Fire and police may increase the emphasis on building social capital. Building departments may work on providing incentives and tougher codes for requiring green building standards. Social services may r'1 work on access to affordable, energy efficient and low toxic housing. ''1 ORS ofts ofts FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 31 OWENS daNi t, CC?GAN The Top 13 Actions �..- The Oregon Sustainability Board has developed a toolkit to help local governments take �.- the most powerful actions. It includes 13 actions and each has background information with links to existing, successful policies and programs. Figure 5: Sustainable Oregon Toolkit http://www.sustainableoregon.net/toolkit/ Top Strategics to Make Communities and Government More Sustainable Governmental agencies that pursue sustainability endeavor to simultaneously improve the health of their •— economy, their community and the environment.This site provides advice and best practices for the most powerful strategies. This site provides links to best practices, policies and programs. Browse through �► these strategies, pick one to work on, and then come back to select another. Sustainability strategies with the biggest impact The following chart lists the top sustainability strategies cities and counties can take and shows the V primary benefits each should provide. Because everything is interconnected, every strategy can impact all the benefits listed in columns below.We have shown with X's the primary benefits for each strategy. \.+ These are only general guidelines as arguments could be made to add or delete X's. Click on any strategy to learn more about it and get links to best practices (policies and programs.) `e Human Climate Natural Species �✓ 5trate 4y Livability Economic Health Change Resources Protection 2 CIE,_ft E;uiluinrA 1 FriEir1. X X Renevvabie Energy x' x 3 r Trans cirraL r T . � .y _. p trop Options � _ •, , � �`" � , , ':.;fw_-sn PLlrcl , ';irifl "X X x }C . Waste Reduction 'aerfnl*Wri''740X**C-x,.; 4'44:!-AX0O ° } :,X.- 'l, Ti-,..*irs RoducYien M r k x 10. Water Quality : 1 47-47, x L.: -< t� ,. Land Preseruarror��"GreenVpax ,` ��� .:. x.� . : x' 1 11 =iit II-in l.11ilty PIsrrf ink This site is still being populated with examples, but it is a great resource, providing advice and best practices. • FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 32 OMENS "I.! ��*��y COGAN Th Resources Useful Organizations Linking Sustainability and Governments: r1 ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability, www.iclei.org has a number of useful programs and resources, especially vis a vis climate change. National League of Cities, www.nlc.org/home. e International Society of Sustainability Professionals www.sustainabilityprofessionals.org is a professional association for sustainability practitioners. It bridges geographic, philosophic, and sector barriers with the mission of making sustainability standard practice. Oregon Natural Step Network www.ortns.org hosts local breakfasts and workshops. Environmental Sustainability Index: If you want to know how your country compares to others, Yale University publishes an Environmental Sustainability Index, www.yale.edu/esi. In 2005 Finland,Norway and Uruguay were at the top; North Korea was at the bottom. SustainLane: Major US cities can see how they rank in the SustainLane ranking; San Francisco, California and Portland, Oregon were at the top of their list in 2005, http://www.sustainlane.com/cityindex/citypage/ranking/. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was commissioned by the UN and involved thousands of scientists from around the globe. Their report(and an easy-to-read summary) identifies the biggest environmental-related issues facing our planet, (www.millenniumassessment.org. See also the Millennium Goals, www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. 011 Other Related Organizations ,, Alliance for Redesigning Government, National Academy of Public Administration, 1120 G St.,NW, Suite 850,Washington, DC 20005, Tel: 202.347.3190, Fax: 202.347.3252, Email: innovate@napawah.org, Website: http://www.alliance.napawash.org. ,1 The Alliance is the center of a national network and clearinghouse for state, local, and federal innovators, nonprofit and corporate leaders, and scholars who advocate performance-based,results-driven governance. Alliance for Regional Stewardship (ARS), 350 Cambridge Avenue, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94306, Tel: 650.614.0230,Fax: 650.614.0240, Email: info@regionalstewardship.org,Website: http://www.regionalstewardship.org. -1 FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 33 OWENS COGAN The Alliance is a civic community national network of regional leaders addressing the long-term well-being of their regions in four spheres: new economy, livable community, social inclusion and governance. The Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: 202.797.6139, Fax: 202.797.2965, Email: brookinfo@brook.edu,Website: http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/urban.htm. The Center seeks to shape a new generation of urban policies that will help build strong cities and metropolitan regions. Florida Sustainable Communities Center (FSCC), do Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100, Tel: 850.922.1600, Fax: 850.922.9881, Website: http://sustainable.state.fl.us. FSSC, an Internet project of the FL Dept. of Community Affairs, provides peer- to-peer communication opportunities, streamlined access to information and resources for enhancing sustainability, and a collaborative framework for designing policies and plans. Institute for The Regional Community (ITRC), 1799 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Tel: 202.457.0710, Fax: 202.296.9352, Website: saw http://www.narc.org/itrc. ITRC, a program of the National Association of Regional Councils, works to promote regional policy processes through conference sponsorship, a quarterly journal called The Regionalist, and a clearinghouse for information on regional collaboration skills and approaches. V Joint Center for Sustainable Communities, Website: http://www.naco.org/programs/comm_dev/center/about.cfm. Li The Joint Center, a partnership of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties, promotes cities and counties working together for a livable future. It fosters sustainable communities by providing local elected officials with advice, information, and financial support through a variety of Li programs. Li Local Government Commission (LGC), 1414 K St., Suite 250, Sacramento, CA 95814, Tel: 916.448.1198, Fax: 916.448.8246, Email: lgc@dcn.davis.ca.us, Website: http://www.lgc.org. Li The LGC provides a forum and technical assistance to enhance the ability of local \ governments to create and sustain healthy environments, healthy economies, and social equity. u Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network, 520 Lafayette Road N, 2nd floor, St. Paul, MN 55155- 4100, Tel: 800.877.6300; 612.215.0232, Fax: 612.215.0246 1111011411 FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Li Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 34 OWENS V COGAN. 011 '11 This network consists of individuals and organizations in Minnesota(and bordering areas) who are interested in moving towards sustainability. National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP), 1350 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, '1 Tel: 202.638.6254, Fax: 202.393.2866, Email: NALGEP@spiegelmcd.com, Website: http://www.nalgep.org. NALGEP brings together local government officials to network and share information on innovative environmental practices, conduct environmental policy projects, promote environmental training and education, and communicate the view of local environmental officials on national environmental issues. National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), 1700 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Tel: 202.457.0710, Email: narc@narc.org,Website: http://www.narc.org. NARC offers technical assistance, educational services and public policy support to local government officials in agencies around the country. National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT), 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 208,Washington, DC 20011, Tel: 202.624.3550, Fax: 202.624.3554, Email: natat@sso.org,Website: http://natat.org. NATaT seeks to strengthen the effectiveness of town and township government by educating lawmakers and public policy officials about how small town governments operate and by advocating policies on their behalf in Washington, DC. National Center for Small Communities (NCSC), 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001, Tel: 202.624.3550, Fax: 202.624.3554, Email: ncsc@sso.org, Website: http://www.natat.org NCSC provides local government officials and community leaders with a broad �-a range of training materials, community problem-solving strategies, public policy research and other resources. National Neighborhood Coalition (NNC), 1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20005, Tel: 202.408.8553, Fax: 202.408.8551, Email: nncnnc@erols.com, Website: http://www.neighborhoodcoalition.org. AMIN The NNC serves as a link to Washington for neighborhood and community-based organizations and a networking resource for representatives of regional and national organizations involved in community development, housing and a wide range of other neighborhood issues. Its Neighborhoods, Regions and Smart Growth Project promotes community-based organizations as essential advocates .1 for and planners and practitioners of equitable, neighborhood-focused smart growth. Northeast-Midwest Institute, 218 D Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003, Tel: 202.544.5200, Fax: 202.544.0043,Website: http://www.nemw.org. MEINWORIESMNS FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 35 OWENS 4 COGAN This nonprofit and public education organization seeks to enhance the region's economic vitality and environmental quality. It conducts research, develops public policies, provides technical assistance, sponsors regional conferences, and distributes publications. US EPA Resources for NonProfit Organizations, Tel: 202.260.2623, Website: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/nonprof.htm. This Environmental Protection Agency site was created to provide nonprofit groups easier access to environmental and public health information. Program for Community Problem Solving. Systems Reform and Local Government: Improving Outcomes for Children, Families, and Neighborhoods. This working paper details the components and importance of efforts from the grassroots to city hall to make government more effective, efficient, responsive, and participatory for ordinary citizens. To obtain this resource contact Program for Community Problem Solving, 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 204, Washington DC 20004; Tel: 202.783.2961; Fax: 202.347.2161 Books: Flannery, Tim (2005) The Weather Makers: How Man is Changing the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. Hammond, Allen (1998) Which World: Scenarios for the 21th Century. Washington DC: Island Press. Hitchcock, Darcy and Marsha Willard (2006) The Business Guide to Sustainability. London: Earthscan. Pernick, Ron and Clint Wilder (2007) The Clean Tech Revolution: The Next Big Growth and Investment Opportunity. New York: Harper-Collins. United Nations Environmental Programme (2002) `Global Environment Outlook 3: Past, present and future perspectives', UNEP and Earthscan. World Business Council on Sustainable Development (2002) 'The Business Case for Sustainable Development', www.wbcsd.org. Outlines the reasons why their 150 international companies think sustainability should be pursued. Huntington, Samuel P. (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster. Provides an interesting theory of how power is shifting in the world and explores both social and environmental issues in that context. Jacobs, Jane (2000) The Nature of Economies. NY: The Modern Library. FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 36 OWENS �- COGAN Kinsley,Michael J. (1997) Economic Renewal Guide:A Collaborative Process for Sustainable Community Development. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute. The `Agency Sustainability Planning and Implementation Guide' was designed to help Massachusetts state agencies develop internal sustainability plans and programs but will also be of interest for other governments developing sustainability plans. It includes sections on waste reduction and recycling; mercury and PBT (persistent bio-accumulative toxins) reduction; sustainable design and construction; and environmentally preferable purchasing. For each section, the report includes a one-page sheet of `Action Steps', a list of 8-12 short-term actions that state facilities can take to reduce their environmental impacts, www.state.ma.us/envir/sustainable/pdf/ss guide web.pdf. Noteworthy Governmental Sustainability Websites Federal Government(US) web State and local governments: addresses: European Campaign of Sustainable Cities and Towns, www.sustainable.doe.gov www.global-vision.orq/city/aalborq.html. www.gsa.gov/environmentalservices EKOS (2000) `Urban Sustainability: Leading Approaches, Tangible Results'. This report, written for the City of Seattle by a consulting firm, contains profiles of the efforts www.federalsustainabilitv.orq of a variety of cities. It can be ordered from the EKOS website, www.ekosi.com. www.ofce.qov Amarillo, Texas has a demonstration village. www.epa.gov/sustainability www.globalecovillage.com www.federalelectronicchallenqe.net Curitiba, Brazil, www.solstice.crest.orq/sustainable/curitiba. Madison, Wisconsin, www.sustaindane.orq. Oregon, www.sustainableoreqon.net. Portland, Oregon, www.sustainableportland.orq. a Santa Monica, California, www.santa-monica.org/edp/scp. Seattle, Washington, www.sustainableseattle.orq. Whistler, British Columbia, www.awarewhistler.orq. MINNINOMM FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGAN Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 37 OWENS COGAN r1 e1 APPENDIX B es CONTACTS r1 and RESEARCH ON SUSTAINABILITY ORGANIZATION ,'1 f r1 0'1 r'1 FINAL REPORT--Vision Action Network COGA ,.� Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study - December 2007 38 OWENS COG N ..1 "1 _ > 5 L — o o O C C > 0) L a ' "', 5) N -cs O cn C! C D 0 E o a) > a� > 0 c ....... U ._ Cnv C C Y U fl (6 'g us f. at aD CU6 `dJ "�: UU, a) a `a., .) L Y `p to N U r ` u) O (6 U -c4 7 o ' u) U U N .. A) v) r - 'O U @/�� (�]� G 1 t6 4: (4 fl ,� C O Ti, g.s._: Y ) N C p X O ( 7 07 v vi .0 a) U a) r 0 V)' "U 1 O 1 O CD C) N CD 0 N N- o� a) oz) 0 CO c 0-) •:t O rn CO0 LU aS o rn o X sC N 'Li' Cf) O p F',_ N (p N— ' c- M N ,^ O to CO 0 Cr) N CD N— M co CO (1-i U O in LO � N M LO CD N- ( M co M m p CO In h. 0 O O co La OD CO 'Cr N ll) N N- CO I� n 1` C) N M to In M M M N O e• 0 LU LU O CD p C`7 N- Gl CD CD n M co CO M MCD M CO LU O '"� 000 O O d' C O O M O COD O O O a) to CD lf) l() U to .� N '•- "".N. ...O M to Ln Ln U '.O OM O M O_ c7:, Ln O CO O 0 �+1 N N O co, . O O .. t-- N- (11....5) N N. - 0 O a) CD O O OO C CO CU CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.-13 0 0 O V) L L L ,_ '� E rn a) O o > > > C_ C_ C_ U CB Y C 0 a) O O O J J J O O 0 O Y u) C C 0 0 0 C C N - U U W JO (nLL (n > .__a5 >as OO _c N X 4 Y 0 - m o m v o c L 2 _ 0 > > corn 2?35 0 0 0 i < C 0 Cb a) > S X C O 0 O p� < -_-2.-- '^I C6 C C '� > O W W x0 Q > L N N w O cn c Cl) Z C") �- L() co Q O N a) O O 0 O O L a� - O O _j .71: O 00 0 O --- M O C O in Ln Lf) '3'.. �' N ... O — CI) CO CV 1� fn l!) LL (A m r CO CO r � > N N N 0 a Awls ti O — L Y a O "V 0) w co C1 C C +„ r' co 'T L �_ a) C C "y CQ C x r r)O C 0 E N la _ is C O y N a C = -(7)' U U co a C a) a) .— 7cfiC •� .v v — Y a� s _ s• c o o co a) m / Q NO N a) O C m in a C z = 0 -,7_ Z o ina Lo co ... C to L to N C6 EL.) = Y O N p C U co Y � U) co U CO 0 O � U a. co 0 C� aC N W ^fl .1 > E . 45 n > o 3q°3C .. o v fa CU E E aj I O „Q C O �. (CCE N c cs0oo Cm_� _ " o O it o , • W o a . pl fl}, O a) � i O .9 > fi N Chv i/'N S U C.] R ') C @ '0 > o } f I(! v ca www rwe 0 : r'1 t=m 0 ' c«v, m o�oNa T52' L , Ea«mcmsm Etom vcmmg d0Etm2mg 5o NBm5mmm _ F£ yaji c`ma« cctTi 0m >.my2ymdmSEmwrnm '2 .a. -E ? 0 £« ga ' ti` 'mQcm - R p=a Fp c N8d 2° m LE t_oEmgim` VmamEa tea: -- apmmm0 8 O m.e c7nma588 >8 m 8mUa2oe2aa ' c 28 dm T 8 .,_•mo. Eqc Em °,m251137qncmhaFmEBd ^ E .7„ 5.._mmgSmoigaam_ E_ mE1-05> E . mrn2'7'" EmanmmangrN922E otE ct'tc uEEmS °m.E o- da m.o«8 « EnnonyyDwcotUomd= op3 Eyno ° ta'�'Nm $'w` mm2 vm, 3c ^ mta 2 om5"ca En8 oom'O -2` 8 >L Ego-6.1. 2t E ="mmc i.mYn2m8 �gt,QVi tOM28mto a E 8 a m v m m£ c._ m a C-'B m tu m m y O.N ° m i- m o {00 mm �00 LL ,..2.2g LL G=: G 8 0 m m> 3 d g W a D O N O m 3«m EE E . T EF.- z 6c .°m2o Y 5 t .waSco�r 4. 2.D-6 .2 1'32 amc. cTmE0a2E `m mm2c2Htm>�O_ n ,sMEO0(0.5' amEm8O c '.oat" E " 0m vDn25tT5.52 -225 . glt ma § icmEo80 co c^E .«tU0 ° mo °DE, cE -mUam masm Eaa 5D dr o.8cm m cNc` rm = my cO` > ac OT c irno8a.gE vg.;-12 p_. - Emm« E .,. .,- 51E d L mm= m€moEm2m0Eaamt - n-0@mcnipem .U m5m_, EE4Qnv3h41.042 % 8maom>vm2 S. m E mo m =2'2'5 y° �mE m = vO cr ha 0 _cm,tyt« ya nam� ,y .. c ur. t° J-1,00 we ntE >om 1 5 2 - - 8m>ca On omm $ai LoLmO@� Ft 8m'mo8aoomm , a0Uc�mc dg8m °m-at8m°m -mE24. _ mEo8w 0.- 02.'8 c5 mEmmBxym^ tE aranmymooagmEotoE mmoTrEnamd 8E8aym ,-a`mEEm -52R8--5, 2.8•00I mE m8• I t Ea N8ota n o �aomom c�cL;Erm'w En§ iamgsm0 mm8>�nB` mN2 ztm2 " _ 5c. a' EXE£o ',,'.g2 m8cm „« c mma�= ° rmO o Q 82t808 2 73Em81O882.5 2g ' yrnd«¢ ?=g 2mdm8LLtE$EomQ d E�9cEo�m 8c o� �m ai'm 8 E >tm m g£ em 22 m8' �m> m n °c °a§ Of= 822 2 Ea° mo°Iym:° 2-2m-cYlm5Ei Ha' 8 cis Odd, am 8 E ym°c '°N.:atnctiEga � e m ES8 ; d o=a .o 2' D. E _ '4'°Em.6m a n 8d«E_ E ma t m8°'mmo n-rm, m - _ ` - aTmi E m m aca o c > mo 0nm,mm= E = Regional Sustainability Inventory Pacts/Agreements: IeN • Lake Oswego has joined the USMCPA. • Oregon City has joined the USMCPA. • Beaverton has joined the USMCPA. ■ Milwaukie has joined the USMCPA. • Hillsboro has joined the USMCPA and talked with ICLEI. i'1 • Gresham has joined the USMCPA and has partnered with the Johnson Creek n • Watershed Council and the Audubon Society. • Portland has joined the USMCPA and has a variety of projects in conjunctions with other jurisdictions (see below). • Multnomah County will be joining the USMCPA, the NACo Climate Change Protection Agreement, and the Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration in 2008. Long-term Plans/Policies: oork • Lake Oswego has drafted a sustainability plan focusing on GHG emissions and water use. • Oregon City has made "building a sustainable future" its number-one city goal. • Beaverton is developing a statement of mission and principles. '"'„ • Milwaukie has integrated the natural step framework into some of its processes �•� and is currently drafting a plan. • Gresham is working with the Zero Waste Alliance and the U of 0 to create a sustainability assessment for the city's operations, and its council is in the beginning phase of adopting a sustainability plan. • Clackamas County has had a recycling and purchasing policy since 1991, which it updated and turned into a sustainability plan in 2005. • PGE is currently working on creating a new sustainability policy. ,.� • Portland has recycling goals calling for zero growth in the waste stream, reductions in toxics and GHGs, and a 75% recycling rate by 2015; has set a Renewable Fuel Standard calling for a 5% blend of biofuel in all diesel and a 10% blend of ethanol in all gasoline; is looking at implementing a feebate system for automotive fuel efficiency; and convened a Peak Oil Task Force that drafted a report to help the city prepare for diminishing oil supplies. '11 • Multnomah County has over 20 adopted sustainability policies, including climate change, energy conservation, recycling, paper use, procurement, toxics, food, and green building. e1 • Portland and Multnomah County have convened a Sustainable Development ,.1 Commission to create strategies for sustainable economic development, as well as a citizen-based Food Policy Council to advise elected officials on issues regarding food access, land use planning issues, local food purchasing plans and many other policy initiatives in the regional food system. The city and county are rimsalso currently updating their joint Local Action Plan on Global Warming, which outlines short- and long-term actions to reduce GHG emissions 10% from 1990 levels by 2010, and have created a Toxics Reduction Strategy, which sets goals to replace all toxic substances, materials or products of concern with viable least- toxic alternatives by 2020. Cfl�GAS 41 OWENS 741 C OGAI ••� ��'�r,. '��`�`� rrrrrrrrrrrrr kNio 1.0 ‘,/ ■ Metro's New Look program aims to create more compact and efficient regional form by focusing fiscal resources on development in centers, corridors and employment/industrial areas, designating areas that shall not be urbanized, prioritizing investments in transportation improvements that support efficient development, and coordinating growth with surrounding communities. Metro has also purchased thousands of acres of natural areas via bond measures, and has grant and planning programs to rehabilitate these areas. Outreach: V 1/41.0 • Lake Oswego has convened a series of city learning talks to get citizen input on its sustainability plan, and has partnered with Clackamas County to recognize businesses that recycle. • Oregon City is working on convening a citizens' sustainability committee. • Beaverton has held a series of visioning workshops for sustainable development at new construction sites. When Beaverton was looking into purchasing renewable energy for its sites, it challenged the public to match its commitment, `, and the public exceeded Beaverton's goal by 100%. • Milwaukie repainted its garbage cans as "recycling cans" and provided a small 1/4.10 add-on for trash in order to increase recycling. L • Gresham's GREAT Businesses program provides businesses with information about saving money and energy, contracts in bulk with storm drain cleaners to provide cheaper runoff-reducing services, and recognizes businesses that 'S achieve goals. • Clackamas County has convened a green ribbon committee that is looking at how to preserve agricultural land and create local FSC-certified woodlots, educating people on green gardening, and creating an anti-idling campaign. • Portland has business recycling (in partnership with Metro) and composting outreach programs, including technical assistance and grants; offers project- based consultation, resources, a hotline (in partnership with Metro), and a L searchable directory of sustainable products and services for green building projects; and provides information and technical assistance on green streets, • transportation choices, solar power, biofuels and energy efficiency to residents and businesses. • Portland and PGE have partnered to promote energy efficiency for small businesses, and PGE provides additional informal technical assistance to 'S developers, agencies and businesses. `.. • Multnomah County hosts public education outreach programs and will soon be partnering with McMenamin's to host a Sustainability Film Series. • Metro partners with agencies around the region through its Regional Travel Options program to promote more energy-efficient travel choices, promotes business recycling (in partnership with Portland's OSD), and provides information, educational programs, and technical assistance with natural gardening, composting, and recycling. Planning/Zoning/Codes: ■ Hillsboro has worked to manage trip ratios in corridors and refocus development on quality-of-life indicators instead of large lots. It is in the early stages of creating a high-density development next to a new 30-acre park. Co GAN 42 OWENS COGAN nrrr��rr • Gresham has created low-impact development standards for impervious surfaces, runoff, and green streets. • Clackamas County has one part-time planner who is currently amending zoning codes to create incentives for green development. • Portland is looking at setting building energy use standards and creating a feebate system around these standards. • Metro has programs providing technical assistance, easements, funding, and sample code language for developments that increase density and mix of uses and reduce driving; and has applied standards to developments near wetlands that protect wildlife habitat and water quality. r'1 Staffing: • Lake Oswego has one part-time sustainability director. e1 • Clackamas County has a full-time sustainability coordinator. • Beaverton is developing has internal sustainability committee. • Milwaukie has a sustainability team. • Gresham has a green team that it is turning into a sustainability team. • Portland has an Office of Sustainable Development, created through a merger of the Solid Waste & Recycling Division and the Energy Office, with a staff of about 40. The office has sustainability liaisons within all city bureaus. • Multnomah County has two full-time staff in its sustainability program. ,.� ▪ Metro has green teams at its larger facilities, as well as a volunteer Environmental Action Committee, which coordinates environmental efforts at all Metro facilities. p1 Internal Operations: ry • Lake Oswego has internal programs centered on procurement, waste reduction, and recycling. • Oregon City has installed compact fluorescent bulbs in its city facilities, and is inventorying other city departments in order to highlight sustainable actions. • Beaverton has purchased LED traffic lights and biodiesel vehicles for its fleet, as well as renewable energy for its buildings, and is inventorying sustainable actions from different city departments. oh • Milwaukie has a composting program at one city building and has purchased hybrid and biodiesel vehicles for its fleet, and is looking into purchasing city bikes for employees to use and installing a PV array on the roof of one facility. • Gresham's fleet is on biodiesel, and the city has purchased green power and worked with OSD to synchronize traffic signals, selling the resulting carbon credits. e1 • Clackamas County has required that all new buildings be certified LEED Silver, -1 purchased hybrid fleet vehicles, and requires the use of green cleaners in janitorial services. • Portland has installed energy efficient traffic signals, initiated waste reduction programs at its city bureaus, plans to purchase 100% renewable energy for all city accounts by 2010, uses waste methane from its sewage treatment plant to generate energy, powers its parking meters and other equipment with solar energy, requires that all recycling and garbage haulers use a 20% biodiesel blend, and uses biodiesel and other alternative fuels in the city's fleet. ems COGAN /, 43 C yf • Portland and Multnomah County have a sustainable procurement strategy requiring bureaus to purchase green cleaning materials and recycled paint, and to recycle e-waste and furniture. • Multnomah County's 20-plus adopted sustainability policies include a requirement that all new county buildings be LEED Gold certified and goals to reduce internal energy use 10% below 2000 levels by 2010. The county is also planning to install large solar arrays to supply 1/40 of its load. • Metro's sustainable business model sets long-term internal goals, including zero net increase in carbon emissions, zero waste, zero toxics, and 50% reduction in water consumption. The agency purchases roughly 10% renewable power for its facilities, uses hybrid and bio-diesel fleet vehicles, uses energy efficient lighting and low-flow water fixtures in its facilities, and has workplace resource conservation and recycling programs. Suggested Roles for Larger Convening Agencies: • Many agencies want a committee to set clear goals for the region. A common suggestion is for the committee to craft a long-term plan and interim goals for the region to meet the state greenhouse gas reduction targets of 75% below 1990 levels by 2050. However, some jurisdictions want a less-structured forum for information-sharing and believe that a policy focus will create backlash. All agree that the committee should not create mandates. • All agree that it would be very helpful for a regional sustainability committee to develop sample language for sustainable land use plans, transportation plans, and development and building codes, as well as provide technical assistance in these areas and others (e.g. water conservation, solid waste and recycling) and create public outreach programs that can be implemented at the local level. `/ • Some agencies that have made bigger strides in sustainability, such as Lake Oswego, Multnomah County, and Portland's OSD, are overwhelmed by the amount of requests for assistance and advice that they receive, and see Metro as a potentially valuable partner in streamlining and aiding the information- sharing process. • Most agencies agree that the committee should include staff and business representatives as well as policy-makers, but there is less consensus on whether staff should meet alongside policymakers or in a separate technical advisory group and on the role that private sector representatives should play. • Some agencies feel that the committee should be modeled on or incorporated into the Metropolitan Policy Advisory Committee, while others feel that the committee should stand alone as a "green-ribbon" committee with more public visibility that meets at different locations around the region. Alice Norris, who will `s chair MPAC in 2008, has offered to help incorporate sustainability into MPAC should we choose to do so. • Many agencies suggest that Metro conduct a regional greenhouse gas inventory, 1/4s and some also ask that the agency also produce an energy use/transportation 1/4s costs map as a public outreach piece. Metro's Data Resource Center staff estimates that it would cost $8000 in staff time to create such a model, and a few jurisdictions have offered to contribute money or resources toward this effort. • Some agencies also request that Metro create region-wide standards for inventorying and tracking GHG emissions. .� Compiled by Eliot Rose, Metro Policy Associate, (503) 813-7554, rosee(ametro.dst.or.us • COGAN 44 OWES COGAN `./ Introduction The Leverage Of Local Local governments are in a strong position to impact Governments sustainability and sustainable development. Though • Possess knowledge of local local agencies lack the financial and legislative power issues and priorities. of state or national governments, they have the . Have personal relationships closest connection to what is going on in communities with local business leaders and the greatest opportunity through local decisions and community activists. and actions to encourage a move toward . Impact the nature and direction sustainability. of local development through policies and plans for land use, However, local government cannot act alone. As the transportation infrastructure, 1992 UN Conference on the Environment concluded, waste management and partnerships between governments, the private building codes. sector and civil society are central to the success of sustainable development. Comprehensive, cross- sector collaboration increases the possibility for imaginative, coherent and integrated sustainability efforts. Coordinating Cross-Sector Sample of West Coast Communities with Formal Sustainability Efforts Sustainability Structures and/or Dozens (possibly hundreds) of communities across Organizations North America are organizing in various ways to Bend, coordinate and manage community-wide, cross- Cory OR Corvallis, OR sector sustainability programs and efforts. (See side Davis, CA bar for partial listing of west coast communities Eugene, OR formally addressing sustainability.) The approach Lake Oswego, OR each community takes is as varied as the Milwaukie, OR communities themselves. Based on a review of Monterrey, CA various communities, the research presented here Multnomah County, OR identified seven approaches to coordination. Portland, OR Sacramento, CA These types of approaches are presented on the San Francisco, CA following pages. It should be noted that in and of Santa Cruz, CA themselves none of the options are inherently better Santa Monica, CA A than anyof the others, but each maybe more or less Vancle, r, Vancouver, BC appropriate in certain situations. The research also Vancouver, WA discovered that some communities actually combine West Linn, OR two or more of these organizing approaches to Whistler, BC leverage their local strengths. COGAN 45 OWENS COGAN rrrrrrrr_ wz o m ,= a) a) " C ^ U E - coca� ca L u a) C E CL.. ._ asou) L O13 -0aEa) o a) a) E C CD o .c : y- CD o fri ..' O � L N -a)-- , � O caX O E L>, Hca - (aaa)) a) cn N C o E > o o U N CC) OU L N .L a .�- E -8 ca ca F- _c N O •_ •a) -Q a) -a L a) > i- L a) as Y0- .0 ~ = •- Ca (a N a) O O U O (A a) .Q-_C Cti C a) ..>'. a) ca C/9 U -0 •C � — E cn 1E co ups E u) fl.. w _o = 4) 0 ... o c_) Ca) ' E U N �"'' tai o O .� > �, cC `-- V) + 47, co c - C E Y ca Q a) CO >' U E co O O O 0kairV d al O L Q) �+ O U N C C .ca) a) CD• =C CD „� N n c m +_ «+ Q O O o a —, - � Na) ECD = � � Q O co as _ L `/Caa) . OL U( 4O O Ca Q EQ CO Ocn " � O -5 -6�) ` nm o _ca) fa)oON +J cu vi C mE � > a) >,.� C1 z ca O a) U) a) O O) >, C ,� Q) U) a) 4- a) C - ca o �, Cl) Eco arca € asEa) o E - -- CO = � � � O — . ca o o O Q a) D U E U OCD -C L > — ,.._ c _ o Q cm• > QO c RI Z OC a) C 0 so LLf o (ao o . .'FN o pazilequaoaa Ls OV5_ LL pazilequaom U _c o 8= -0 O Ua o . a) a) -0Ea (PaoOb� 03 a) n -. 1amit 4.. N as CD cm �� � c ao Q� ' .Q ,c - g Ey m ' 'r1 ca : '= oa cp 0 °' CU LU O i 0 O ,, Iwo N atAO v) u) O () LL (1. C“.) OC) a �c co cn • �1 co c) amici o o a)) �c _o oc O of ` O = L = N .. •o L 2 D 7 a 2 >, :� 2 0 Q 2 U U) L (0 (on _0 O a) `-- O O a) vi ,i35• r1 O U N c '? O O U O =0 ai a) P E 8 > c ac) a) c � Yaoaa)) cs) C oma' _C cn - a) vi a ` � .- c•.o � E5-, Tti ca co c- 0 a) E O a`) a) o a) c c cn �, c > -0 (73 � � � c Ov o � o `o E o c c > O .c ' E as u) >, c ! a) > o -O N ca C a) E .a >, cn c O c c ca c = CD 0 a a) C -0 U U_ a) O O + 0) �. Co U (a c c fn m - = •N U c O U `~ -a c _co O ca O N .O -c a) N U N rts- a L -0 C O a) O a• C > a) ca u > _o a) ca Q' O C (n 3 mu_ � 2Z oat � � U � t cn vaiU � o Z ca g - . • • . . . U /� O CD CO V -c a> V O L C U) .i- U) >, 0 • a) U C = O a) -0 p to C = U `- fa v- = O 'a _c >, C > .- O O` a) a) (0 OL (a > ca a) a N a) , _c ,_ O a) N a Q- "1 (a a) (n CO a O CO Q- , *-� E c c V O N N O p) v0) a) -a N• p) , a) �' V 1 a) U 2 a) �- U c U L - a ca C a) L.cri L a0 '0 O (a -C C O c0 L 0 U a) CO O D C C 3 a C V N - 73 -t U 1 >, a N O C +- 2 (Q U ,_ +., 0 0 a) , ca ,� O c ca Q , c _ -- U > O CON O U) O N >, CO ~ o O ca o c a) a) U O 4) a U Q) 2) w .� a) m ', a) U 0 a o U (a 0 c a) -0 E c ..+ co m co c 0 V O o --g u.,..- O E CD Q- O O co a o Tu r.) 2aa)) U �a •cocoo Z .E_ cn �aw —c), .EmCa i.iE Z —., -c c co o "1 oU) TD O .*'' 7-'1) .r V -O >s c L C Cl) a) -a - as CO v) a) c`a (0 ° `m om /, �. O E N o (a 10 p (a U) 0 - C V N C P 4a 0 C .c N a) ca a) y c >, .- o as a) v) /" '_O c >1 O E : vim- a) >, C O a) > H E U O to O al O O C A a) a) O _ lc •c -0 (a a � (n a 0 ao O c E o' -tQ N c- c c >,> as 1,, -c a) ca (n a) CUc N .-2 >O �° o � L +> YNR -1 .� ca N Q 0 O r- i 0) , 0 �. • d O OU C C C �� C ca .-, to C) .,, ., a) co C ca O � 0 0 c C �' N ,� c 0 a - O _ 4. O ! (n O O E U V "_' O D co (n N O N O p) L C >+ co N OL C N -1-' d m c -t N o a) .� a) o •_ o � O � � c .> � ro:E2 E000 '� c _aQ_a :r E -• • c L in a ca U c ca o Q. _ o2 CV a,V D. aa) _ a E a) E. E F— E C9 F- 2 ca Z O O E < E va) O < 2 OU 2 'a U i "'1 a i r,�} Z 94 N 0 O .. y U0U Q F Q)i O p EE 'Q aytq v 'Q o • `° c(a 0 ..= Q — ,= — X a0, w i 4 WZd0 ZOL.O O v � () (gpU ZCi) 00 ```- CD a) LO O -o a) c C Q, ▪ .0 o co U CO N Q .L C U D : - a) U co a) `/ (/) CO L V) U C a) • C) ca as z 2 co c a) to O 0- Ca C) N O a) OU Q) O `/ 4 U) ( > = to co a) •- • C o _ iiiil a) N (Q � � z to C U —O C > co ca co a) O x -_a O •a -° -O �i C O .0- •= Principles of Effective Collaboration Regardless of the form the relationships among collaborating entities take, there is a key set of guiding principles that increases the likelihood of successful outcomes. These principles provide the foundation from which to build effective actions. They include equity, transparency and the recognition of mutual benefit. Equity Equity in collaborative partnerships does not translate to equality. It must be „Th recognized that in collaborative community groups, participating stakeholders come „'1 with varying levels of influence and power. Some have regulatory authority, others may have access to funding, and still others may represent a grassroots power base. In these instances it is neither possible, nor even desirable that all players be equal as it is often useful to leverage the differing positions of the group members. .Th For the collaboration to function well, however, each member must be granted equal rights in the participation process. This means that each representative has an equal right to participate and makes a contribution of equal value even when those 'Th contributions cannot be measured in quantifiable terms like funding or public influence. '-,41 Transparency Open, honest working relationships are the necessary ingredient to building the level of trust that cross-sector collaborations require. Transparent operations (e.g. open meetings, accurate and complete public records, etc.) not only facilitate dialog and decision processes but create an environment of accountability important to those -1 represented by group members. Mutual Benefit If all participants are expected to contribute to a collaborative partnership, then each - member should also be entitled to benefit from the results. While a shared goal or vision will take primacy over individual member needs in these types of groups, it is wise to acknowledge, and to every extent possible, honor the individual needs of 01 group members. Without this deference to its members, groups have no assurance 0'1 that participants will commit to and sustain the goals of the partnership. References Pis Tennyson, Ros (2003). The Partnering Toolbook. The International Business Leaders Forum and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition. ISBN 1899159 08 8 Background Paper on Sustainability for Eugene City Council Work Session, September 8, 1999, http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/PDD/Sustain/Memo_8_30_99.htm COGAN 49 OWENS 4 Ow• (I )GAN rrrrr�r�rr APPENDIX C r'1 Supplemental Research on Sustainability Organizations ''1 '1 #'1 T COGAN x r 50 OWE NS COG AN Sustainable North Carolina r'1 Sustainable North Carolina programs include: • NC Sustainable Business Council (NCSBC)—This member-led organization works as a catalyst for change for an environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable future for our state. • NC Sustainability Awards & Conference—Each year, Sustainable North Carolina brings together decision makers to explore strategies for an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable future for our state, and honors organizations that are leading the way with innovative practices. • Partner Alliance—SNC has developed partnerships with service providers such as McDonough-Brungardt, AXIS Performance Advisors, and Better World Telecom to provide services at a discount for members and/or share a portion of the revenues with SNC. They have been licensed, for example, to use AXIS's SCORE sustainability assessment to help businesses in the state and they share a portion of 0.1 the proceeds. • (Planned) A Get Sustainable Challenge—They hope to implement something similar to the program in New Zealand. The Sustainable Business Network in New Zealand has a Challenge program that includes the following: a personal assessment of the business from SBN staff and ongoing support throughout the year. In addition, they offer workshops, which provide each participant with tailored support throughout the process. Sustainable Seattle Sustainable Seattle programs include: • Indicators—they provide neighborhood-scale data • Linking—they work with the city to open channels of communication with service agencies • The Sustainable Communities Multiplier Project—advocates for the benefit of local purchasing. They propose to substantively expand the scope of earlier studies to provide a more complete picture of the role of local economic linkages in fostering community sustainability. This will involve a comparative analysis of a larger sample of businesses by community and industry coupled to a qualitative analysis of the —� respective economic linkages. • Education—Sustainable Seattle provides education on sustainability to adults and school children, through workshops and other programs. Sustainable Seattle has offered its recent workshop "Putting Sustainability into Action" to over a thousand Middle- and High-School student and has awarded mini-grants. Currently, Sustainable Seattle is offering a program geared for youth to reduce waste, recycle, and learn smart consumption behavior called Choose to Change. 00.1 • Awards—Sustainable Seattle coordinates Sustainable Community Outstanding Leadership Awards to recognize the sustainability achievements of organizations in the community. This started in 2001 and is described as annual; however, their oois website references awards in 02/03 and 03/04 but none since then. immimmim COGAN 51 OWENS 1 COGAN fr APPENDIX D VISIBLE STRATEGIES WEB TOOLS AND METRICS fr ol•N fr e-N e•N ,•••• 0-N ,46AN "us 01'N #011 /01's "IN eIN sommisomi COGAN OWENS 52 COGAN „At:V4 Lrk k 4; — S,AreErMia VISIBLE STRATEGIES WEB TOOLS AND METRICS "1 Consulting team member Visible Strategies (formerly Real Living Solutions) provides next generation strategy mapping and reporting software that enables community and corporate leaders to communicate transparently with staff and stakeholders regarding key progress towards their strategic goals. :1 Delivered as a web-hosted service, see-itTM provides a platform for communities, companies and other organizations to easily integrate and effectively communicate strategies and plans such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), triple bottom line, -1 sustainability reporting and global reporting initiative (GRI) reporting. The City of Beaverton is currently using see-itTM as part of the Beaverton Central Plant program. See http://beavertoncentral.visiblestrategies.com/for a demonstration and details. The software can help Washington County "1 • Consolidate plans see-itTM lets the client consolidate multiple strategic plans "locked" away in various documents, spreadsheets, databases and pdf files. • Engage stakeholders see-it's visually compelling dashboard gives stakeholders an easy way to interact and engage with a strategic plan. • Track progress At a glance, stakeholders can track progress on key indicators—from core strategy and sustainability to CSR and triple bottom line reporting. • Show transparency Highlight accomplishments and goals while providing the level of transparency stakeholders require. A customized system can be developed to incorporate multiple jurisdictions and link efforts of a variety of organizations under a common web tool and site. The sustainability organization can develop key benchmarks, which are then included in the web tool to show the status of attainment of the goals, strategies used and actions. 1 Sample pages from the Beaverton Central see-itTM web site are on the following pages. ''1 ••••1 COGAN ,.� .moi k( 53 OWENS Anner COGAN Ados ....i -.1 \Ise ..e 0 1) ' 1t' 0 — to - — 0 :.-0- ,.? ,t •>". e < t 41 it, 12 _ A •E 2 E c., 11.0 , ;,9,. 0-) rn.0 9- E ';Ii o 2 - = : c Ti I'l cu - 1 -0 -\''' 8 it, E o -- Go; x co - _ _ \..., vo _ 1-: ,- , — u 3 a, ,a LI- , ...., a, (. a) 0 .--, > 0 (I) C7) 0 0 0 fto' (I) co < 7) t) ez) o -.#3.0-.... ...,_.; ...c 'rri cc 0 D ..- Lis *6 ti) 'Fp c-ii-- .... CD c) .— a) = 8 i— o 171 0) tn Tn. - (L). • ' 0 75 ct, - 0-- 0 w cl- ..... U) = Cn 5 M IFS co a cc- (..) ..... 17) -- k,- `14 we -a, o .. 0-*;,,,,,,,,, , , 0 (D ED :t.. 0) ...., ..-,. 0 2) a) = ,,,,, A- ,''.., ' v. -.J -.6 ...' - -,- 4-',„ .,.- ,t, -:,..,!,,,,, - - a — co Cl) E ;'''''' ''''' ,-5',;::, * '' , CO `,..7---, E. 0 -,-, , .ettz,i7-- , 0 S 1-1 — G 0,---,,:-. -..,..,-.5 - §-x). ,,,,,. _CD .., ._ (,) ._ r n er) . , .. o = e, . e Lu c3 o t.7) 1,:''. ''i''Wi'l .'","'" ' ',,,.t.,'''l' .. 0 CD :E C3) t\01 • '71 - - '.'"'", ' ) 44- ',",' ''''. r ' = C L.' t3) En ,,,,.,1 ›, 0 , ''. ,. ,, .._ -,,,,,-., , --o- 4.) 0 ‘,d _, co ...,-- „,..., „, :-, ,,,,,,, ,... E c o WW © 1.0 c E kgi*144'-' 06 (7) = _ o, .t 2 co _ 0 6 411 4 - a) 03 ;up (1) a) > Lij .7: CC ' CO Ca .... > ‘-- - 8 0 -':' -E (7) ---.- > a co E? v '1 ‘•*4 -5 - 5 rnm t' ..r.. .-' ',* _a a E cL , >, m m E ,,,, -- i:- -....7, o =, E — Z C ,... if 0) m CL a) r E t°2. a cliococo mt..,. ..... — ..- E E 9 175 -c C 0 -.,-...-. E 43 (..._.) co o 6.-. — o %NW u c 7:), a co E cn, m 0-) -irs > -.- „;-- -to .= .6 co o 06. •'”, > (IG ;, Z • (-) ‘' '6 m 0 P a„ y? c > c - ,-o a c,,i ... • c .-- c 42.) t:: t i.. 0 -ti ",', P 0 p0 x) (..) > 01 CI)' E. > — '"*" — o• cooacoon c 0 cl.) 0 a) ‘io 5 si ... a.) o v) 74 L. .- C o U ',NNW C 0 C) aat a) CQ 0 0 a) — a) on a) _ Ca L U 1) P 1 o t >: a) m II NJ Cii r'---:t V''',1,-Atti. '' ro-, ,.– a) 0 Nu s a a ClC3 CLsa r � a)" z cC s 76 X– O Q) soiN ._ E , a) > U) O 00 0 cu ��/1 AE rs, ... �,. i F rik,--w5.,.1-,fe.re....- v _� r a 1 _ t cr t` o N n U c o _ o N cis X c) a, o w vco v G' Q CC6` t11 cK5 Gi 3' N ' 1 v cc 0C L11 X - s x to .rl O co OS a a, s Lu CL cr3 c v a) a o I _ o 73 Q v 0 -4- � ,° c c ‘ .el ,-- 4 - a) :d L — U 0 a) m N CO 0 o vi N oq cd I.0) N ;70- U d C -0 o X J C CO \....0 O N in al D3 aa> a) la C o NI B 0 3 c L m 0 0t O o C U a7 (0 @ 0 a) %till/ (� ET> co `) Cf) # `/ 0) sise in ea { Q m cn E CU \/ a Q) •v + 91=0Z/1./1. o ' o E mco 13 , to a9 L. cn Q3 `. `r' • £GOZ/GlG c w •> a 0 > o • ZGOZ/6/G o r... N p a)13C o •. iIOZ/GIG .... CD t l>4 O > O 0 N xc os ami N • OGOZ/GIG © w. a a _° m c q cu U . 600Z1G(G CD a> `, aE N CD 0 c m O•c 0 .� R > o th ; s a 800ZlWG ffi a cu a> 03 o v E ... mC = ? c • LOOL/L(G `-) -- m r- o a c> . Q w 0 0 .. T- m U seuoz � ...- °4 ... CO a> a) U ... c 0 L •••..., > s.Lr/ I U vi N 171 .O c7 4 t . X 0 1 N CR a, 15 cp 144 22 m ai a • c CC ' c 0) rts CI ma 0 . i. ,` 3. ' c Q.3 114 EL 0 e., :::._ v U E a ' _E v; 1-- J TI) •N co p 1 C y N N C co ,,, Q, C O N >` 7 c 2 c m G w 4a y r . < W O, a 7 ", C C > O Cl m v o x `13 -1I t� :6.:E i mED cW j _'� e� m CO o 3 0 r' a) ,?••• O L• O : meq' Q) co t0U _.„.-0 Q) v N ff 3 '1 Rz ast2 0 '1 a) v U a; y • ro U '\ o a> --"N, ro a> CO U `e to co,. GD N 03 o y V. Gi , I , 1 ii. _ 0 g. i I , 0(4w, _ 1 L1X 0 1 . , i0 I I a, I i w 1 i z 4 , L 4 1 1 Ci I i m I 3 A co , QY { { i(i(N ,> I E. a g fV 0 @ i co v C I Ia co a N N m U - Cl , $ Q E 1 a Li c1 O a .a . __ o ..,' c 7 a _ CO c , v CJ m Z '5r 4 a)i Q 0 u a a, U 2 vl `.1 4 U `i . a t r/ a `./ a� oa `/ eis APPENDIX E Summaries of Interviews and Focus Groups r1 eiN f1 .•1 COGAN 5s OWENS ,.� ram.aaga,k1,S ta 4e, COG +1 Vision Action Network Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study Summary of Interviews and Focus Groups October 30, 2007 •_ BACKGROUND As part of the Vision Action Network (VAN) Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study, consultants Cogan Owens Cogan (COC) and Axis Performance Advisors (Axis), on behalf of VAN, conducted two focus groups and seven one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders, for a total participant count of 27 people. The interviews and focus groups were held during the week of October 15 - 19, 2007. r1 /'t The purpose of the stakeholder outreach and interviews is two-fold: • identify important issues and opportunities surrounding sustainability; and • assess the need for, and interest in, creating a structure to coordinate sustainability efforts within the community of Washington County. This document summarizes the themes heard during these interviews and focus groups. It /"• also identifies unanswered questions regarding community attitudes and interests in P"•• organizing sustainability-oriented efforts. It is meant to serve as an overview of the outreach efforts on this project. More in-depth analysis will be provided in the final report to the Leadership Team at the culmination of the project. METHODOLOGY ''1 Questionnaire Development r1 The consulting and VAN project management team created a questionnaire consisting of seven open-ended questions, a couple of which could be quantified through voting. These same questions were used in both the interviews and focus groups. Each session started with an explanation of the project, a statement of the definition of sustainability from the Oregon Sustainability Act, and how the questionnaire was structured; from broadly worded questions in the beginning to more refined ones toward the end of the session. After the first two interviews, the questionnaire was slightly revised to consolidate some of the questions and to add a question about funding. Please see the appendix for the list of questions. e'1 Each person or group was given at least two verbal opportunities to answer each question with additional chances on a written form left with them for further input. Contact information was optional, so anonymity could be preserved, if desired. 011 Focus Groups For the two focus groups, participants responded to a request for participation sent out by 01 Vision Action Network. VAN extended invitations to stakeholders the project team identified, including those who may have differing opinions regarding sustainability and the need to Pis coordinate efforts within the county. COGAN OWENS 6o COGAN 1✓ The first focus group was held in the City of Hillsboro on October 18, 2007, and was attended primarily by nine people who were predominantly public sector agency representatives. The second focus group was held in Beaverton on October 19, 2007, and was attended by eleven public, private, non-profit, faith-based and natural resource community representatives. The focus group interviewees were assured that their answers were confidential and would Lef not be attributed in the final report, ensuring that each person had the opportunity to express their thoughts freely. Interviewees Seven elected officials and public and non-profit senior executives were interviewed in private one-on-one sessions, either in person or by telephone. As mentioned above, multiple opportunities to respond to questions were offered. Representatives of cities, Washington County, Metro and civic organizations were interviewed. RESULTS L Results are summarized here in an aggregated format for both the two focus groups and individual interviews. For clarity, the two focus groups' responses have been shown in table format to aid in identifying their differences and commonalities. FOCUS GROUPS Focus Group #1 was comprised of nine members, including public and non-profit sector L. agency personnel, two city managers, an elected official and one business sector representative. The responses from this group reflected a tone of collaboration, but some hesitancy to take on significant responsibility for initiating or funding an entity. They 'S expressed the desire for a broad spectrum of participants and an entity not run by local governmental agencies. `.! Focus Group #2 had eleven representatives of farming, watershed councils, private Ld businesses, faith community, transportation, shopping center management, public agency staff and the Vision Action Network board. This group was enthusiastic about involving Li themselves in some form of collaborative organization or network. They were ready to seek out funding and to initiate sustainability efforts. Several in the group asked to be put on VAN's Sustainability Network email list. Presented below are the top priorities as voted on by focus group members. Each participant received four (4) dots with which to prioritize their top issues/challenges and L opportunities. In addition to the prioritized responses, the un-prioritized ones are shown at the end of the matrix. 1✓ Most of the challenges and opportunities identified were related to climate changes, regional growth and infrastructure. The need to assess public "readiness" and educate the community about sustainability and the inter-relatedness and linkages of economic, social and environmental issues also rose to a high level in the priorities. Li COGAN L • 61 NS 4 A7W:41 C OG AN AirtFeg `/ /'1 fre'1 1. Priority issues and challenges The numbers in parentheses represent the number of dots participants used to indicate their priority for an idea. Focus Group #1 Focus Group #2 Prioritized • The need to create sustainable • Water supply, distribution, Issues/Challenges incentives and how many? (5) quality(4) • What is global warming going to do • Connections are key—farms, to local environment and resulting workers, consumers, housing, effect on water, people and peak oil? income. Need ability to have (4) income to buy local (4) eiN • Public needs education to bring them • Inability to say"no"to growth— on board (4) state land use rules (4) • Need practical counsel/advise re: • More challenges to building sustainable practices best practices new roads infrastructure, need (3) connectivity—bike, ped, auto (2) es • Lack of jobs/housing balance (2) • Agricultural infrastructure is at risk—supply system reduced, e.g. feed stores, chemicals, etc. (2) • Where is tipping point? Urban/Rural • Vehicle miles traveled/peak oil (2) costs—alternate energy .0\ sources (2) • Where is sustainability in people's list • Fish and wildlife—need to find of priorities? (1) balance (1) • Transportation is crucial (1) • Soils (protecting them) (1) Non-Prioritized Issues/Challenges • Get sustainability into the lexicon • 50 year horizon—short term /1 • Long-term effects, long-term profit vs. long term benefits solutions needed and needs • Organizations may not be able to • Building larger roads leads to have staff to work on sustainability. them filling up faster ,., • Bottom line guides choices • Farm to market roads are not always along a grid, • LEED costs = public policy decision complicates road design and • Challenge to keep people involved layout • Costs of transporting • Forest practices • Inequity of costs across regions • Housing affordability w/in • Externalities implicit—recognize true community costs e.g. China and lead paint • Peak oil = hit peak amount of oil we can extract/use = economic impacts • Looking at issues for both business and altruistic reasons • Mobility is our culture. Workers need alternative COGAN 62 OWI NS COG AN L Focus Group #1 Focus Group#2 transportation but it is not available. • N. Bethany = 11k new people, no new transit planned • Conflicts between land uses +4.A0 farms/housing • OHSU Amber Glen—it takes 5 high density developments to save amount of farmland • Compatibility very important • Save our natural resources: water, plastic, farms • From a regulatory standpoint, how to make it easier for people to make sustainable choices 2. Priority Opportunities Being Worked on by Participants' Organizations Focus Group#1 Focus Group#2 Prioritized Opportunities • Need to integrate sustainability into daily • Different demographics than practices. How to do it? At what cost? previously in the region. There is (4) a willingness to live in high density and to support and make available viable transportation alternatives (6) • Gaining sensitivity to environmental • Construction: need incentives for issues, e.g. global warming (3) green building (4) • We can figure out how to address • DEQ and the state need to sustainability opportunities, but how do change laws to allow incentives we coordinate? (2) for new types of businesses (3) • Manufacturing "take back" policies, free • Reframe sustainability to recycling for nuisance goods—i.e. opportunity(3) California $15 fee for TV disposal based on EU model (1) • Don't let the issue (of sustainability) die • Priority should be to save (1) resources (2) • This is the time for buy-in; there is a shift • Full ability to recycle back to koiS in paradigm from the public. Time for crude oil. Could provide jobs education (1) such as manual sorting (2) • Metro is working on peak oil issues (1) • Retrofitting older buildings (1) • Number of different kinds of • Assure green spaces which lead organizations but may not have vision— to neighborly interactions, do have mission (1) leading to a sense of community (1) Non-prioritized Li opportunities `/ COGAN ANycl 63 OWENS COGAN xs %x to ,A,g1`37 rrrrrrrrrr11111111111 Li /'1 ''1 Focus Group#1 Focus Group#2 /'1 • Need to coordinate rate structures • Farming community—work with • Food manufacturing going into biofuels them to recycle nursery pots, = economic development other agricultural products. • Solar World located here • Education is key. "Work for the Marketplace based on values long run" • • Cost of fuel • Local markets, farmers market • Carbon Institute—Sustainability+ Government is a new book • Sustainability is a fluid field. Costs to stay ahead. • Cost should be looked at as a value. ems • Marketplace should make it more economical to recycle/reuse • Manage change • Clean Water Services' mission = - sustainable public safety/health • "Change course not ship"shift of vision froTh 2a. What are the chief sustainability opportunities you'd like to see addressed? These responses are aggregated and summarized from both groups. The chief sustainability opportunities the groups would like to see addressed are: • Awareness and education of global warming, natural resource protection and sustainability (best) practices • Increased ability and incentives to recycle more goods • Impacts of growth addressed, especially transportation, land use conflicts and economic development es • Changes in regulations to support economic diversity and growth and use of sustainable practices. 3. Are there existing organizations that you think address these issues and challenges 011 in Washington County? The awareness of existing Washington County organizations concerned with sustainability is '`. limited, though someone announced at the second focus group meeting that there is an 1 existing Washington County Sustainability Network email list VAN coordinates. Participants asked to be put on the email list through the comment sheet available at the meeting. As with the individual interviews, several existing organizations and agencies were mentioned such as Clean Water Services, Metro and others that address selective components of sustainability, but not the subject holistically. ems 3a. What should a sustainability entity be charged with doing? fiosiN The two groups had fundamentally different approaches to this question. Focus Group #1's "1 responses are to find a less structured or softer way to focus on community-wide sustainability efforts. They want to know where the public is in terms of readiness for discussion on issues like climate change and other sustainability topics and to assess public ,., opinion about a sustainability organization. They want to tap into existing resources, such as Metro, and ask for Washington County to be allocated a portion of Metro resources to pursue COGAN 64 OWENS f, aprer,e1r a '�} %l N sustainability efforts. They desire coordination and education functions to be a significant part of the charge for an entity as well. Focus Group #2 presents a very different approach to tasks. They want an entity that will provide opportunity for developing community sustainability vision and goals, to be a clearinghouse for peer-reviewed scientific and technical data and resources, applying measurement criteria for determining success, countywide coordination and education in a non-regulatory operating format. The group identified themselves as an example of bringing diverse people to the table to make recommendations for, and implementing, change. This group's attitude was one of "let's get this thing going", whereas the first focus group was more reliant on someone else taking the lead and examining the options more thoroughly. 3b. Who should be at the table? Both groups identify local government, service providers, private businesses, as well as public and private educational institutions as primary participants at the table. Focus Group #2 goes further by including regional government (Metro) and a number of other organization representatives from community planning organizations (CPOs), Hospitals for Healthy Environments (H2E), the Association of Oregon Recyclers, Green Building Institute, the Natural Step Network and regulatory agencies. Given the broader composition of Group #2, their membership criteria is very inclusive. A member of Focus Group #1 points out that cultural sensitivity is a consideration when asking who should be at the table. The subject of sustainability may be more or less important to different groups of people. 3c. What form of entity would be desirable? L. Focus Group #1 Focus Group #2 Responses • This group did not come to • Group Consensus Vision: `e consensus on a model. Community-based Responses ranged from organization to coordinate, tapping into existing resource use science, be non- like Metro, to using VAN and regulatory, access resources, Coalition for a Livable Future create community vision and as models. goals, measure success using a score card, Include broad representation. • A regulatory form would be • Group was concerned about too focused. regulatory aspects of an organization. • Community-based • Build sustainability organization within natural boundaries rather than political boundaries • Entity must have capacity, • Create a county-wide advisory intellectual, technical committee to act as convener, Lr resources, credibility, and commission, provider of expertise. scientific information. • Ensure accessibility to all in county `.s `./ COGAN ca 65 OWNS �/ C;OGAN 4. How important is it to your community that this (entity) happen? # of votes 0 1 6 2 Focus Not important Somewhat not Somewhat Very important Group #1 important important # of votes 0 0 0 12 Focus Not important Somewhat not Somewhat Very important Group #2 important important For both 3c and 4 above, Focus Group #2 indicate unanimously that the idea of a sustainability entity, in their case a less-than-formal organization, based upon the Authority/Relationships matrix on page 11 of this report, is very important. Focus Group #1 is less vested in the formal organization concept, but not clearly in favor of another format. The majority, two-thirds, believe a sustainability entity is somewhat important. Given both .0\ groups' responses, either a strong network, similar to a coalition of service providers, for example, or community-based organization, without regulatory authority, appear to be e'r1 acceptable forms. r1 5. How might you participate? "'1 Participation by Focus Group #1 centers on sharing of information and measurement tools, talking with political leaders to gain their buy-in, adding sustainability criteria to RFP's, public education and assessing cultural sensitivity about sustainability issues. Surprisingly, no one in this group directly offers to sit on a board or committee. Conversely, Focus Group #2 participants offer themselves up in roles such as leader, participant, implementer, provider of technical assistance, training and education, goal-setting and celebrating sustainability achievements of organizations, individuals. 6. How might such an entity be funded? Funding recommendations from Focus Group #1 include: business donations, a loaned executive program, using funds generated from entrepreneurial efforts by the entity, awards recognition events, and state funds. Very little focus is put on public funding by this group. eiN Focus Group #2 funding options include: taxes, by way of federal and state funds, SEDCOR (state money for sustainability ventures), Oregon Solutions, economic development funds (i.e. public funding), incentive-based programs, pass-through tax credits, membership dues, and energy programs funds. Focus Group#2's emphasis is more on public funding sources. Both the groups make the point that once the types of organizational structure, services or programs are determined, funding sources will change or be more accurately identified. 7. Are there any other resources, Web sites, organizations, etc., you think would be of interest for our research? A number of other resources are identified by the groups, such as: professional organizations, schools of higher education, Natural Step Network, International City Manager's Association, National League of Cities, US Conference of Mayors, City of Portland Office of Sustainability, Sustainable Living Program at Oregon State University, COGAN ,., ' 66 OWENS � COGAN Hospitals for Healthy Environments (H2E), the Carbon Institute, Coalition for a Livable Future and others identified in 3b, above. The plethora of organizations that incorporate sustainability into their business or missions speaks to the opportunities available to coordinate and collaborate across sectors. INTERVIEWS The consulting team's interviews are confidential and in a one-on-one format. The number in parentheses (x) denotes the number of times an answer was mentioned by separate interviewees. Unlike the focus groups, there is no prioritizing done for these one-on-one interviews. In summary, all but two of the interviewees are in agreement that some form of sustainability entity is desired within the county. 1. During interviews, respondents identified issues and challenges related to the concepts of sustainability, resource consumption, performance-based growth management, land and other natural resource supply and conservation and the public's readiness to take on the topic of sustainability, Traffic, transportation and other infrastructure issues were often mentioned by elected officials as impacting both livability and economic development of the region. Issues included: • Growth and the ability to accommodate it within the extent of resources and land available • Transportation • Water and natural resource conservation or enhancement • Workforce development, economic development • Affordability of housing 2. Opportunities most often being cited and/or used by organizations are: • Cities are each working towards embedding a sustainability ethic into their organizational culture, to the extent possible • Restoration of natural systems and resources L. • Use of green building standards for public structures • Increased recycling, reuse of materials • Green purchasing and hybrid vehicles for fleets L • Resource conservation, education • Use of solar technology for infrastructure 2a. Issues and opportunities interviewees want to see addressed are: • Global warming/Climate change • Building sustainable communities • Outreach, education, information sharing and networking opportunities • Advocacy for implementation strategies, such as revision of the statewide building code to allow sustainable building practices • Securing a dedicated city water source • Retraining employees with goal of instilling a sustainability ethic COGAN 67 OWENS 74a74[rotCOGAN a /4'1 2b. The consensus is that there is no one organization within the geographic boundaries of Washington County that coordinates sustainability efforts or provides information county- wide. The stakeholders noted that there are several organizations that undertake sustainability as part of their own organizational mission, such as Clean Water Services, Tualatin Valley Water District, Watershed Councils, and others. Interviewees note that county or local governments are not necessarily the logical place to provide such services but they could be participants in a network or organization. 3a. On the question of what form and charges an entity should take on, there is no firm '1 agreement. In summary, it should be multi-faceted and cover the needs of the entire county. /'1 i11 For the interviewees, their roles in a sustainability entity could include: • serving as a clearinghouse • an educational resource • convener and/or central coordination body for other organizations • research-based • advocate • regulatory functions were mentioned as both desired and not wanted 3b. The question of who should be at the table produced a long list of players. They include local and regional jurisdictions representatives (political appointees, technical staff, and emN liaisons), service providers, as well as businesses, community groups, faith community, and environmental groups. Elected and upper level representation such as mayors, council and county commission members and executive directors are mentioned as rotk being necessary for buy-in for the initial start up of any committee, organization or —� network. Also important is the concept of a "committee of equals," as well as a clear separation from the Metro regional government. 3c. The form of a sustainability entity mentioned most often is an organization, though not one initiated by local government. Networks, which can be much more informal, followed in preference. It appears that some hybrid between a formal organization and a network, without any regulatory authority, was preferred. Again, two respondents did not see the need for any form or type of sustainability entity. 4. Relative importance of having an entity serve the community is distributed as follows: • Very important (1) • Somewhat important (4) Somewhat unimportant (2) • Very unimportant (0) 5. How a community, organization or individual might participate is varied. Most interviewees say they would contribute by (listed by order of magnitude): • Being members (6) • Provide some staff support (2) • Having a seat at the table (to create and administer organization) (1) • Exchanging ideas (1) • Be available as an advisor (1) • Contribute financially (with others) (1) Emmemon COGAN 68 OWENS COGAN 6. How might such an entity be funded? One interviewee indicates that before considering how it would be funded, the purpose and services should be determined first because this will help identify funding sources. Most participants provide multiple suggestions for funding. • Membership dues from organizations (similar to Westside Economic Alliance) (4) • Businesses (private) (2) • Taxes (public) (2) • Fee-for-service (1) • Foundation grants (2) • Volunteer-based (1) • Use cost savings from sustainable practices to fund (1) • Credits on Systems Development Charges toward organization (1) One interviewee explicitly indicates that no public funding should be used. 7. Other resources mentioned were: • Several individual city staff members • Study of community-based models • Washington County Community Action Agency • City of Chicago Office of Sustainability • Metro CONCLUSIONS What We Know There is at least some agreement within the public, private, non-profit and service sectors represented in this study that some sort of entity is desirable. There is no consensus on a definitive form of a sustainability entity, though there are strong leanings toward some sort of semi-formal, collaborative organizational structure that is not supported solely with public funding. It should bring together elected and appointed upper level representatives of jurisdictions and service providers, with representation by technical, business, natural resources, social service and faith community members. Community members, possibly through Community Planning Organizations (CPO's) should also be at the table. Partnerships are critical to the success of any entity that draws upon the connectivity of a diverse cross section of sectors to address sustainability. The need for a collaborative approach is not questioned. Shown below is a chart with the range of authority/relationship structures and their relative authority and relationships. The circle indicates the relative location along the continuum of where the type of entity described by most of the participants might be. In the opinion of the consulting team, the preference for a non-regulatory, semi-formal, community-based organization summarizes opinions expressed collectively by most of the interviewees and focus group participants. -" COGAN 69 OWENS �.. COGAN Authority/Relationship Matrix poN Network of Community of /""N N Organizations Practice/Forum Society or Alliance a) a 0 Commission '1o 0 Non-profit Intermediary/foundation Agency a) N c� Government Agency U Formal Informal `'7 Relationships r1 Funding The identified funding options from both focus groups and interviewees lean toward membership or fee-for-service formats with assistance from businesses, public agencies and private foundations. Some innovative funding methods mentioned include Systems Development Charges credits, and use of funds from realized savings through use of sustainable practices. What We Don't Know The interviews and focus groups were attended primarily by advocates or people with some background in sustainability issues. An effort was made to recruit participants that may have e1 a contrary view on the formation of a sustainability entity, but there was only one response to the invitation to participate from someone with that perspective. There was not broad participation by large companies, many whom have full time sustainability coordinators and are well-versed in sustainable practices in the business environment. With additional input, more balanced representation is possible. A community survey was beyond the scope of this project. Without a community-wide on-%, survey, there is inadequate data to assess the general public's opinions on the topic of the feasibility of a sustainability entity or organization. The consulting team does not necessarily Ao1 recommend a survey. The Leadership Team is the decision-making body for this effort and their direction should be sufficient to determine a course of action. Next Steps As this study continues, the consulting team will work with the Leadership Team to discuss the findings, research options and present alternatives to aid the decision-making process. COGAN AILTA70 OWENS rAr COGAN ..� a k r S,.;;r ,; �rrrrrrrr APPENDIX A SURVEY AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 8) What are the chief sustainability issues faced by your community and organization? 9) What are the chief sustainability opportunities that are being worked on by your organization? a) What are the chief sustainability opportunities you would like to see be addressed? 10) Given these issues and opportunities, are there existing entities in Washington County, that you are aware of, you think address these? a) What should a sustainability entity be charged with doing, andkmie �r b) Who should be at the table? c) If no entity currently exists, what form, e.g. network, organization or program would4.0 be desirable? 11) How important is it to your community that such an entity exists? Very important Somewhat important Somewhat unimportant Very unimportant `I 12) How might you (or your organization) participate in a local sustainability effort or entity? 13) How might such an entity, e.g. organization, program or network be funded? �►' 14) Are there any other resources, Web sites, organizations, etc. you think would be of interest for our research? Please identify them here. `./ COG A N kilo/ 71 OWNS AV:4 614A. ( OG. N .,:«saf sxra a ,, eims Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study eiN Questionnaire Results Focus Group #1 — Public Sector Staff— October 18, 2007 r1 1. What are the chief sustainability issues faced by your community and organization? — Need to create sustainable incentives (5) — What is global warming going to do to local environment and result effect on water, people and peak oil (4) — Public needs education to bring them on board (4) — Need practical counsel/advise re: sustainable practices best practices (3) — Lack of jobs/housing balance (2) — Where is tipping point? Urban/Rural (2) — Where is sustainability in people's list of priorities (1) — Transportation crucial (1) — Get sustainability into the lexicon — Long-term effects, long-term solutions needed. — — Org. may not be able to have staff to work on sustainability. — Bottom line guides choices — LEED costs = public policy decision — Challenge to keep people involved — Costs of transporting — Inequity of costs across regions — Externalities implicit— recognize true costs e.g. China and lead paint 2. What are the chief sustainability opportunities that are being worked on by your organization? — Need to integrate into daily practices. How to do? At what cost? (4) — Gaining sensitivity to environmental issues, global warming (3) — We can figure out how to address. But, how to coordinate? (2) — Mfg. "take back" policies, free recycling for nuisance goods — i.e. California $15 fee for TV based on EU model (1) 0"1 — Don't let the issue die (1) i"• — This is the time for buy-in shift in paradigm. Time for education (1) �., — Metro working on peak oil issues — 1 — Number of different kinds of organizations but may not have vision — do have mission (1) — Need to coordinate rate structures — Food mfg. going into biofuels = economic development — Solar world located here — Marketplace based on values — Local markets, farmers market ^ — Carbon Institute — Sustainability. + Government is a new book — Sustainability is a fluid field. Costs to stay ahead. — Cost should be looked at as a value. COGAN •~ 72 O W E N S COGAN �rrrrr - Marketplace should make it more economical to recycle/reuse - Manage change - Clean water Serv. mission = sustainable public safety/health - "Change course not ship" shift of vision 3. Given these issues and opportunities, are there existing entities in Washington County, that you are aware of, you think address these? - Communities of interest forestry, agriculture, exist - Public education - Technical assistance - Cheerlead - Funnel for resources ($) - Provide structure to help define impacts - Coordination - connect to larger pictures i.e. carbon offsets - County is an urban service provider role. - What can we learn from Portland Office of Sustainable Development? - Future of Washington County linked to regional growth a. What should a sustainability entity be charged with doing, and - If entity catches on, priority would change to higher level. - Shift is happening. - Vote for because of: recycling event with Intel 250k tons of computers t.- recycled. 10e - Appreciate how far people have come - Scientifically access (survey) where public is. - Gore's Peach Prize catalyst for public discussion on global warming as it could impact peace. V - Can we tap into Metro resources and have allocation to Washington County? b. Who should be at the table? - County business recycling program Alexis Allen - report `, - Portland has 40 staff- but it's only 1 city. 12-13 cities - small to medium in Washington Co. 1/40 - Private firms in county have sustainability programs that gov't could learn `✓ from - Non-profits -Washington County Peak Oil org, health care, H2E - Battery disposal - how - Sustainability Coordination org in Washington County = private business - CWS - does some, but not all sustainable practices, has become bell 1w weather for region - reminder for others, source of info. - Small jurisdictions look toward larger orgs. - PCC COGAN ..- 73 OWENS �... LOAN c. If not entity currently exists, what form, e.g. network, organization or program would be desirable? — Coordinated model '1 — Need leadership —where to come from? e'1 — Should DEQ step up in leadership? May get culture of cooperation going ,.� — DEQ is underfunded/understaffed. Too focused. — Regulatory construction — limited focus — Need entity to focus, show linkages — Look at sustainability as a value — More holistic view— change behaviors — Openness, receptively to sustainable practices. Where to start? How to measure impacts? — If community-based — more sustainable fees could be charged. r — Can Washington County tap into Metro efforts — PSU resources — Business community — Like Coalition for a Livable Future 001 — What does "community-based" mean? i.e. Jackson Bottom org. ,-� Champions needed — Business, non-profit, government leads to changed behaviors — VAN is success story— model — Must have capacity — intellectual, technical resources "how to" — Who will have credibility, knowledge, expertise — Make sure accessible to all in county. — All agree sustainability is a worthy cause —validate assumption 4. How important is it to your community that this happen? # of votes 0 1 6 2 Not important Somewhat not Somewhat Very important important important 5. How would you participate? — Talk to County Commissioners — When issuing an RFPs — add constructive sustainability questions — Shape the questions constructively — CWS —Audit tools to share with community — OSU/PSU coordination conference — Get CPO's to focus on sustainability — Experience, contribution, information ^ — Tualatin Valley Water District, City of Beaverton has staff (dealing with sustainability) COGAN OWENS 74 COGAN — Can Intel, Nike, CWS resources be brought together. — Governance question — Assess cultural sensitivity of sustainability discussion — Get Council to ask questions re: sustainability related issues. 6. How might such an entity, e.g. organization, program or network be funded? " — Monetary donations— business — Loaned executive — If product emerges from effort, could generate funds — Awards recognition for sustainable practices — could bring funds and education, rallying point. — What would make sustainability interesting? - Carbon credits—WSEA— transportation/economic development/workforce = business support ..� — Give business model as reason for sustainable practices use — State funding? 7. Other resources: — ICMA — H2E \, — Carbon Institute — PSU — PCC `.. Metro �r — City of Portland — Natural Step Network — Professional orgs — National Association of Counties — Conference of Mayors — Leagues of Cities — Sustainable Living Program - OSU V V COGAN 75 OWENS '4'14 "` C.OGAN e1 Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study Questionnaire Results Focus Group #2 - Public, Private Sectors, Faith Community, Farm, Natural Resource Community October 19, 2007 1. What are the chief sustainability issues faced by your community and organization? - Not easy to recycle (4) - Water supply, distribution, quality (4) - Connections key-farms, workers, consumers, housing, income. Need ability to have income to buy local (4) - Inability to say "no" to growth -state land use rules (4) - More challenges to building new roads infrastructure (2) Need connectivity - bike, ped, auto - Ag infrastructure at risk- supply system reduced, e.g. feed stores, etc. chemicals (2) - Vehicle miles traveled/ peak oil costs - alt energy sources (2) 'eat - Fish and wildlife - need to find balance (1) - Soils (1) - 50 year horizon short term profit vs. long term benefits/needs - Building larger-filling up faster - Farm to market roads not a grid - Forest practices - Housing affordability w/in community - Peak oil = hit peak amount of oil we can extract/use = economic impacts - Looking at issues for both business and altruistic reasons - Mobility is our culture. Workers need alternative transportation but it's not available. - N. Bethany = 11 k new people, no new transit planned - Conflicts between land uses farms/ housing - OHSU Amber Glen - It takes 5 high density developments to save -- �'1 amount of farmland ,•� - Compatibility very important - Save our natural resources: water, plastic, farms - From a regulatory standpoint, how to make it easier for people to make sustainable choices a COGANr 76 O 'FNS a Ali,A C.OGAN 2. What are the chief sustainability opportunities that are being worked on by your organization? - Different demographics -willingness to live in high density-viable transportation alternatives (6) - Construction = incentives for green buildings (4) - DEQ and state need to change laws to allow incentives for new types of L. businesses (3) - Reframe sustainability to opportunity (3) - Priority should be to save resources (2) - Full ability to recycle back to crude oil. Could provide jobs - manual sorting `r (2) - Retrofitting older buildings (1) - Assure green spaces- interactions -sense of community (1) - Farming community-work with them to recycle nursery pots, other agricultural products. �r - Education is key. "Work for the long run" - Cost of fuel 2a. What are the chief sustainability opportunities you would like to see be addressed? v - Awareness of global warming 'a,' - Plastics recycling - Energy recovery ‘00 - Organizational sustainability and external assistance for sustainable actions - Financial tax credits, state and local support - DEQ and DOE laws to support new economic change and growth `r V 3. Given these issues and opportunities, are there existing entities in Washington County, that you are aware of, you think addresses these? �✓ - No - Various groups touch on topics but not holistic view - There is a Washington County sustainability network (an email list that VAN keeps up) a. What should a sustainability entity be charged with doing, and b. Who should be at the table? - Assess environmental impact and protect natural resources 'a' - County-level oversight-focus on peer reviewed science - Balance current and future needs/outcomes - Measurement needed - Place to discuss sustainability issues COGAN 77 OW ENS COGAN — Coordination of other efforts — If run by government, has ability to enforce — Don't be redundant. Has to have measurable outcomes. — Measurements = use existing carbon footprint calculator as a tool eTh — This group is an example (of bringing diverse people to the table). Entity's i1 roles: holistic, for implementation, has ability to make recommendations. — Find ways to incorporate for a common purpose. — Cascadia Scorecard — bioregional measures — Report card approach to measure — Metro — H2E: Hospital for Healthy Environments — Coalition for Living Future — Get transportation identified as sustainability issue — K-12 program — Association of Oregon Recyclers — Green Building Institute — Natural Step Network e•N — Regulatory agencies c. If no entity currently exists, what form, e.g. network, organization or program would be desirable? — Natural Step — has 20-year horizon — available to facilitate discussions — Create Office of Sustainability o Science o Convener, commission — City of Portland works because it's only 1 city. Washington County many cities. 1 body to convene, but not regulatory. — Water supply/quality community already has group alliances would be good. — Branding is key— define and link issues. — Legislation helps move society to where it needs to be. — Occur within natural boundaries, i.e. watersheds, river basins. Build sustainability within these units. — City of Beaverton has internal sustainability committee — Group concern about regulatory aspects — Measure 37 "messes up" sustainability — Group Consensus Vision — coordinates, uses science, is non-regulatory. Accesses resources, measure with score card. Includes representatives. 4. How important is it to your community that an entity happens? # of 0 0 0 12 votes Not important Somewhat not Somewhat Very important important important COCAN 78 OWENS COGAN 5. How would you participate? - leader - participant - implementer - with ideas - technical assistance - assist in developing and forming recycling opportunities for businesses - studies, expertise - goals, expectations - CPO can be used to disseminate info - training, education programs - zero waste training - faith community to "preach sustainability" - model sustainability- individual and organizationally - Celebrate, awards 6. How might such an entity, e.g. organization, program or network be funded? - Taxes - Try to have it not cost jurisdictions money - Will cost all of us in the long run - Pursue federal sources of funding `- - Membership dues - Funding depends on what model is used - SEDCOR- Salem - money to invest in sustainability - Oregon Solutions - Relationships must be respected - Incentive-based programs - Energy programs 1." - Economic development funds - Pass-through tax credits 7. Other resources, etc. See 3b, above. kks COGAN 79 OWENS ' COGAN APPENDIX F LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING SUMMARIES a 11111111.11111111.11111111101111 COGAN so OWENS Ltkok COGAN r1 efts n Vision Action Network Sustainability Feasibility Study Leadership Team Meeting #1 '1 September 24, 2007 Meeting Summary Present: Leadership Team (LT) — Bob Davis, Washington County; Greg DiLoreto, Tualatin Valley Water District; Bill Gaffi, Clean Water Services; Michael Jordan, METRO; Sherilyn Lombos, City of Tualatin; Craig Prosser, City of Tigard. Operations Team (OT)—Sia Lindstrom, Vision Action Network (VAN); Bruce Condon, Clean Water Services; Jan McGowan, SOLV; Cheryl Welch, Tualatin Valley Water District; Theresa Koppang, Washington County. Consulting Team— Bob Wise, Elise Scolnick, Cogan Owens Cogan LLc; Darcy Hitchcock, Axis Performance Advisors, Inc. On September 24, 2007 the first meeting of the Leadership Team (LT) was held, called together by Vision Action Network of Washington County. VAN Executive Director Sia Lindstrom introduced the Feasibility Study and the Operations Team (OT) overseeing the effort. She and Bob Wise articulated that the purpose of the study was to ask two questions: 1) Should Washington County form a sustainability organization? 2) If so, what should a sustainability organization look like and what services should be provided? •� Each of the LT introduced themselves and then answered a question: "What is the one key thing I'd like to learn...?" Responses to the question ranged from learning about sustainability practices, reducing carbon footprints, to how to implement sustainability, and how to do it without the county being the primary implementer. Also expressed was the desire to learn more about economic sustainability and understanding social equity. A PowerPoint presentation on sustainability was led by consultants Bob Wise and Darcy Hitchcock. Following the presentation, a discussion was held in which the consultants asked four questions of the group. The following were responses to the questions. 1. What more would you like to know about sustainability? — Equity (income disparity, economic growth....) • How do we make linkages between actions, policies? How do we meet the triple bottom line? • How do we measure attainment? COGAN AVAliZt 81 OWENS ouis COGAN o Need to incorporate linkages of actions throughout organizations L — 13 Top Actions �. • Here/how to apply resources • How are criteria developed? • How to apply- individually, collectively, globally — Organizational Capacity • There are limited resources and capacity • How do we get our arms around multiple issues? • Growth is impacting us now! How can we deal with sustainability right now? • There are political impediments, multiple priorities, all competing for L resources. L • Need to make connections outside government, i.e. businesses, community organizations. • Education -> comprehension -4 integration -* measurable results • Economic strategies -> local benefits • Strategies - i.e. purchasing power is not maximized. If certain rne strategies used, could impact- social equity, economics • New ways of thinking about routine ways of doing business. -> Bringing success stories to the Leadership Team • Cultural sensitivity in talking about/practicing sustainability (cultural, `,, organizational, etc.) • Political realities - need for cross sector organization. 2. How can a sustainability group/organization help your organization? kr 3. If there was one, what type of organization would help further sustainability efforts? • (Recycling) Ways to encourage small business involvement, compliance. Encouragement vs. regulatory. Make linkages to larger sustainability and businesses goals. -4 Access to information-Central locations for information clearinghouse "one stop shopping" - Materials exchange business-to-business • Look at water conservation programs for how to change culture, thinking. • Create a common message: i.e., "For the Common Good" • Provide a forum for conversations on sustainability • Education, information • Common language/information • Sharing best practices COGAN 82 O W EN S COGAN `.e • Advocate for best practices, appropriately-sized strategies • Link businesses and government • Purchasing power, influence decisions, education ■ Explore regionalization of resources • When should decisions be local versus regional? r1 • Warning: centralized structure may lead to attitude of "they made r1 me/us do it" — One that works with the educational system • K-12 curriculum • Labor force training • Higher Education curriculum • Interns r'1 4. What is needed to help move your organization forward with sustainability? — Money, Money, Money • Lots of businesses are already on board • Inform them of how they can save money ■ Denmark example --survivability leads to necessity as the mother of invention! • The Northwest is at the cutting edge of sustainability research and practice Organization for sustainability planning • Training models and resources • How can folks around our table start an organization? Next steps: Stakeholder interviews and focus groups will be conducted by the consulting team. A follow-up meeting to report back findings to the LT is scheduled for October 30, 2007, 3-5 PM. A final presentation on the consultant's report will be on January 8, 2008, 3-5 PM. Notices of future meetings will be sent out to the teams. 0'1 oNN COGAN 83 OWENS C"OGAN Vision Action Network Sustainability Feasibility Study Leadership Team Meeting #2 October 30, 2007 Beaverton City Library 3:00 — 5:00pm Present: Leadership Team (LT): Bruce Roll (Clean Water Services), Bob Davis (Washington Co), Mayor Rob Drake (City of Beaverton), Rob Dixon (City of Hillsboro) Operations Team (OT) Bruce Cordon (Clean Water Services), Cheryl Welch (Tualatin Valley Water District), Theresa Koppang (Washington Co.), Cogan, Owens, Cogan (COC): Bob Wise, P. Elise Scolnick, (Consultants) Vision Action Network (VAN): Sia Lindstrom, Charla Chamberlain Absent: Greg DiLoreto, Tualatin Valley Water District; Bill Gaffi, Clean Water Services; Michael Jordan, METRO; Sherilyn Lombos, City of Tualatin; Craig Prosser, City of L- Tigard. L„ Sia Lindstrom: Introductions/Update on process/where we are now. This is an interim L` meeting to give consultants clarifying directions as they take the focus group and Interview data, as well as the Leadership Team's (LT) feedback and create their final report. Cogan Owens Cogan: Consultants Elise Scolnick and Bob Wise presented the summarized results from the focus groups and interviews. A total of 27 individuals participated in the stakeholder involvement process, including 7 personal Interviews and 2 focus groups (20 people). (See written summary in 10/30/07 notes, attached). Review of process for interviews and focus groups • For interviews, the consultants used the working definition of sustainability from the Oregon Sustainability Act "Sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a ratespe and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs. Sustainability requires simultaneously meeting environmental, economic and community needs." L. After the report by Ms. Scolnick and Mr. Wise, Sia Lindstrom guided the Leadership Team (LT) in a discussion of the issues raised in the stakeholder interviews and identifying the concerns and desires of the LT related to the formation of a sustainability entity within Washington County. The following text reflects the comments from the LT: Comments: • Having a hard time understanding how the divergent ideas of sustainable growth (infrastructure, transportation, etc) &the need for an information clearinghouse can be held in one organization. • We need common causes to bring the public on board iimnimmomi COGAN 84 OWENS (.r COGAN r'1 er1 • There are parallel sustainability efforts within infrastructure agencies already happening • How can we support voluntary and regulation efforts already in place • Clean Water Services surveys have highlighted that people are ready to embrace a sustainable life. We may be missing opportunities to support the public's ,Th desire to address sustainability. Students are approaching agency staff with questions about what we doing (with regard to sustainability)? • Water is an issue that is simple for the public to embrace. (for agriculture, drinking water toxicity, storm water, conservation efforts, etc.) • Carbon trading makes conservation easy. • Anecdotal story about recent San Francisco Black Out demonstration campaign. e1 Throw back to WWII conservation efforts. Would the public support efforts like that here? What about for real conservation, not just a demonstration? • Land use/transportation could be carefully linked to sustainability efforts. (Climate e'1 Change & Peak Oil strategy plans) /N Questions about Summary: • Portland has large resources available. Why is that left out of stakeholder e1 analysis? o Document on sustainability organizations research was distributed at the first LT meeting and will be integrated into final report • In Portland they renamed Solid Waste • People have been looking to Washington County to house an Office of Sustainable Development. • Is there a need for a new organization or could it just be a website of •'1 informational resources? Not convinced a new organization is needed. Maybe it's an advisory group? Where does the funding come from? Dues? Effort should be collaborative between multiple agencies. • Recycling facilities for computers in Washington Co. are inadequate. That needs to be a priority to stop these things from going into the landfill. o There is not a regional recycling plan that includes the commercial sector. • We need someone who can be the convener/facilitator that makes groups get together & make decisions on this stuff. • Perhaps a regional collaboration with a single coordinator? (possibly METRO?) Sia : Should there be an Entity? (group go around) • Can't answer that without consensus on the top 3 needs/services • What would the roles of an entity be? o Gov't purchasing coordination o Strategy & standards (at least 50% PC office supplies, etc) o Website, information sharing o Education o Green Building (LEED) standards owN o Water supply, storm water management, etc ,•1 o Land use / Transportation o It makes one team member nervous to take regulation off the table. o Group/organization maybe not enforcer/creator of regulation o Yes! There needs to be an entity • Solid waste gets inquiries on everything ■ Need centralized information C'OGAN ', OWENS ■ Set yearly priorities • This group (LT) has the knowledge base o Collective information that can be tapped. • The public is getting a fractured message due to non-coordination of who is doing what in the county • 1-2 person staff would cost at least $100K per year plus office space • Need a cost -benefit analysis o What factors are needed to know to do establish an entity? • Using Clean Water Services as a model: if we had not given them their own kingdom to just do the work and engineer systems, it may not have been as good. • How do we build in a factor to understand the long term needs? • Maybe we need an organization that produces high quality documents to guide all practices. o What about doing something that no one else is, such as a greenhouse gas reduction strategy? How could that happen without an organization leading it? tis • METRO w/ DEQ? o No one wants to be the one to decide who drives cars and who does not • What role should METRO play? It seems they need to be partners vs. the leader to avoid push back. o If METRO leads, then it will be seen as a tool of Portland, with unrealistic goals that don't go anywhere. o Washington Co. could have a supporting organization that understands issues and relationships out here. • Objective Convener: Could be a strictly academic group that does not have power to act. o PSU Center for Metropolitan Studies • Concern was expressed about a strictly academic approach • Would rather control regulation out here locally than to have it imposed • Should perhaps be an organization that sunsets over a defined time. It has a �.. start & stop time, a well defined mission and funding source • We don't have the same $2 gas tax that Europe has that pays for alternative transportation options like trains and subways. • How can this group take the ideas and initiatives that are already in place and take advantage of them? • ICLEI —Amy Shotz is spread too thin • One more meeting of the LT is not enough to make a decision on an entity. o Key players are not present at this meeting o Need to deal with the top 8 ideas o Include businesses Next Steps: • Perhaps develop an Inter-governmental Agreement (IGA) to establish a format and funding? • Need to talk to Michael [Jordan] at METRO to see how they can be involved. o Washington Co. boundaries is the preferred size for entity formation, not the full metro region • Set realistic goals `/ • What can be accomplished? `, COGGAN OWENS 7 VA '4 Pzi 86 COGAN %B/ e1 o Green house gas strategy plan o Energy strategy plan • What can Washington Co. control? • Concept: "Partners acting together in a coordinated fashion" Collaboration • How formal of group? If it is formal, need: ,.� o Open, public meetings? o A different level of transparency, public comment period? • IGA can be independent of other efforts to fund and/or hire consultants or staff ,^ • Again, one more meeting of the LT is not enough to finalize decision(s) • Notes need to be distributed to everyone on the LT to get them caught up and on board Meeting Summary Throughout the meeting, there was growing consensus from the LT that forming a sustainability entity is desirable. The following collaborative approaches were proposed as ways an entity could work. Additionally, there were unanswered questions about accountability, strategy and focus of the entity. The consultants will try to address options that respond to these questions in their final report. POSSIBLE COLLABORATION APPROACHES 4. Each group dedicates a little bit of staff time, not a new FTE staff member. 5. Hire new staff members within a completely new organization. 6. Make an entity a 2-3 year commitment that sunsets and see where we are at the end and whether to continue it. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 1. What are the main focus areas of the entity? What are the top 3-8 priorities for what it would do? 2. Who would be the convener? How will the convener be decided? 3. How much power to influence policy/regulation would the entity have, if any? There was also hesitancy to make any clear decisions without the entire Leadership Team at the table. While a growing consensus did emerge, it was clear that final decisions at this point in the process were not appropriate. Instead, the group gave direction to the consultants to develop recommendations for a local (Washington County geographic boundaries) entity that was collaborative in nature. PRN Next meeting: Tuesday, January 8, 2008, 3:00 — 5:00 pm, Beaverton City Library ANN ,•1 APN COGAN _ . 87 OMENS � �re,A, COGAN 1-1 es APPENDIX G SUSTAINABLE SEATTLE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION e•• el1 #11 ,f,•N riN o-N COGAN 47* 88 OWENS COGAN ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF r'1 SUSTAINABLE SEATTLE i1 The undersigned, acting as an incorporator under the Washington Nonprofit Corporation Act (Revised Code of Washington 24.03) hereby adopts and executes the following Articles of Incorporation. ARTICLE I. NAME The name of this corporation is Sustainable Seattle. ARTICLE II. DURATION n The period of duration of this corporation shall be perpetual. ARTICLE III. PURPOSES The purposes for which this corporation, a nonprofit charitable organization, is formed are: 1. Development of sustainability components for plans, projects and policies in Seattle, King County and other communities. eiN 2. To engage in any other lawful activity which may hereafter be authorized e`' from time to time by the Board of Directors; provided, however, that the ,o1 purposes for which the corporation is formed shall at all times be consistent with Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as it now exists or as hereafter amended (the "Code", including within such purposes the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c) (3) of the Code. ARTICLE IV. POWERS This corporation shall have the power to do all lawful acts or things necessary, appropriate, or desirable to carry out and in furtherance of its purposes described in Article III which are consistent with the Washington Nonprofit Corporation Act and Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. '1 ARTICLE V. INFLUENCE LEGISLATION INN ,.N No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall be devoted to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise, and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publication or distribution of statements with respect to) any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. .'1 COGANQ 89 OWENS COGAN Atareddtpcetu, & a©a;; 111111111110111111111111111111 ARTICLE VI. REGISTERED OFFICE The address of the initial registered office of this corporation is 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza, Suite 4500, Seattle, Washington, 98154-1065, and the name of its initial registered agent at such address is CorpServe, Inc. The written consent of such entity to serve as registered agent is attached hereto. L ARTICLE VII. BOARD OF DIRECTORS L The management of this corporation shall be vested in a Board of Directors. The number of directors, and the method of selecting directors, shall be fixed by the Bylaws of this corporation; that the initial directors shall be nine (9) in number and their names and address are: Name Address R. Lee Hatcher Amy Solomon Mark Aalfs Susan Hall Aidan Stretch �•►� Cynthia Moffitt Sonya Manning Davidya Kasperzyk Richard Kochalis ARTICLE VIII. BYLAWS The Board of Directors is authorized to make, alter, amend or repeal the Bylaws of this corporation. ARTICLE IX. LIMITATIONS This corporation shall have no capital stock and no part of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure in whole or in part to the benefit of, or be distributable to, any officer, director or other individual having a personal or private interest in the activities of the corporation, or to any person or organization other than an organization which is exempt from federal income taxation under Sections 501(a) and 501(c)(3) of the Code, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered, to make reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred in its behalf, and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes stated in Article III. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles, this corporation shall not carry on any activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by a �--. corporation exempt from Federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) or by (b) by a corporation the contributions to which are deductible under Sections 170, 2055 and 2522 of the Code. �.. COGAN 4mral so OWENS a ; COGAN A,'qr uapse Pr.CV,.LViz.. 11111111111111•1111111111111111 - ... ARTICLE X. TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING DIRECTORS 1. No contacts or other transactions between this corporation and any other corporation, and no act of this corporation shall in any be affected or otherwise by the fact that any director of this corporation is pecuniarily or otherwise interested in, or is a trustee, director, or officer of, such other corporation. 2. Any director, individually, or any firm of which any trustee may be a member, may be a part to, or may be pecuniarily or otherwise interested in, any ,.� contracts or transactions or the corporation;provided,that the fact that such director or such firm is so interested shall be disclosed to or shall have been known by the Board of Directors or a majority thereof. ., ARTICLE XI. DISTRIBUTIONS UPON DISSOLUTION Upon any dissolution of this corporation under provisions of the laws of the State of Washington for nonprofit corporations, all of its assets remaining after payment of --. creditors shall be distributed to one or more organizations selected by the Board of Directors which are qualified as exempt from taxation under the provisions of Sections 501(a) and 501(c)(3) of the Code, or any successor statutes, and which further the purposes set forth in Article III. In no event shall any of the corporation's assets be distributed to the officers, directors, or members of the corporation. ARTICLE XII. PRIVATE FOUNDATION If this corporation becomes a private foundation within the meaning of Section 509 of the Code, as long as its private foundation status continues the following provisions shall apply in the management of its affairs: 1. Each year the corporation shall distribute the income of the corporation, for the purposes specified in Article III, at such time and in amounts at least sufficient to avoid liability for the tax imposed by Section 4942 of the Code; 2. The corporation shall not engage in any act of"self-dealing" (as defined in -^� Section 4941(d) of the Code) which would give rise to any liability for the tax imposed by Section 4941(a) of the Code; 3. The corporation shall not sell, exchange, distribute or otherwise dispose of ` any "excess business holdings" (as defined in Section 4943© of the Code) •. which would give rise to any liability for the tax imposed by Section 4943(a( of the Code' 4. The corporation shall not make any investments which would jeopardize the carrying out of any of its exempt purposes (within the meaning of Section COGAN 91 OWENS TAN- COGAN 4944 of the Code) and which would, therefore, give rise to any liability for the tax imposed by Section 4945(a) of the Code. L. 5. The corporation shall not make any "taxable expenditures" (as defined in Sections 4945(d) of the Code) which would give rise to any liability for Lie the tax imposed by Section 4945(a) of the Code. ARTICLE XIII. AMENDMENTS This corporation reserves the right to amend, alter, change or repeal any provision contained in these Articles of Incorporation by the affirmative vote a majority of the directors presents at a meeting of the Board of Directors. �✓ ARTICLE XIV. MEMBERS This corporation shall have no members. ARTICLE XV. INDEMNIFICATION To the full extent permitted by the Washington nonprofit Corporation Act, RCW 24.03, the personal liability of a director to the Corporation shall be eliminated and the corporation shall indemnify any person made a party to any proceeding by reason of the fact that he or she is or was a director, against judgment, penalties, fines, settlements and reasonable expenses actually incurred by him or her in connection with such proceeding. Provided, however, that the corporation shall neither indemnify a director, nor shall the director's liability be eliminated for acts or omissions that involve intentional misconduct by a director or a knowing violation of law by a director, or for any transaction from which the director will personally receive a benefit in money, property or services to which the director is not legally entitled. The corporation shall also indemnify any officer, agent or employee who is or was not a director, to the same extent, and with the same limitations, that the corporation is authorized to indemnify directors. The Board of Directors may, from time to time, approve by general or specific action of the Board, or by contact, the indemnification of any other person which the corporation has the power to indemnification under the Act. The indemnification provided by this article shall not be deemed exclusive of any other rights to which a person may be entitled as a matter of law or by contract. ARTICLE XVI INCORPORATOR The name and address of the incorporator are: Name Address Pamela A. Cairns Graham& James LLP/Riddell Williams P.S. 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza, Suite 4500 Seattle, WA 98154 L. , COGAN 92 OWENS COGAN rrr111111111111111rrr CONSENT TO APPOINTMENT OF REGISTERED AGENT The undersigned, a duly elected officer of Sustainable Seattle, hereby confirms that CorpServe, Inc. consents to serve as Registered Agent in the State of Washington of Sustainable Seattle. It is understood that as agent for the corporation, it will be the responsibility of CorpServe, Inc. to receive service of process in the name of the corporation, to forward all mail to the corporation, and to notify the office of the Secretary of State immediately in the event of its resignation or of any change in the registered office address of the corporation. /1 1'1 Piot r'1 pis 'Ps pos from eels COGAN 93 OWENS COGAN APPENDIX H SUSTAINABLE SEATTLE BYLAWS e11 e1 f es n • eis r"'1 r1 /1 mmummim COGAN 94 O WE NS O'N ANN COGAN BYLAWS OF SUSTAINABLE SEATTLE ARTICLE I: OFFICES 1.1 Registered Office and Registered Agent. The registered office of the --� corporation shall be located in the state of Washington at such place as may be fixed from time to time by the board of Directors upon filing of such notices as may be required by law. The registered agent shall have a business office identical with such registered office. 1.2 Other Offices. The corporation may have other offices within or outside the state of Washington at such place as the Board of Directors may from time to time determine. ARTICLE II: BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2.1 Number and Powers. The management of all the affairs, property and interests of the corporation shall be vested in a Board of Directors consisting of not more than fifteen (15) persons but not fewer than seven (7) persons, with the exact number of directors to be established annually by the election of directors. The term of office of directors shall expire at the next annual meeting following the annual meeting at which they are elected. At each annual meeting after the initial annual meeting, directors shall be elected for a term of one year to succeed directors whose terms expire at such meeting. In addition to the powers and authorities expressly conferred upon it by these Bylaws and Articles of the incorporation, the Board of Directors may exercise all such powers of the corporation and do all such lawful acts and things. 2.2 Change of Number. The number of directors may at any time be increased or decreased by amendment of these Bylaws,but no decreased shall have the effect of shortening the term of any incumbent director. 2.3 Vacancies. All vacancies in the Board of Directors, whether caused by resignation, death or otherwise, may be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors even though less than a quorum of the Board of Directors. A director elected to fill any vacancy shall hold office for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor and until a successor is elected and qualified. '1 2.4 Regular Meeting. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors may be held at the registered office of the corporation or at such other place or places, either within or without the state of Washington. The annual meeting shall be held without notice at the registered office of the corporation, at noon, '� on the third Wednesday of February each year, or at such other time and COGAN 95 OWENS Ira:‘tio COGAN %t./ place as the Board of Directors shall designate by written notice. In addition to the annual meeting, there shall be regular meeting of the Board of Directors held, with proper notice, not less frequently than once each �.. calendar quarter. 2.5 Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called at any time by the President or upon written request by any two directors. Such meeting shall be held at the registered office of the •,,, corporation or at such other place or places as the directors may from time to time designate. 2.6 Notice. Notice of all special meetings of the Board of Directors (and of all regular meetings other than the annual meetings to be held at the place and time designated in Section 4.4) shall be given to each directors by three (3) days' prior service of the same by telegram, by letter or personally. Such notice need not specify the business to be transacted at, nor the purpose of, the meeting. 2.7 Quorum. A majority of the whole Board of Directors shall be necessary and sufficient at all meetings to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 2.8 Waiver of Notice. Attendance of a director at the meeting shall constitute a waiver of notice of such meeting, except where s director attends for the express purpose of objecting to the transaction of any business because the ti.. meeting is not lawfully called or convened. A waiver of notice signed by the director of directors, whether before or after the time stated for the meeting, shall be equivalent to the giving of notice. 1/40 2.9 Registering Dissent. A director who is present at a meeting of the Board of Directors at which action on a corporate matter is taken shall be presumed to have assented to such action unless the director shall file a written dissent or abstention to such action with the person acting as the secretary 1/ of the meeting before the adjournment thereof, or shall forward such 1/ dissent by registered mail to the Secretary of the corporation immediately 1/40 after the adjournment of the meeting. Such right to dissent or abstain shall not apply to a director who voted in favor of such action. L.r 2.10 Executive and Other Committees. The Board of Directors may appoint, from time to time, from its own number, standing or temporary committees consisting each of no fewer than two (2) directors. Such committees may be vested with such powers as the Board may determine by resolution passed by a majority of the full Board of Directors. No such 1/40 committees shall have the authority of the Board of Directors in reference 1/40 to amending, altering or repealing these Bylaws; electing, appointing or removing any member of any such committee or any director or officer of COG AN '.• 96 OWENS - 1.�, OG AN 4 ..l rr�rrrrr� ems the corporation; amending the Articles of Incorporation; adopting a plan of merger or adopting a plan of consolidation with another corporation; authorizing the sale, lease or exchange of all or substantially all of the property and assets of the corporation other than in the ordinary course of business; authorizing the voluntary dissolution of the corporation or e'1 adopting a plan for the distribution of the assets of the corporation; or amending, altering or repealing any resolution of the Board of Directors which by its terms provides that it shall not be amended, altered or repealed by such committee. All committees so appointed shall keep ^1 regular minutes of the transactions of their meetings and shall cause them °'1 to be recorded in books kept for that purpose in the office of the corporation. The designation of any such committee and the delegation of authority thereto, shall not relieve the Board of Directors, or any member thereof, of any responsibility imposed by law. 2.11 Remuneration. No stated salary shall be paid directors, as such, for their service,but by resolution of the Board of the Directors, a fixed sum and expenses of attendance, if any, may be allowed for attendance at each regular or special meeting of such Board; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to preclude any director from serving the corporation in any other capacity and receiving compensation for attending committee meetings. 2.12 Loans. No loans shall be made by the corporation to any director, nor shall any director make any loans to the corporation. 2.13 Removal. Any director may be removed at any time, with or without cause,by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the votes cast by members having voting rights with regard to the election of any director represented in person or by proxy at a meeting of members at which a quorum is present. /1 2.14 Action by Directors Without a Meeting. Any action required or permitted to be taken at a meeting of the directors, or of a committee thereof, may be taken without a meeting by written consent setting forth the action so to be taken, signed by all of the directors, or all of the members of the committee, as the case may be before such action is taken. Such consent ris shall have the same effect as a unanimous vote. Any such action may also be ratified after it has been taken, either at a meeting of the directors or by unanimous written consent. ARTICLE III: OFFICERS 3.1 Designations. The officers of the corporation shall be a President, one or more Vice Presidents (one or more of whom may be Executive Vice COGAN 97 OWENS /1 COGAN lbw ‘/ Presidents), a Secretary and a Treasurer, and such Assistant Secretaries and Assistant treasurer as the Board may designate. All officers shall be elected for terms of one year by the Board of Directors. Such officers shall v/ hold office until their successors are elected and qualify. Any two or more offices may be held by the same person, except the offices of the President and Secretary. 3.2 The President. The President shall preside at all meetings of the Board of L.. Directors, shall have general supervision of the affairs of the corporation, and shall perform such other duties as are incident to the office or are properly required of the President by the Board of Directors. 3.3 Vice Presidents. During the absence or disability of the President, the Executive Vice Presidents, if any, or any of the Vice Presidents in the order designated by the Board of Directors, shall exercise all the functions of the President. Each Vice President shall have such powers and discharge such duties as may be assigned to him or her from time to time by the Board of Directors. 3.4 Secretary and Assistant Secretaries. The Secretary shall issue notices for all meeting, except for notices of special meetings of the Board of Directors which are called by the requisite number of directors, shall keep minutes of all meetings, shall have charge of the seal and the corporate books, and shall make such reports and perform such other duties as are incident to the office, or are properly required of the Secretary by the •- Board of Directors. The Assistant Secretary, or Assistant Secretaries, in the order designated by the Board of Directors, shall perform all of the duties of the Secretary, and at other times may perform such duties as are 'Nair directed by the President or the Board of Directors. 3.5 The Treasurer. The Treasurer shall have the custody of all moneys and ..r securities of the corporation and shall keep regular books of account. The kid Treasurer shall disburse the funds of the corporation in payment of the just demands against the corporation or as may be ordered by the Board of 1,I Director (taking proper vouchers for such disbursements) and shall render to the Board of Directors from time to time as may be required, an account of all transactions undertaken as Treasurer and of the financial condition of the corporation. The Treasurer shall perform such other duties as are Lie incident to the office or are properly required by the Board of Directors. The Assistant Treasurer, or Assistant Treasurers, in the order designated by the Board of Directors, shall perform all of the duties of the Treasurer in the absence or disability of the Treasurer, and at other times may perform such other duties as are directed by the President or the Board of Directors. 'S V COGAN U 98 OWEN L /11 3.6 Executive Director. The Board may select an Executive Director who shall Pis be responsible for the administration and conduct of business and affairs of the corporation pursuant to guidelines established by the Board. The Executive Director shall have full authority for direction of the employees of the corporation, if any. The Executive Director, if selected, may be compensated for his or her services in that capacity in such amount and manner as the Board of Directors shall determine. 3.7 Delegation. If any officer of the corporation is absent or unable to act and no other person is authorized to act in such officer's place by the 111 provisions of these Bylaws, the Board of Directors may from time to time delegate the powers or duties of such officer to any other officer or any director or any other person it may select. r1 3.8 Vacancies. Vacancies in any office arising from any cause may be filled by the Board of Directors at any regular or special meeting of the Board. 3.9 Other Officers. The Board of Directors may appoint such other officers or agents as it shall deem necessary or expedient, who shall hold their offices P1 for such terms and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as shall be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors. 3.10 Loans. No loans shall be made by the corporation to any officer, nor shall �• any officer make any loans to the corporation. 3.11 Term—Removal. The officers of the corporation shall hold office until "1 their successors are chosen and qualified. Any officer or agent elected or appointed by the Board of Directors may be removed at any time, with or without cause,by the affirmative vote of a majority of the whole Board of Directors,but such removal shall be without prejudice to the contract rights, if any, of the person so removed. es 3.12 Bonds. The Board of Directors may,by resolution, require any and all of the officers to provide bonds to the corporation, with surety or sureties acceptable to the Board,conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of their respective offices, and to comply with such other conditions as may from time to time be required by the Board of Directors. ARTICLE IV: DEPOSITORIES The moneys of the corporation shall be deposited in the name of the corporation 0°.1 in such bank or banks or trust company or trust companies as the Board of Directors shall designate, and shall be drawn from such accounts only by check or other order for payment of money signed by such persons, and in such manner, as r may be determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. COGAN ANA EZt. VA 99 OVENS COGAN Atm spabr frAteth* 1 = ARTICLE V:NOTICES Except as may otherwise be required by law, any notice to any director may be delivered personally or by mail. If mailed, the notice shall be deemed to have been delivered when deposited in the United States mail, address to the addresses at his or her last known address in the records of the corporation, postage prepaid. ARTICLE VI: SEAL The corporate seal of the corporation, if any, shall be in such form and bear such inscription as may be adopted by resolution of the Board of Directors, or by usage of the officers on behalf of the corporation. ARTICLE VII: INDEMNIFICATION OF OFFICERS, DIRECTORS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS +%.• The corporation shall indemnify its officers, directors, employees and agents to the greatest extent permitted by law or as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation. The corporation shall have power to purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any person who is or was a director, officer, employee, or agent of the corporation or who is or was serving at the request of the corporation as an officer, employee or agent of another corporation, partnership,joint venture, trust, other enterprise, or employee benefit plan, against any liability asserted against such person and incurred by such person in any such capacity or arising out of any status as such, whether or not the corporation would 'ss have the power to indemnify such person against such liability under the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE VIII: BOOKS AND RECORDS The corporation shall keep correct and complete books and records of account and shall keep minutes of the proceedings of its Board of Directors; and shall keep at its registered office or principal place of business, or at the offices of its transfer agent or registrar, a record of its directors, giving the names and 1/400 addresses of all directors. ARTICLE XI: AMENDMENTS The Board of Directors shall have power to make, alter, amend and repeal and Bylaws of this corporation. Adopted by resolution of the corporation's Board of Directors on October _, 1997. Ltd ..1 111. 11.1111 COGAN 100 OWENS COGAN iav„s ,t rrir�rrrr oss es APPENDIX I n INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MULTNOMAH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PORTLAND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION /1. ems '1 ''1 001 eis omik o COGAN /'1 OWENS /ti 101 COGAN 1110111111111111 A dimeeipaA-4 k<t'vow*'3e ,� INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THIS AGREEMENT is between each of the City of Portland, a municipal corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Oregon, (the "City"), and Multnomah County, a home rule county formed under the laws of the State of Oregon, (the "County") hereinafter referred to as the "Jurisdictions." This Agreement is made pursuant to ORS 190.003 to ORS 190.110,the general laws and constitution of the State of Oregon, and the laws and charters of the Jurisdictions. Section 1. General Purposes. The City and the County are each working to promote sustainable policies and actions, such as green purchasing, green building development, e'1 and energy and water efficiency measures. The City of Portland has an existing advisory rs commission, the Sustainable Portland Commission, regarding sustainable development practices and policies. To further the public interest, the Jurisdictions desire to create a joint sustainable development commission. A joint commission will increase the public's ability to assess �„` progress in sustainable development and to adopt sustainability practices. The commission may further serve as an advisory body to the Jurisdictions on matters relating to sustainable development, and serve as the Jurisdictions'representative for regional, o`1 state or national sustainability policy matters. Section 2. Definitions. A. "Commission" means the joint Sustainable Development Commission as formed jt under this Intergovernmental Agreement. B. "Jurisdiction" any municipality or county which enters into this Agreement. C. "Person" any corporation, partnership, proprietorship, association, individual or organization authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, or any natural person. Section 3. Commission Creation and Powers. ,^ A. Creation. The Commission is created to carry out the purposes set forth in this Agreement. The Commission is not authorized to modify, limit or alter any permit or regulatory process of any of the Jurisdiction's offices, agencies or bureaus. Subject to that limitation, the Commission may: ,.` 1. Advise and make recommendations to the Jurisdictions' governing bodies on policies and programs to create sustainable communities and to encourage sustainable development; COGAN 102 OWENS AvA4 Ect COGAN �.r 2. Articulate and promote a long-range goals and objectives for developing and achieving sustainable communities; 3. Promote sustainable communities among citizens, businesses, governmental agencies and community-based organizations; 4. Develop opportunities for all citizens to learn about values, principles, and practices that will encourage sustainable communities; 5. Assist in the coordination of policies and actions creating sustainable communities; and, 6. Meet annually with the governing bodies of the Jurisdictions to report on the Commission's activities and achievements in the prior year and plans for the upcoming year. Subject to the limitations contained in this Agreement, the Commission is vested with the powers, rights and duties necessary to carry out these purposes as are vested in each Jurisdiction, its officers and agencies. B. Recommendations on Grants and Contracts. The Commission may provide recommendations and advice to the City and the County regarding contracting and grant applications to support sustainable communities and encouraging sustainable development. L Section 4. Commission Members. A. Composition. The Commission shall consist of seventeen members appointed by the Jurisdictions. Ten of the commission members shall be selected and appointed by the City. Seven of the members shall be selected and appointed by the County. B. Quorum and Voting. The majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. No Commission action shall be in effect except on a majority vote by those Commissioners present. C. Term of Office and Succession. Commissioners shall serve for terms of two years. Commissioners shall continue to serve until their successors are appointed and assume their responsibilities. A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled by the Jurisdiction whose position on the Commission is vacant. D. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation. However, a Commissioner's reasonable expenses for carrying out the work of the Commission may be reimbursed as authorized by policies of the appointing Jurisdiction. _ E. Removal. Absence from four consecutive Commission meetings shall constitute cause for removal of a Commissioner from their remaining term of office. COGAN �. " s 103 OWENS � >.. COGAN P Section 5. Meetings, Rules of Procedure and Officers. A. Meetings to be Public. Meetings of the Commission shall be conducted pursuant to the Oregon Public Meetings law. B. Rules of Procedure. At the first organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as .-� practicable, the Commission shall adopt rules governing its procedures including,but not limited to: 1. Times and places of regular meetings; 2. The method and manner of calling special meetings; 3. The method, term and manner of election of officers; 4. The responsibilities and duties of officers; and 2 5. The procedures for execution of writings and legal documents. C. Officers. At the first organizational meeting, the Commission shall elect from among its members two co chairs. One of the chairs shall be a City appointee and the other a County appointee. The co chairs shall preside at all meetings, call special meetings, and determine the order of business. Section 6. Subcommittees. r A. Steering Committee. The Steering Committee shall include the Commission cochairs and at least five other Commission members as designated by the co chairs. The Steering Committee will set the Commission's agenda and develop new projects for the Commission. B. Subcommittees. The Commission co chairs may appoint such other subcommittees as may be deemed necessary to pursue other projects. Such subcommittees will include at least two Commission members. Other citizens, or City or County staff, may participate as ex officio subcommittee members, as appointed by the participating Commission members. C. Staffing. The City will provide staff support for the steering committee and two additional subcommittees. The County will provide staff support for one subcommittee. Staff support will include scheduling meetings, arranging for meeting space, and preparing agendas and minutes. ,.� Section 7. Administration and Staffing Services. COGAN 104 OW ENS ANN COGAN rirrr111111111111111. A. Monthly meetings. The Commission shall meet at least ten times per year. The City will provide the Commission with a meeting space, and prepare and distribute Commission agendas and minutes for ten monthly meetings per year. B. Annual planning session. The Commission shall meet one time per year to hold an annual planning session. The County will provide a meeting space and a facilitator for the Commission's annual planning session. �.. 1.. C. Printing. Division of printing costs for Commission publications will be determined on a project by project basis. The City and County will each pay the printing costs for the materials distributed to their constituencies. �- D. Reports, letters, outreach. The City will provide staff for the projects undertaken by the Commission, including developing reports, writing letters, and organizing outreach .r activities. County staff will contribute information and review for Commission projects, and will assist with outreach activities. Section 8. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon its adoption by all Jurisdictions. Any Jurisdiction entering into this shall adopt an authorizing ordinance and shall forward a certified copy to the City of Portland. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the City of Portland shall forward copies of the authorizing ordinances to the Secretary of State. Section 9. Duration and Termination. A. Duration. The duration of this Agreement is perpetual and the Commission shall continue from year to year, subject to termination or dissolution as provided below. The Commission shall forward this Agreement to the Jurisdictions every three years for their review. B. Termination. In order for any Jurisdiction to withdraw from this Agreement and to prevent obligations for any continuing support for the Commission for the ensuing year, a ' Jurisdiction may withdraw from the Commission by filing a written notice of withdrawal with the Commission by November 1 of any year, effective at the end of that fiscal year. Membership shall continue until the effective date of the withdrawal. Prior to the effective date, the member Jurisdiction may rescind its withdrawal notice at any time. Section 10. Dissolution. �. The Jurisdictions may dissolve the Commission and terminate this Agreement at any time by mutual agreement of all Jurisdictions. The Commission shall continue to exist after the dissolution for such period, no longer than three months, as is necessary to wind up its affairs but for no other purposes. COGAN �.. 9 105 OWENS L. COGAN a _. r S. r1 r1 f ^ Section 11. General Terms. A. This Is The Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by the written -.; agreement of the parties. ,.� B. Severability. The terms of this Agreement are severable and a determination by any Court or agency having jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Agreement that results in the invalidity of any part, shall not affect the remainder of this Agreement. C. Interpretation. The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be liberally construed in accordance with its general purposes. A-• D. Increasing Member Units of Government. The Commission may develop a method for allowing other units of local government to enter into this Agreement h. E. Amendments. The terms of this Agreement shall not be amended without the written authorization of the governing bodies of all Jurisdictions. F. Indemnification. Subject to the conditions and limitations of the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 through 30.300, County shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Portland from and against all liability, loss and costs '"' arising out of or resulting from the acts of County, its officers, employees and agents in the performance of this agreement. Subject to the conditions and limitations of the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 through 30.300, the City of Portland shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless County from and against all liability, loss and costs arising out of or resulting from the acts of the City of Portland, its officers, employees and agents in the performance of this agreement. G. Insurance. Each party shall each be responsible for providing worker's compensation insurance as required by law. Neither party shall be required to provide or show proof of any other insurance coverage. H. Adherence To Law. Each party shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and ordinances applicable to this agreement. e'1 I. Non-Discrimination. Each party shall comply with all requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes and local non-discrimination ordinances. J. Access To Records. Each party shall have access to the books, documents and other records of the other which are related to this agreement for the purpose of examination, copying and audit, unless otherwise limited by law. K. Subcontracts And Assignment. Neither party will subcontract or assign any part of this agreement without the written consent of the other party. COGAN rgNAIAV1 106 OW EN S COGAN APPROVED AND EXECUTED by the appropriate officer(s) who are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the governing body of each Jurisdiction. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON By: Diane M. Linn Title: Multnomah County Chair Date: January 24, 2002 CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON By: Title: Date: By Auditor, City of Portland '. Date: Reviewed: `- By Matthew O. Ryan, Assistant County Attorney Approved as to Form: By Jeffrey L. Rogers, City Attorney 1.. COGAN A;44:4 kwa;i 107 OWENS COGAN ;.f,�r:.�k cY,o.,e I/kwaliofifq, 1 1I11111111 -�.. APPENDIX J SUSTAINABILITY RESOURCE LIST AMIN --� COGAN los OWENS VY4 Far COGAN oftlk Vision Action ,.� A Sustainability Organization Feasibility Study -; eNetwork RESOURCE LIST of liathingtoo Counh Pos ONIN ✓1 0'1 n f1 September 2007 COGAN 109 °WENS a COGAN SUSTAINABILITY RESOURCE LIST • Alliance for Redesigning Government, National Academy of Public Administration, 1120 G St., NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC 20005, Tel: 202.347.3190, Fax: 202.347.3252, Email: innovate@napawah.org, Website: http://www.alliance.napawash.org. %el • The Alliance is the center of a national network and clearinghouse for state, local, and federal innovators, nonprofit and corporate leaders, and scholars who advocate performance-based, results-driven governance. • Alliance for Regional Stewardship (ARS), 350 Cambridge Avenue, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94306, Tel: 650.614.0230, Fax: 650.614.0240, Email: info@regionalstewardship.org, Website: http://www.regionalstewardship.org. • The Alliance is a civic community national network of regional leaders addressing the long-term well-being of their regions in four spheres: new economy, livable community, social inclusion and governance. • The Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, 1775 -' Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: 202.797.6139, Fax: 202.797.2965, Email: brookinfo@brook.edu, Website: http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/urban.htm. • The Center seeks to shape a new generation of urban policies that will help build strong cities and metropolitan regions. • Florida Sustainable Communities Center (FSCC), c/o Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100, Tel: 850.922.1600, Fax: 850.922.9881, Website: http://sustainable.state.fl.us. • FSSC, an Internet project of the FL Dept. of Community Affairs, provides peer-to- peer communication opportunities, streamlined access to information and resources for enhancing sustainability, and a collaborative framework for designing policies and plans. • Institute for The Regional Community (ITRC), 1799 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Tel: 202.457.0710, Fax: 202.296.9352, Website: http://www.narc.org/itrc. • ITRC, a program of the National Association of Regional Councils, works to promote regional policy processes through conference sponsorship, a quarterly journal called The Regionalist, and a clearinghouse for information on regional collaboration skills and approaches. • Joint Center for Sustainable Communities, Website: http://www.naco.org/programs/comm_dev/center/about.cfm. • The Joint Center, a partnership of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the �.• National Association of Counties, promotes cities and counties working together for a livable future. It fosters sustainable communities by providing local elected officials with advice, information, and financial support through a variety of programs. COGAN 110 O\ ENS COGAN �/ • Local Government Commission (LGC), 1414 K St., Suite 250, Sacramento, CA 95814, Tel: 916.448.1198, Fax: 916.448.8246, Email: Igc@dcn.davis.ca.us, Website: http://www.lgc.org. • The LGC provides a forum and technical assistance to enhance the ability of local governments to create and sustain healthy environments, healthy economies, and social equity. • Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Minnesota Sustainable Communities Network, 520 Lafayette Road N, 2nd floor, St. Paul, MN 55155- 4100, Tel: 800.877.6300; 612.215.0232, Fax: 612.215.0246 • This network consists of individuals and organizations in Minnesota (and bordering areas) who are interested in moving towards sustainability. • National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP), 1350 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, Tel: 202.638.6254, Fax: 202.393.2866, Email: NALGEP@spiegelmcd.com, Website: http://www.nalgep.org. • NALGEP brings together local government officials to network and share information on innovative environmental practices, conduct environmental policy projects, promote environmental training and education, and communicate the view of local environmental officials on national environmental issues. • National Association of Regional Councils (NARC), 1700 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, Tel: 202.457.0710, Email: narc@narc.org, Website: http://www.narc.org. • NARC offers technical assistance, educational services and public policy support to local government officials in agencies around the country. • National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT), 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 208, Washington, DC 20011, Tel: 202.624.3550, Fax: 202.624.3554, Email: natat@sso.org, Website: http://natat.org. • NATaT seeks to strengthen the effectiveness of town and township government by educating lawmakers and public policy officials about how small town governments operate and by advocating policies on their behalf in Washington, DC. • National Center for Small Communities (NCSC), 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001, Tel: 202.624.3550, Fax: 202.624.3554, Email: ncsc@sso.org, Website: http://www.natat.org • NCSC provides local government officials and community leaders with a broad range of training materials, community problem-solving strategies, public policy research and other resources. • National Neighborhood Coalition (NNC), 1030 15th Street, NW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20005, Tel: 202.408.8553, Fax: 202.408.8551, Email: nncnnc@erols.com, Website: http://www.neighborhoodcoalition.org. • The NNC serves as a link to Washington for neighborhood and community-based organizations and a networking resource for representatives of regional and COGAN 111 OW ENS COGAN national organizations involved in community development, housing and a wide range of other neighborhood issues. Its Neighborhoods, Regions and Smart Growth Project promotes community-based organizations as essential advocates for and planners and practitioners of equitable, neighborhood-focused smart growth. • Northeast-Midwest Institute, 218 D Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003, Tel: 202.544.5200, Fax: 202.544.0043, Website: http://www.nemw.org. L • This nonprofit and public education organization seeks to enhance the region's economic vitality and environmental quality. It conducts research, develops public policies, provides technical assistance, sponsors regional conferences, �. and distributes publications. • US EPA Resources for Nonprofit Organizations, Tel: 202.260.2623, Website: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/nonprof.htm. 16. • This Environmental Protection Agency site was created to provide nonprofit %r groups easier access to environmental and public health information. • Program for Community Problem Solving. Systems Reform and Local 1.r Government: Improving Outcomes for Children, Families, and Neighborhoods. This working paper details the components and importance of efforts from the grassroots to city hall to make government more effective, efficient, responsive, and participatory for ordinary citizens. To obtain this resource contact Program for Community Problem Solving, 1319 F Street, NW, Suite 204, Washington DC 20004; Tel: 202.783.2961; Fax: 202.347.2161 • Oregon State University Extension Service. Looking for Oregon's Future: What is Sustainability?. (November 2001). This publication is designed to encourage discussion on the big questions surrounding sustainability and what sustainability means to the lives of the people of Oregon. To obtain this resource contact Publications Orders, Extension & Station Communications, Oregon State University, 422 Kerr Adminstration, Corvallis, OR 97331-2119; Tel: 800.561.6719; Email:puborders@orst.edu. This resource can be found online at: http://www.oregonfuture.oregonstate.edu. COGAN L 112 OWENS ffi,. COGAN IL' ^.>t 01111111111110•1111111111 L/