Sustainable Cities Institute - Pilot City Program

The Devil is in the Design Details: Strategies to Enhance Transit Experience

vasudevan@nlc.org (RVasudevan) — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:05:50 +0000

By Raksha Vasudevan, Associate, Sustainability Programs, National League of Cities

I live in a region that is nationally known for its traffic congestion. In virtually every poll, newspaper article, or blog on the topic (google “DC region traffic congestion” for proof), the DC metro area is up in the ranks. Somewhat under the radar are the initiatives taking place throughout the region to provide viable alternatives to residents who are desperately trying to avoid driving (and road rage). Of course, Capital Bikeshare has quite a reputation these days; it’s been so popular that a network that was once only in Washington DC quickly expanded to Arlington and soon will be finding its way to Montgomery County. However, less known is that since the region’s Transportation Planning Board adopted a regional complete streets policy, a number of local jurisdictions and transportation agencies have adopted and started implementing their own versions of it. And in my own hometown of Washington DC, where we’ve had a complete streets policy for a few years, the Department of Transportation also recently started a campaign, “Move DC,” to develop a multi-modal, long-range transportation plan.

I write all this to say that in any given city and region, transportation departments are embarking on countless such initiatives to increase efficiencies and enhance user experience of transit. And while these systemic efforts to coordinate and collaborate on a large scale is critical (we’ve discussed the importance of partnerships many a time), I think that perhaps the devil is in the design details.

According to Smart Growth America, nearly 130 communities adopted complete streets policies in 2012. As part of complete streets, cities are encouraged to think about integrated, holistic roadway design that not only accommodates all modes of travel, but also serves residents with varied needs. From aging populations to those with physical disabilities, residents have different demands of a street and of transit. And regardless of whether or not a city decides to implement a complete streets policy, it is critical that these groups and their interests are represented in roadway planning and implementation processes to ensure that the “small” details (think: sidewalk and curb design; crosswalk timings) actually work for everyone. [Design (and plan) with everyone in mind]

Apart from the nuts and bolts of roadway design, cities are also looking into technology as a means to enhance user experience. As part of the “Move DC” efforts, the city has tagged intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in their list of options to explore further. ITS applications use ‘smart’ technologies to improve the efficiency, coordination and delivery of services, including roadway and traffic management. Applications such as transit signal priority in Tacoma, Wash. and Chicago, Ill.; emergency vehicle preemption in Plano, Texas and St. Paul, Minn.; and red light enforcement cameras in Scottsdale, Ariz. and Raleigh, N.C. are some examples of the ways that ITS technologies can not only contribute to more effective, efficient, and safe transit and roadway systems, but also save cities money, time, and resources (this report gives more details on the examples listed). While ITS is a large umbrella under which a range of technology applications fall, cities have an opportunity here to identify those specific technologies that would be most useful to not only meet current transit demands, but actually account for and enhance future ridership. [Design intelligently]

ITS or no ITS, cities can (and do) plan transportation better when the end user experience is thought about early in the planning stages. Complete streets and intelligent transportation systems are only two umbrella concepts in a whole menu of strategies that transportation departments can turn to when attempting to create an integrated, effective system that is actually based on user demand and user experience. These are meant to serve as inspiration, and perhaps examples of a larger idea that is best captured by the title of one of my favorite books on the power of design to improve lives: [“Design like you give a damn”]

Here at NLC’s Sustainable Cities Institute, we’ve spent the last several months curating and adding to the wealth of transportation resources already on our site, www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org. We’ve included more reports, guides and model policies on complete streets, bike share, and carshare, to name a few. Check out our new resources and, as always, email us at sustainability@nlc.org with any questions, comments or suggestions!

Keeping the Energy Retrofit Dream Alive

vasudevan@nlc.org (RVasudevan) — Wed, 08 May 2013 16:27:28 +0000

By Elizabeth Willmott, Project Manager for New Energy Cities, a project of Climate Solutions. New Energy Cities works with small- to medium-sized communities in the Northwest to accelerate the transition to a clean, renewable, super-efficient energy system that integrates smart grid technology, green intelligent buildings, electric vehicles, and renewable power.

As the 2013 Affordable Comfort Inc. National Home Performance Conference kicks off in Denver, CO, it is clear that U.S. communities are far from empty-handed when crafting energy efficiency retrofit programs.

Spurred in part by the Recovery Act, an army of small and large communities nationwide have worked hard to set up, operate, and sustain energy retrofit programs for both the residential and commercial building owners.

Early adopters include the US Department of Energy (DOE) Retrofit Ramp-Up grantees, as well as self-funded programs such as Long Island Green Homes and the Sonoma County Energy Independence Program. Northwest retrofit programs include Clean Energy Works Oregon, Seattle’s Community Power Works, RePower Kitsap, and Whatcom County’s Community Energy Challenge. Insights from these early experiences help to guide the way for communities that are getting started.

Resources for Getting Started

Nationally, DOE’s Better Buildings program has taken pains to help interested communities unpack the complexities of launching and maintaining retrofit efforts as permanent utility, nonprofit, or city-led programs. The local features vary but several ingredients are common:

Solid partnership involving existing service providers, such as utilities and community weatherization agencies, and a strong workforce of trained and certified professionals
Keen understanding of local building stock features and potential customer needs
Capacity within partner organizations to deliver effective marketing and strong customer service
Funding and staff commitment to sustain the program beyond initial seed funding

The Better Buildings program offers a great suite of online materials and peer exchange calls. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the National Housing Trust also recently released an action guide on how to work with utilities to set up multifamily building retrofit programs.

Communities are looking to states to step up their involvement, too, especially in the critical area of funding. The Washington State Legislature directed $15 million to community energy efficiency providers in 2009, and local programs have asked for $30 million split evenly between the 2013 and 2014 capital budgets. Clean Energy Works Oregon is similarly seeking $10 million from Oregon State lottery funds in 2013.

Finding Permanent Funding

At New Energy Cities, we continue to watch communities and states beyond the Northwest find permanent funding for energy efficiency programs. Massachusetts and Maine, among other Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) participants, invest the majority of their carbon pricing revenue in utility and local government energy efficiency programs.

In 2012, Boulder, CO voters renewed a citywide carbon tax that has partially funded that community’s popular retrofit program. (See this 2010 case study on Boulder from the Home Performance Resource Center.)

Long Island Green Homes and Sonoma County Energy Independence Program were among the first to break ground with local property assessment clean energy (PACE) models. Although the residential PACE prospects are mixed, commercial PACE appears ready to take off like wildfire in 2013. (See the New Energy Cities April 12, 2013 Weekly Wrap.)

St. Louis County, MO used federal low-interest Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs) to finance its residential energy efficiency program. Yes, QECBs are notoriously mind-bending, but don’t write them off completely: the Washington State Housing Finance Commission recently partnered with King County, WA to help small and medium-sized cities access the bonds through the King County Green Community Initiative. The Washington model is attracting national attention.

New developments in energy efficiency finance emerge regularly:

On March 8, the Pennsylvania State Treasurer announced that Pennsylvania’s Keystone Home Energy Loan Program (Keystone HELP) recently sold nearly 4,700 home energy efficiency loans to private banks in a “secondary market” transaction. This development is a long-sought-after milestone for the retrofit industry, as access to low-cost private capital is considered to be an important piece of the puzzle for scaling up community energy efficiency investments.

On March 18, Bloomberg reported that California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a green infrastructure bank to be funded with carbon pricing revenue. Depending on how the bank is designed, this could also theoretically support local government-led retrofit programs.

On March 29, the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund (CLF) noted that the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to allocate at least 20 percent of that state’s RGGI proceeds to help low-income homes become more energy efficient. Community development financial institutions like CLF are also potential financial partners for retrofit programs, as Craft 3 has been for both Clean Energy Works Oregon and Community Power Works.

On May 16, Applied Solutions will hold a webinar about two on-bill financing models for energy efficiency, Clean Energy Works Oregon and Midwest Energy How$mart.

Policies to Drive Energy Efficiency

Funding is just one driver of a successful retrofit program. Policies and technological advances also support participation in retrofit programs, and drive down energy consumption, as energy benchmarking, disclosure, and behavioral efficiency programs are showing in communities like Austin, San Francisco, New York City, and Seattle. ACEEE recently released a helpful review of a handful of existing state and local home energy disclosure policies.

Nonprofit organizations such as Earth Advantage and the Institute for Market Transformation are thought leaders in this area, while “energy intelligence” businesses such as Opower, Honest Buildings, and others are working to move the needle on community energy consumption through easy-to-use energy analysis tools and software applications.

This is all good news for the New Energy Cities team as we are hard at work helping the City of Issaquah, WA develop an aggressive energy efficiency strategy for its commercial and residential buildings. A quick look at the 2012 Energy Map we created for the Issaquah community shows why: residential and commercial buildings combined represent almost two-thirds of Issaquah’s energy consumption and GHG emissions.

A successful building retrofit program could help the Issaquah community significantly reduce energy demand and in turn begin to chip away at its bold GHG reduction goal. Fortunately, cities like Issaquah that are just starting out on the community retrofit path have a lot of retrofit models to copy and adapt.

Putting the Pieces Together

vasudevan@nlc.org (RVasudevan) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:35:59 +0000

By Kathy Blaha. Originally published on City Parks Blog on March 14, 2013, as part of a series on public-private partnerships and parks. City Park Blog is a joint effort of the Center for City Park Excellence at the Trust for Public Land and the City Parks Alliance to chronicle the news and issues of the urban park movement.

Since January I’ve spoken with leaders at city parks and their partners from Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston all the way to Caras Park in Missoula, Montana, studying park conservancies, BIDs and downtown associations in partnership with city and state agencies to manage, maintain, program and fund public parks – mostly downtown parks. I’ve been thinking about those interviews and the research that I’ve done and trying to pull out the lessons and commonalities about these partnerships. So far, I think lessons fall into three groups:

Governance and the art of partnering
Programs and usership
Community engagement, access and transparency

The Art of Partnering

Let’s start with the art of partnering. When I talked about Central Park Conservancy in New York I referenced Chris Walker’s good framework for talking about governance:

Structure: How is the partnership organized and responsive to the park’s constituency?

Control: Who makes the decisions?

Assets and Liabilities: How are assets and liabilities shared?

Risks: What are the strategies for mitigating risk?

In looking at Central Park, Pittsburgh Parks, and Prospect Park I was surprised to find that these organizations operated without formal agreements with their cities for years. They worked collaboratively and built a joint team leadership that later made determining roles and responsibilities, and contracting, much easier. “A lot of change comes from gradual improvements,” explained Paul Levy, the Executive Director of Center City District – the BID managing Sister Cities Park in Philadelphia.

Just working together on a day-to-day basis with a set of simple goals – clean up, refurbish, make safe, create fun programs and raise visitation numbers – demonstrated a common commitment to the parks that aligned their teams and created a dedicated management effort.

All of those I interviewed also made clear the difference between owning the park and setting the goals – and carrying out that vision and set of goals. In almost all park partnership cases, a public agency owns the land and sets the rules, and the private partner contracts to support them.

Who makes the decisions becomes far less contentious when the vision for the park is a shared one and the goals for getting there are clear. In each case, driving these successful partnerships is a plan – a business plan or a master plan or both – that each partner contributed to. In each case the private partner is walking their talk bringing people, money, talent, and innovation to realize that plan. They share their assets and help to reduce the public agency’s enormous task. The public agency, in turn, continues to represent the public’s interest with assuring access, public funding and a long-term commitment to making that public space successful.

Programs and Usership

Success is best measured in visitation – a high level of use by a diverse set of park users that matches a neighborhood or city’s demographics and culture. If the park is attractive, people will come. Downtown parks, especially, become meeting places. Getting people to the park may take food, a beautiful landscape, programs and WiFi – all initiatives that are being carried out by the partnerships. Out to Lunch in Missoula, food trucks at Rose Kennedy Greenway, successful cafes at the Philadelphia parks and vending carts in Central Park reinforce the idea that a park can be a wonderful place for lunch, a cup of coffee on your way to work or a meal to enjoy as the sun sets.

In addition to food, we’ve seen schedules for these parks that include, in some cases, over 200 events annually – plenty of concerts, carousels, ice skating, environmental education programs, water features in the form of ponds, fountains, and rivers, kite-flying, running and bicycling.

These park partners are trying to find ways to enliven and activate their parks, trying new things in different spaces in the park. As Jesse Brackenbury from Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston says, “We’re investing in the park and we want to know whether we are getting results from the investments we are making.” What they really want to know is – are people coming?

Community Engagement

Prospect Park’s ComCom – its Community Committee –includes representatives from more than 50 local organizations, as well as all of the elected officials (federal, state, and city) and community boards that represent the park and the surrounding districts. The Caras Park master plan in Missoula was developed by a group of 57 different businesses, residents and organizations that contributed time and money to the effort.

Melissa Brock, Acting Director for the Missoula Downtown Association says, “People recognize this park as a pretty dynamically run place. We (all of the downtown stakeholders) work together on almost everything. There is complete synergy in our downtown. We have something unique in Missoula – how everyone works together. We’re pretty fortunate to have such a compatible team,” says Brock.

Maybe not every partnership is as copacetic as Missoula’s but the idea is that community engagement and transparency about a park’s management reassures residents and users that the partnership is resulting in efficiencies and becoming a better place. John Crompton reminds us that frustration with the inflexibility and relatively high costs of government providing direct services is one of the reasons behind the rise of park partnerships. There is wide recognition of the inefficiencies of delivering services via a monopoly. The goal of partnerships is about opening up the management process to both competition and collaboration to meet the demand of services that goes beyond what government is providing.

The public’s demand, their engagement – and accountability to them – are especially important in guiding governance and these issues play a vital role in ensuring continued support for public parks and their private partners. Governance determines who has the power, who makes decisions, how other players make their voice heard and what methods there are for accountability.

As Tupper Thomas, former President of the Prospect Park Alliance and Administrator of Prospect Park in Brooklyn reminded us, “Cities are so strapped, there has to be a give and take. As the parks department budget gets cut, the conservancies have filled the gap. Cities without them would pour money only into the popular parks. The conservancies leverage their ability to raise private money to keep all the parks open.”

The success of conservancies continues to outshine their challenges and it’s likely we’ll see many more of them being created across the country. The City Parks Alliance is committed to understanding and supporting park partnerships; their website is filled with best practices from around the country. The future of parks appears to be wrapped up in these new forms of leadership – both for the resources and the innovation they offer.

Florida Counties Show Climate Leadership

zborel@nlc.org (NLC_Sustainability ) — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:45:13 +0000

By Christina DeConcini, Director of Legislative Affairs, World Resources Institute (WRI). Originally published on WRI blog, WRI Insights on December 11, 2012

“Think globally, act locally” is a slogan that aptly describes what I witnessed last week at the 4th Annual Southeast Florida Climate Leadership Summit. At the event, local government officials from four counties gathered to discuss how to mitigate and adapt to climate change’s impacts.

Yep, you heard that correctly – government officials in the United States—in a “purple” state, no less—came together in a bipartisan manner to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. In fact, mayors, members of Congress, county commissioners, and officials in charge of water issues in the state discussed how to move forward with action plans in response to sea-level rise – a climate change impact which is not theoretical, but happening now.

Putting Aside Partisanship for Action
Unlike Congress, these public officials aren’t debating the facts of climate change and its impacts or whether we should act. They see current effects and understand that in the face of streets flooding more regularly, drinking water supplies threatened by salinization, and models showing that some neighborhoods could become uninhabitable, what political party you support is irrelevant. Climate change impacts like sea level rise don’t discriminate between Democrats and Republicans.

As Congress continues to fail to address climate change at the national level, local officials from Florida’s Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties—representing a combined population of 5.6 million—established the four-county Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and recently completed a 110-point regional action plan. They have developed mitigation and adaptation strategies through joint efforts, which can inform policy-making and government funding at the state and federal levels.

Other Communities and Lawmakers Can Learn from South Florida
Panelists at the summit discussed the tens of millions of dollars already spent on new wells to replace those that have had saltwater seep into them and the hundreds of millions of dollars needed for new drainage systems in Miami. Meanwhile, people having side conversations talked of the Florida Keys eventually becoming a reef and parts of the state’s valuable beachfront property no longer being inhabitable. The fact that Florida is built on porous limestone makes the adaptation challenges even more daunting, as sea water will seep under any barriers that could be constructed.

Significantly, South Florida’s officials understand that they must also address the causes of climate change. They’ve included mitigation strategies as part of the action plan, including transitioning to cleaner energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through adoption of forward-thinking policies, such as a renewable energy standard. A lot of work remains to implement the action plan, but there is no disagreement on the need to act now.

Will Federal Lawmakers Take a Page from South Florida’s Book?
The action plan by these local governments is a model for others to follow. However, we know that climate change is a global problem that will ultimately require national leadership. It’s admirable that local leaders in Southeast Florida are not waiting for that missing leadership before taking action, but it does raise real questions about Congress’s failure to act on climate change and its responsibility to protect American people and their property.

Two newly elected members of Congress spoke at the recent summit, providing some glimmers of hope at the federal level. Representative-elect Patrick Murphy (D-FL) said he would support climate change legislation and chastised politicians for “burying their heads in the sand.” Congresswoman Lois Frankel (D-FL) also committed to support federal action, saying “I will deal with it in a scientific way.” She noted that climate change is “not a partisan issue,” and “we cannot hide from it.”

Perhaps as more people at the local level respond to climate change, national policymakers will wake up and take action to protect our citizens and valuable resources from dangerous impacts. While local action is desperately needed and should be applauded, we ultimately need national leaders to lead on climate change.

Local Food Systems Strongest with Local Leadership

zborel@nlc.org (NLC_Sustainability ) — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 22:40:19 +0000

By David DeVaughn, National Urban Fellow, National League of Cities

The 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga River has gone down in history for causing a nationwide outcry that compelled the federal government to clean up and ensure the safety of our waterways. This, amongst other efforts, resulted in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the creation of the Federal Government’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through rulemaking and enforcement, the CWA established a force in America that would protect our waterways, no longer allowing immediate economic gratification to trump environmental costs.

A similar outcry surrounding local food systems is currently being heard across the country. Frustrations about food access inequality and the impacts of unhealthy foods are some of the commonly raised challenges at the community level. Mounting problems exist throughout all stages of the food system: independent farmers and agricultural corporations are facing record droughts, sending food prices skyrocketing; the vast majority of food production practices are causing a deleterious effect on water, air and soils; and our country wastes food in record numbers, impacting food costs, access and hunger.

Could this potentially mean that food systems are veering towards the course of other resource issues that eventually required federal intervention?

Picture this scenario: A group of mayors and USDA administrators are meeting about the rigidity of Healthy Food Act requirements, mandated by the federal government. A mayor is recounting her ten-year legal fight over being unable to provide healthy food in a community food desert. A superintendent is faced with removing sugar-sweetened beverages from her schools, not because of local pressure, but because of a federal law.

In actuality, communities have taken steps to build sustainable food systems in their communities, such as policies to source food locally, create farm-to-school programs and incentivize local farmers to adopt organic practices. Currently these activities are developed and implemented for and by local communities, not as a result of federal intervention or a response to the threat of enforcement. I am willing to bet that should our national food challenges eventually require federal involvement, mayors would feel frustrated about enforcing federal regulations in their communities on the inherently local issues of food access or production.

In many cases, an absence of federal enforcement or legislation provides an opportunity for communities to be entrepreneurially nimble. City leaders make and implement decisions affecting food production, access and disposal based on local contexts, conditions and needs. Cities work together with partners including concerned citizens, private industry, universities, small businesses and the non-profit community.

Cities have a critical role to play in strengthening local and national food systems. Currently these systems are strained and fragmented, but can be restored through local leadership rather than requiring federal intervention. Local leaders have already accomplished much in the area of food systems support and it’s time that we share effective practices, model policies, and successful requests for proposals. Let’s foster a competitive spirit from town to town, identify which cities have figured out practical, innovative ways to make healthy food available to all of its residents, and celebrate local leadership on this issue!

NLC is tackling Local Food Systems as a priority issue for 2013 and looking forward to supporting cities through a newly launched section on the Sustainable Cities Institute website.

As we continue to develop these resources we want to hear from you: what resources, tools or topics would be most helpful to assist your efforts in developing a strong, sustainable and healthy food system in your community?

Send feedback, ideas, successful practices or questions to David DeVaughn, NLC National Urban Fellow, at devaughn@nlc.org.

The Parallel Pathways of Resilience and Sustainability

vasudevan@nlc.org (RVasudevan) — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:42:14 +0000

The buzz around the topic of ‘resilience’ is difficult to ignore. While the term has been employed in various fields (such as ecology, engineering and psychology) for several years now, it’s increasingly gaining popularity within city and regional planning. This blog post explores what exactly this notion of ‘resilience’ is; what about the topic is making it so popular with urban planners, city leaders and academics; and what connections ‘resilience’ might have to cities’ sustainability priorities.

So, what is ‘resilience’ and who cares?
In a world where we are quick to label anything and everything- concepts, ideas and actions- the term ‘resilience’ is being used to describe a range of things, from the way that city leaders respond to short- and long-term city issues to how cities recover from unforeseen natural disasters. At quick glance these applications seem unrelated and arbitrary, however, certain patterns implicitly emerge with closer examination.

To describe this pattern, perhaps the most useful model I’ve found thus far (and one that I believe could prove useful for city leaders) is represented by the series of diagrams above. If we acknowledge resilience as a framework, we begin to understand that the various systems that exist within a city (think: education, jobs, infrastructure) are not only cyclical within themselves (diagram 1) with periods of ups and downs, but are also intrinsically linked to each other (diagram 2).

Using this model, it seems that the resilience discussion is useful for local elected officials insofar as it provides a framework to understand the relationship of (seemingly) isolated city issues. For example, in “Resilience and regions: building understanding of the metaphor,” the authors provide a strong argument that resilience is not simply about bouncing back from a crisis; rather, systems are much more layered and interwoven. Essentially, a resilience framework accommodates the fact that cities are complex systems, ones where the ‘ideal’ state is consistently shifting given the nature of the place and time. This, to me, is the critical potential of such a framework- it emphasizes the inter-relatedness of issues, bringing to surface the consequences of weaknesses in one system on the vulnerability of others.

For example, is it accurate to describe a city or town as ‘resilient’ because it was able to build back after a natural disaster, even though other factors, such as poverty or income inequality might remain the same or even worsen during the same period?

In other words, the resilience framework reframes the decision-making process to account for certain critical pieces: time and place. Local elected officials are charged with making critical decisions every day-- and because they are usually working with limited staff capacity, funds, and resources, these leaders are often forced to evaluate and prioritize individual issue areas in their cities. However, such decisions tend to affect not one, but many ‘systems’ at the same time. A resiliency framework challenges us to (re)examine decisions holistically, recognizing that there is no one answer when it comes to where and how we allocate resources within a community; how we respond to acute and chronic urban issues; or how we prepare for a future that is, for the most part, unpredictable. Thus, such a framework acknowledges that the ‘right’ decisions for one city (or region) at any given time may look very different than the ‘right’ decisions for another.

And why is the resilience framework relevant to city sustainability efforts?
City leaders that choose to prioritize sustainability as a guiding principle are already using a dynamic framework by evaluating programs and policies through the lens of their potential social, environmental, and economic impacts. Within this context, a resilience framework offers an opportunity to continue doing the same valuable work, while being responsive to the fact that all ‘systems’- however large or small- go through cycles, over time, that are inevitable. This awareness of time and the notion that decisions made now collectively affect our situation in the future is stated in many definitions of sustainability. For example, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” from the Brundtland Commission’s Report is one of the field's most popular definitions.

A resilience framework is a natural and useful complement to sustainability in that it emphasizes interconnections across issues while actively highlighting the uncertainty with which these relationships exist in a local context. Through this lens, resiliency recognizes that long-term solutions to a (acute or chronic) city issue may not exist in isolating and fixing just that issue; rather the ‘answer’ might lie in better understanding systemic relationships within the city and working to strengthen ostensibly disparate issues at the same time. While further exploration is needed on how to translate this framework into tangible implementation steps, resilience dialogues offer an opportunity to be reflective of the type of localized action that’s needed to address regional and global sustainability issues.

Over the next year NLC’s Sustainability Program will be exploring the topic of resilience in the context of climate adaptation. I’d love to hear your thoughts about ‘resilience’ and welcome your comments below or invite you to contact me directly at Vasudevan@nlc.org. We also encourage you to complete this feedback form about Climate Adaptation and Resilience activities, needs and interests in your city!

1These diagrams were borrowed from the following article, with permission from the author:
Pendall, Rolf, Kathryn A. Foster, and Margaret Cowell. “Resilience and regions: building understanding of the metaphor.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, no. 3 (2010): 71–84. doi: doi:10.1093/cjres/rsp028

Progress Sustainability Through Local Partnerships

vasudevan@nlc.org (RVasudevan) — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:14:19 +0000

By Raksha Vasudevan, Associate, Sustainability Programs, National League of Cities

We often hear that local governments struggle to implement sustainability programs because they lack the capacity and the funding to do so. In a time when every penny really does count, this issue hits home for small—and large—city governments alike. However, while budget and staffing issues are no doubt a reality for sustainability offices throughout the country, we’ve seen that cities with some of the most effective and creative workarounds to this issue have utilized strong partnerships to help catalyze, promote, implement and maintain sustainability projects. “Where there’s a will there’s a way”—and partnerships might just be a key to finding the way.

Partnerships are an untapped (or under-tapped) asset in most communities. Those communities who have really utilized their local partners—whether it be local businesses, faith-based organizations, non-profit organizations, or schools—have found that the reward is two–fold. First, these groups are likely comprised of the very stakeholders that a city’s sustainability initiatives are trying to engage. Second, such groups often have a longstanding history and connection with the place and with the community. Therefore, they provide invaluable access to harder populations to reach, as well as an on-the-ground outreach capacity that is critical to moving any sustainability initiative forward.

Whether the city’s goal is to plant 1,000 trees in the next year or increase physical activity in youth, sustainability programs do not run and maintain themselves. Partners can provide the local knowledge that is critical to sustainability initiatives; the capacity to implement sustainability programs; and the leverage that is necessary to get the larger community on board.

The 2012 Congress of Cities Conference highlighted a myriad of partners that various cities are engaging to advance their sustainability work:

The City of Lawrence, Massachusetts has worked with the nonprofit Groundwork USA, for over ten years on issues such as urban greening and brownfield redevelopment (Dr. Nina Scarito Park is an award-winning example of such collaboration).

Through the Austin Green Business Leaders Program, the City of Austin, Texas is working with local businesses to green their operations.

The City of Cleveland, Ohio is engaging local arts and nonprofit organizations to make the Gordon Square Arts District into a thriving economic and cultural engine for the city.

In Boston, Massachusetts, the city created the Boston Mayor’s Youth Council to work with youth and actively engage them in addressing youth issues around the city through advocacy and outreach.

In Savannah, Georgia, the Healthy Savannah Initiative is bringing together families, schools, businesses, and faith-based organizations with the goal of making Savannah a healthier place to live.

These examples demonstrate that there really is no pattern with how to choose partners and when to engage them within the sustainability process. However, in every one of these partnerships, the speakers emphasized the extensive dialogue and relationship-building that has to take place early on in order to ensure that the goals of the partner are parallel to the city’s sustainability goals—in other words that the relationship is mutually beneficial and productive.

So, while there is no magic process or formula for engaging partners, a commitment to open communication and a spirit of collaboration is the first step.

I’ll leave you with three takeaways that hopefully inspire you to re-examine your community’s assets and determine who might be your city’s next sustainability partner:

Partners come in all different forms.
Partners come from the unlikeliest of places.
Partners are a local government’s extension into a community.

A New Year with New Opportunities for Sustainability

vasudevan@nlc.org (RVasudevan) — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:49:17 +0000

By Tammy Zborel, Director, Sustainability Programs, National League of Cities

Last month, in an article looking back on city-led sustainability in 2012, the observation was made that cities in large part have succeeded in moving beyond the "why" and "if" stages of sustainability and are now focused primarily upon the detailed "what" and "how" aspects.

As the New Year gets underway, NLC's Sustainability Program remains committed to supporting city efforts to develop, expand and strengthen initiatives that advance the social, environmental and economic sustainability of their communities.

The Sustainability Program looks forward to working with and learning from cities across the country as they demonstrate continued leadership and innovation to meet their goals. To help cities identify the specific programs and policies best suited to their communities in the coming year, NLC has assembled five recommended strategies–not quite "resolutions"– for city sustainability leaders to consider.

Though not a comprehensive list, these strategies for success will help cities chart a course into the next phases of their sustainability efforts.

1. Create and expand partnerships - especially with youth and universities. Partnership building is critical to the success of any community-wide sustainability initiative. Cities have a wide range of potential partners to engage in the development and implementation of various projects. Two groups that traditionally have shown a great deal of interest and advocacy on areas of sustainability are youth and local colleges and universities. As discussed in this recent blog post about the value of youth participation in local government, and this post on specific ways to link university and city sustainability efforts, these groups not only provide willing partners for short-term initiatives, but also set the foundation for longer term engagement.

2. Make it easy and engaging through technology. Successful community-wide sustainability initiatives need to be convenient, accessible and integrated into the rhythm of everyday living. This recent article describes how everyday technology-everything from phone applications and social media, to smart grids and bike sensors-is allowing cities to increase public engagement and promote the adoption of sustainable alternatives. Also, this on NLC's Sustainable Cities Institute website produced by the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, provides guidance to help cities use online tools to engage communities.

3. Data, data, data - Measure, track, record, report. For cities moving from the "why" and "if" to the "what" and "how" of sustainability, performance metrics and indicators are proving themselves indispensable and will continue to grow in 2013. Tracking inputs, outcomes, and various measures of success allows city professionals and policymakers to make informed, evidence-based decisions. Quantifiably demonstrating the impact of policies or programs can also increase community support for initiatives by clearly communicating impacts and celebrating successes. One of the most exciting developments for cities in 2013 will be the release of the STAR Community Index and Online Reporting Tools. STAR (Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities) is the first national framework for evaluating sustainability in cities.

4. Plan, prepare and institutionalize. Many cities have already begun developing comprehensive sustainability plans or similar strategies to incorporate sustainability goals throughout local government efforts. In the coming year NLC anticipates that more attention will be placed on the development of disaster preparedness and adaptation planning efforts to identify and to reduce possible risks associated with extreme weather events. Regardless of the types of planning documents a city develops, the most valuable aspect will depend upon their implementation. Sustainability plans can be broad and often encompass the work of multiple city departments, while setting a vision for the entire community. In order to be successful these plans and vision need to be institutionalized, woven into the fabric of internal city operations and throughout the language and culture of local government.

5. Be bold. Short of a formal prediction, 2013 could very well be a year marked by, and ripe for, bold, game-changing leadership at all levels of government towards sustainability. One obvious step is leaders taking a serious approach to increasing community resiliency in the face of extreme weather events. Until recently, climate adaptation has received little attention among state and national priorities. Last October's Superstorm Sandy closed out a year marked by damaging droughts, wildfires and storms. It provided political leaders with both the opportunity and obligation to move beyond partisan rhetoric and take the politically-bold actions necessary to accept and prepare for the unprecedented uncertainties that accompany a changing climate. The severity and impact of extreme weather events throughout 2012 have elevated national attention of the need to better understand and prepare our communities for future events. Strong leaders are needed in 2013 to not only insist on serious conversations, but to demand direct action addressing community resilience and adaptation.

While it is uncertain what 2013 will bring for federal action in energy finance, climate adaptation or food production and security, when it comes to sustainability, local government leaders will continue to have a critical and active role, both on the ground in their communities and as experienced advocates at the state and national levels.

NLC's Sustainability Program is looking forward to working with local leaders to advance and support city-led sustainability efforts in the coming year.

Supporting Food Systems, Supporting Communities

zborel@nlc.org (NLC_Sustainability ) — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 02:08:46 +0000

By: David DeVaughn, National Urban Fellow, National League of Cities

“The best way to preserve farmland is to make farmers successful on that land.”

This call to action from participants attending the Supporting Local Food Systems Roundtable at NLC’s Congress of Cities (CoC), speaks to just one of the many factors driving the National League of Cities’ (NLC) commitment to addressing sustainable food issues in America’s cities and towns by providing local government leaders with effective tools and resources.

This past Congress of Cities in Boston was my first, and potentially my only, as NLC staff. I am a National Urban Fellow, Class of 2013, who was chosen to spend my nine-month fellowship working with all three centers of NLC: Federal Relations, Research & Innovation and the Institute for Youth, Education, and Families. I come with past experience in endowment consulting and food system work, and hoped that my fellowship experience would allow me time to understand the intersection of food and policy in communities.

I am thankful to be working on the development of a comprehensive suite of resources to assist local activities and decision-making within the area of local foods. The resulting content will be used to build a brand new section of NLC’s Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI) on Sustainable Food Systems. As the centerpiece of NLC’s sustainability efforts, SCI provides a dynamic online platform of resources and peerâ€ÂÂnetworking opportunities to assist cities in identifying, planning for and implementing holistic, longâ€ÂÂterm approaches to communityâ€ÂÂwide sustainability. The Sustainable Food System section will be the latest addition to SCI and is scheduled to launch in early 2013.

My hope was to see the intersection of my interests as a fellow and the goals of SCI, come together to answer questions like: What issues are on concerned citizens minds about food that connect with local, state and federal policies? And how can local government play a role to help incentivize, finance and provide partnerships towards sustainable food systems? I started to answer portions of these questions while at CoC 2012.

The call to action that started this piece, made during our Supporting Local Food Systems Roundtable discussion, speaks to how I hope we as staff and the elected officials we serve see our respective constituents. Potentially, that the best way for a local elected official to preserve their cities and towns is to make sure their constituents are successful at home, at work, and in their neighborhoods. Potentially, that the best way for NLC to preserve its local elected official membership, is to equip that membership so that it is successful in its communities. This call to action recognizes that supporting worthwhile efforts, through preservation and maximization of resources can make successful communities.

During the roundtable discussion, I was reminded that food is critical to cities and towns because it connects so many different issues: poverty, economic development, public health, etc. I have found that the more I learn about food, the more it becomes an issue that unearths other issues; that a reality like food insecurity, is a symptom of something larger that city leaders strive to address. I believe that NLC will make these connections from food to areas like economic development and infrastructure.

City leaders continued to make these connections at the conference during a World Cafe table on financing healthy foods, and a workshop titled “Growing Your Local Food Economy.” Ideas were shared and roadmaps were offered around the issues of healthy food access, urban agriculture and the difficulty of luring large grocery stores to underserved communities. Also discussed were potential avenues of state funding, novel examples of partnerships and passing of ordinances to support, preserve and maximize efforts.

Every elected official who spoke up in these sessions had something to offer and was looking for something new for their communities. It reassured me that those who are thinking about food issues in their municipalities are striving to understand what other communities have done to help alleviate a difficult situation and how a solution goes beyond food to mean community benefit.

We in the Sustainability program at NLC need these stories!

A Sustainable Food Systems section is scheduled to launch in early 2013 on the SCI website, including tools such as classroom content, case studies, reports and guides, model policies and more. As we continue to develop these resources, we want to hear from you: what resources, tools or topics would be most helpful to assist your efforts in developing a strong, sustainable and healthy food system in your community?

Send feedback, ideas, successful practices or questions to David DeVaughn, NLC National Urban Fellow, at devaughn@nlc.org.

For more information on the Sustainable Cities Institute visit http://www.SustainableCitiesInstitute.org and follow us on twitter @SustCitiesInst

Elevating the Principles of Net-Zero Buildings

zborel@nlc.org (NLC_Sustainability ) — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:45:49 +0000

By: Raksha Vasudevan, Associate, Sustainability Programs, National League of Cities

A few weeks ago, at the Greenbuild conference in San Francisco, I attended a session that featured NREL’s Research Support Facility (RSF) in Golden, CO. The session’s speakers described the design and construction process of the RSF, a net-zero energy building (NZEB) that today serves as a model for performance-based design.

The possibilities presented about achieving net-zero energy at scale were exciting: How do net-zero design strategies alter the discourse about how we design and build? Does NZEB necessitate a paradigm shift in the way we imagine and deliver buildings?

With my inner architecture geek fired up, I attended our own Congress of Cities Conference the following week. There, I had an opportunity to sit in on the Energy Efficiency workshop as Mayor Henrietta Davis of Cambridge, MA, along with Kurt Roth of Fraunhofer USA, presented the M.L.K School. This net-zero energy project, taken on by Cambridge Public Schools and the City of Cambridge in 2012, is to serve as a pilot project for achieving net-zero, specifically in schools.

“For Cambridge the process of planning and designing a net-zero school has changed the way we think about energy in all our buildings. It has made us think about what energy we really need to use in our existing city buildings and will surely change some of what we do even in buildings not slated for full scale renovation or rebuilding.”

As Mayor Davis clearly states above, the process of planning for and designing net-zero buildings offers a new perspective on how we interact with and use energy in our communities.

Additionally, through the workshop sessions I realized that the focus on a life-cycle perspective (which the NZEB process elevates) offers principles applicable not only to energy efficiency in buildings, but also to the larger dialogue on taking sustainable communities to scale:

The Power of Integrated Design. At the San Francisco Greenbuild session, speakers described the need to effectively integrate and coordinate the various building components and processes in order to achieve maximum energy efficiencies. With NREL’s RSF, they spoke about the high level of coordination that took place between the various ‘designers’—the architect, engineer, contractor and operations/maintenance company—in order to ensure that energy efficiency was a prioritized goal (on par with scheduling and cost savings) throughout the process. Through open lines of communication, each ‘designer’ in the process ensured that their building component was as energy efficient as possible with relation to the various other components working in parallel.

Sustainable communities emerge from the thoughtful design and integration of the various components of a place. While many of us are aware of this, do our planning practices actually encourage dialogue between the various ‘designers’ of the city—the architects, the transportation planners, the youth and the civic and faith-based organizers? Often, city planning is happenstance, pieces of communities clashing and colliding into places; and while there is beauty in the intersections that emerge, sustainable cities necessitate greater coordination and communication between these traditionally unlikely partners. Create spaces that encourage open communication- the first step is to have everyone working together.

The Plug Load Problem. In both sessions, the speakers used the example of plug loads—essentially the energy consumed by what you and I plug into a socket rather than the energy it takes to heat or light a room– to describe how much end users impact the overall building energy use. To be able to achieve a NZEB, they emphasized 1) incorporating this variable into early energy modeling for the building and 2) creating an education process whereby end users (if known) understand the NZEB principles and the effects of their actions on overall building energy use.

Now this sounds quite simple, but how often do we forget that different communities are created for and occupied by different types of users? While we may not ‘model’ a community like we do a building, we certainly envision outcomes early on. So, in the design/visioning/ goal-setting process, the first step is identifying who the end users are (think: age, demographics, socioeconomic status) and how they already occupy spaces. The second step is creating an educational component to the process so that “the users” understand the effects of their individual actions and are better equipped to make day-to-day decisions. Focus on the end user from the beginning—the key lies in the operation not just the planning.

The Passive Design Potential. A critical component of designing a NZEB is incorporating passive design strategies—strategies that maximize the energy provided by natural systems as much as possible. Rather than defaulting to purchased energy, passive design creates a process whereby ambient sources of energy such as daylighting and natural ventilation are maximized. Both sets of speakers demonstrated that understanding the site and its “passive assets” was critical to minimizing the number of energy- consuming products that would make NZEB goals more difficult to achieve.

In the case of moving towards sustainable cities, how quickly do we assume that the ‘right’ answer in one place is the ‘right’ answer in another? The fact is that each city has its own geographies, typologies, assets, and so forth. The strength of encouraging passive design strategies in net-zero building is that the excess addition of systems and components takes a second seat to the inherent assets of the site.

In the creation and implementation of a sustainability vision for a city, identifying those assets and qualities that already progress a city’s sustainability goals are not only low-hanging fruit, but often more successful in the long-term than imposing programs or policies that may not fit. Build more with less-every community has untapped assets waiting to be utilized.

As NZEBs are still relatively recent in the sustainability conversation, I’m excited to see how building and energy rating systems develop and what lessons we continue to extract from the whole process!

Stay tuned and share your thoughts with us –comment below or email us at sustainability@nlc.org.

Thanks to Our Special Guest

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:11:20 +0000

A few weeks ago we were lucky to receive a visit from a very special and unexpected guest, Reverend Jesse Jackson. The Reverend had been in town for an unrelated event and had the good fortune to meet our Social Justice Advocate, Larry Bratton, who enthusiastically informed him of all of the work we do here at the Sustainability Institute. Rev. Jackson was particularly interested in the job creation and low income housing assistance work that we do and Larry easily convinced him to come out to one of our job sites.

The house that we were working on that day just so happened to be an Impact Project house, the home of Mrs. Eugenia Johnson. Mrs. Johnson is in her early 80s and has been living in her home for over 20 years. She is an active of her community, volunteering at the local church, helping to watch her neighbor’s children and keeping an eye on the daily activities on her street. Mrs. Johnson had been busy running around and doing all of these things while living without any working HVAC system for the last two years. Now, in some parts of the country that may not mean much, but in Charleston where our average July temperature is close to 90 degrees with over 88% humidity, that is quite a feat. On top of improving Mrs. Johnsons health and safety by giving her a retrofit, we are also projecting a 63% efficiency improvement in her house, saving her over 30% in utility costs on an annual basis.

Reverend Jackson was impressed by the amount of work we were doing to the house as well as the projected cost and efficiency savings. He was also excited to see young, local professionals-in-training doing the work. Our Energy Conservation Corps (ECC) program was on site performing the retrofit while receiving on the job training of construction skills, weatherization techniques and building science. All members of the ECC are local residents between the ages of 18-25 who are looking to acquire professional skills through other means than college. Many of the participants go on to find other forms of education and employment that will lead them to rewarding careers.

This combination of local workers helping a local resident in need while bolstering the job market and improving Mrs. Johnson’s quality of life was exactly the type of partnership that Rev. Jackson was looking to see. His positive words of encouragement went a long way with Mrs. Johnson and the ECC members and let them know they were on the right path. We appreciate him taking his time to learn about our program and hope to work with him further in the future.

Let's Get the Show on the Road

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:41:32 +0000

Since the Impact Project wrapped up our public efforts to raise awareness about our goals and findings, we’ve been working on a variety of ways to reach out to our peers to share our results. Next week we have our first chance share our story with our fellow building science professionals, at the Department of Energy’s Better Buildings Conference, Residential Energy Efficiency Solutions: From Innovation to Market Transformation. The conference is an opportunity for Better Buildings programs from across the country to come together and share their stories and learn from each other’s successes. While the Impact Project is not at Better Buildings program, one of our key goals is to support the work of our sister program, CharlestonWISE, which is a Better Buildings Program.

We will be speaking on a panel entitled Using Data to Monitor Market Transformation where representatives from several programs across the country will share their experiences in making real time changes to their program based on data and feedback coming in. In the Impact Project we specifically set out to do this through our Intentional Learning component. Through Intentional Learning we diligently tracked every aspect of customer solicitation and selection, from gender of the applicants to effective messaging and outreach. In doing this we were able to learn a great deal about the energy efficiency market in Charleston and better inform CharlestonWISE in how to best use their resources.

The conference will be a great chance to share key lessons learned for targeting customers, like most applicants were women, 30% of applicants learned about us through grassroots sources like their neighborhood associations and many customers are older and not tuned into current marketing trends like Facebook and Twitter.

It will also be a great chance to share lessons learned on doing comprehensive, community-wide energy retrofits, such as discovering that the majority of low income participants need a high level of work to be done to make their houses safe and efficient. Because of this we’ve had to reorganize our retrofit funds so that we can truly improve the quality of their living environments, including replacing HVAC systems, installing drywall and making minor structural repairs that will help seal the building envelope.

We are excited to share our many lessons learned and we are equally excited to learn from other programs across the country so that we can continue to improve our own work and leave a better blueprint for CharlestonWISE and all other efficiency programs that may follow us.

The Bidding Wars are Over

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 19:24:46 +0000

When we started to test our selected Impact Project Houses, we wanted to re-create the natural order of the local labor market by putting all 200 jobs out to bid on a case-by-case basis. Not all 200 at the same time mind you, but a few every week or every other week as the work load allowed. Starting with 3 Energy Advocates in our network, we assumed that if everyone one could do 4-6 jobs per month; we would end up testing all the houses by May 31, 2012.

It was a good assumption, but to paraphrase, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”. There were many complications with the process. It was time consuming on our end to prepare and manage each bid, keep advocates on schedule and communicate with participants. Advocates were scrambling to be in the office preparing bids and completing reports while servicing the jobs they already had and spending time in the field. Several obviously stopped considering the size and needs of the houses and started bidding flat rates on each job, thinking it would speed up the process, but not considering that it could complicate things on the back end when they found the costs of the job to be outside their set price.

By late November of last year, it was obvious that things had to change. Besides the difficulty of managing the process on both ends, we had some feedback that the lack of constant jobs made it difficult for advocates to anticipate their needs down the road- they never knew how much work they would have each week.

We took the time to evaluate the situation and determined that bulk contracts would be a more efficient method of distributing the work. Our advocates agreed and in January we signed agreements with two companies to each get a set number of jobs for an agreed upon price and to have the payments distributed in thirds- one third up front, the other half way through the process and the final upon completion. While this process is helping jobs get done faster and is moving much more smoothly, we are still disappointed in one aspect; none of the advocates are currently willing to hire additional employees or expand their practice as we had hoped. We are keeping our fingers crossed that as they get more comfortable with the new process they will be more comfortable taking risks in their personnel levels and be willing to make more hires and expand the job market.

Share and Share Alike

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:47:45 +0000

During the course of the Impact Project we have primarily focused our outreach efforts on the local community here in Charleston – getting people involved as volunteer participants of a home energy assessment, and engaged in the exciting world of home energy efficiency.

Now that we are well under way with the 200 energy assessments to be performed through the Impact Project (65 completed to date), we have information and experience to share and, thus, have decided to change our outreach efforts to focus on telling industry peers, green building professionals and other communities about our work. We are seeking opportunities to give presentations, participate in conferences, and nominate the Impact Project for awards to highlight and get the word out about our work and experience.

A goal of the Sustainable Cities Institute with the Pilot Cities program was to grant projects that could catalyze a greater sustainability initiative on the community level, as well as produce lessons learned and resources to inform other communities’ sustainability efforts. By sharing our work and findings through the ‘conference circuit’ (as we say), we hope to jump start that sharing process, get regional players interested in what we are doing here in Charleston, as well as get some input as to what is going on in other places and learn from them concurrently.

Communication is Key

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 17:58:55 +0000

We’ve previously mentioned how important communication is in the Impact Project, and as we continue to work with our participants, we’ve come to realize just how big of a factor effective communication really is. Our project has a lot of moving parts, communicating with residents, setting up workshops, scheduling assessments and retrofits and monitoring QA on all work being done. Because of all of these aspects, it is more time consuming than we anticipated getting participants from beginning to end. Without effective communication it is easy for these people to feel that they have been lost in the shuffle.

But it goes both ways, as much as we are responsible for reaching out to our participants, they must also be responsible for moving themselves forward in the process by submitting household information, utility data and attending a workshop. We have found that while some participants are eagerly awaiting their assessment and are ready to beat down our door to get it; most participants need multiple touches to prompt them to act. Many people did not realize that they would need to take multiple steps and supply various pieces of information before any work can be done. It has been a constant game of reminding people what they have and haven’t turned in and where they are in the process.

It is unclear how much of a factor this commitment is in people’s decisions to continue on in the project. We have had feedback from some that due to work and personal commitments, they just don’t have the time, and we have worked with them to make it as accessible as possible. We also have over 15 people who have simply not responded to our calls for participation and will have to be dropped from the project.

The lesson that this has taught us is to be sure that the participants understand that they will be asked to actively participate in this process, not simply sign up and sit back and wait. Also be sure that ample time is built in for customer service. This ranges from helping people set up an online account with their utility company, to explaining the process of the energy assessment and scheduling workshops. While some hand holding will be necessary, in some ways it only enhances the project, we know our participants life stories at this point, can tell you who works which days and how many kids they have. In the end it enriches the project and helps generate a better experience for all.

Historic Structures Class Success

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:13:07 +0000

Training our workforce to properly test and retrofit historic buildings for energy efficiency is one of the primary goals of the Impact Project, and last week we were able to take a major step in making it happen by holding our Energy Efficiency Improvements for Historic Structures in Warm and Humid Climates class.

The class was attended by seven energy advocates and contractors who came from all across the region and was taught over a period of four days at our local technical college, Trident Tech. Our students all came from a building science background and all have their BPI BA. We had hoped to have more members of the Historic Preservation community attend, and had advertized to them, but had no luck this time.

In order to effectively teach both preservation and building science, we used two instructors, each with experience teaching in their respective fields, with additional contributions from our own building science staff as needed. This ended up being a great way to go, the students gained a lot from hearing first hand experiences that each had had dealing with the unique characteristics of historic buildings and how they had approached maintaining and updating them.

While the classroom experience was valuable, all agreed that the best part of the class was the field study that was done on the last day. We were able to access an empty, about-to-be-renovated, 10,000 square foot house, built in 1789. It was full of great examples of what can be found in our local historic houses, a variety of rafter types, a crawl space with evidence of multiple types of early electrical and plumbing configurations, and a kitchen building that was joined to the main house with a mysterious foundation set up.

We were also able to use our 1880’s office building to test out using multiple point blower doors. Most advocates had never used multiple point blower doors, but many historic houses are so leaky that they will not be able to be pressurized using one fan, so this was an essential point to learn. They did a great job with it and were able to quickly understand how to run the tests.

Overall the class went well and we got feedback from the students that it was helpful and informative. Of course, those of us who were involved in writing the curriculum could see minor flaws, typos and room for edits and improvements and we are looking forward to getting together next week to tweak things and make sure the class will be ready for another run some day.

Messaging What Matters

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:50:18 +0000

One of the goals of the Impact Project is to teach people how their houses work in terms of energy efficiency and to motivate them to take action to improve their efficiency as needed. The energy assessment is only the first step in this process. Once the assessment is complete the energy advocate sends a detailed report to the client telling them of what can be done to improve their house’s energy efficiency. Our hope is that once they receive the report, these participants will be motivated by the findings to take action. In order for that to happen, the reports need to be compelling and effective in relaying somewhat foreign information such as thickness of insulation, types of weather stripping and duct work.

We are currently trying to determine how to format the reports to effectively transmit this information in a motivating way. Our first version of the reports was straightforward, text heavy explanations of what needed to be done with a cover letter giving a summary of the findings. After receiving the reports, participants were sent an online survey, which asked how well they understood the report and if they were going to take action. Our first few surveys revealed that some people were confused by the technical reports and didn’t know how or where to start making improvements.

We took this feedback and formulated a new report with a stronger visual focus, showing people how much money and energy they could save by following the recommendations (see the above image for an example). This graph made for a much more compelling understanding of how the house could be improved and while we haven’t sent too many of them out yet, the feedback seems to be positive.

As we move forward we plan to continue to edit the report format until we find one that works well for all, motivates efficiency improvements, and is reliable for contractors coming in to do the work. We are truly thankful for our participants and their commitment to giving us this feedback and know that with their help we’ll work to make the Impact Project and CharlestonWISE successful programs.

SPENDING and SAVING so far

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:12:50 +0000

200 Charleston households were selected to participant in the Impact Project as a reprehensive field sample of Charleston’s SFR housing stocks. We used U.S. Census data for the City and Charleston County Assessors data to match participants selected against the characteristics and proportions of Charleston’s homes (including, age, size, location, fuel sources, as well as occupancy, household income).

Of the 200 homes we are now putting through the motions of their own home energy assessment, we have collected energy consumption histories/data on 65. We did a quick analysis of the average energy bill among our participants for 2010. And the results are….The average energy bill in 2010 for our participants was $212.00, with months ranging from an average of around $80 to $250. The average price per square foot of our participants’ energy bills is $.12. This means a 1700 sq ft house costs around $200 a month, (which is also the case stated by EIA for the state of South Carolina.)

The majority of the home energy assessments completed under the Impact Project so far, recommend improvements that provide a better than 20% efficiency increase, over $300 in annual savings, and are less than 10 year return on investment.

The assessments are also highlighting the impact of small, do-it-yourself, changes like switching out low flow water fixtures, CFL lights, connecting all households electronics to surge protectors and turning them off off off when not in use (including: TV, stereo, DVD, cable box, computers…all of them), and setting back the temperature by just a few degrees when not at home. As well as advanced do-it-yourself measures like weather stripping all door leading to the exterior, wrapping your hot water heater, and weather stripping and insulating your attic access (unless in the garage). These changes can save the average Charleston resident at least 10% off their energy bill.

Spreading the Word

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:43:41 +0000

A big thanks to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, who recenlty published a write up about the Impact Project on their Preservation Nation blog. Please take a minute to read it over and learn more about how preservation and sustainability can work together.

Our First Retrofit!

betsy@sustainabilityinstitutesc.org (bkleinfelder) — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:29:36 +0000

This week we did our first home energy retrofit.

The home was a 1300 sq ft, 2 story brick home with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths, built in 1973 with an annual gas & electric bill of nearly $2300. Performance testing of the homed showed very high leakage rate through the building envelop – .95ACH which means 95% of indoor conditioned air would leak out ever hour – 13% duct leakage and poor insulation levels throughout – plus a broken (very old) 10 SEER HVAC system. This house became our first candidate to study the best practices ( in terms of home energy efficiency improvements) for what to do when it’s 100 degrees outside and your A/C dies.

The home energy assessment recommendations included reducing air leakage in the building envelop by 42%, reducing duct leakage to 6% or less and adding 12 inches (or R-38) of insulation in the attic and installing a new 13 SEER 3 ton HVAC unit. The projected (computer modeled) results of these improvements was shown to be a greater than 20% efficiency improvement, $450 annual savings, and, perhaps most impressive, the ability to reduce the size of the HVAC system from 4 tons to the 3 ton system – the house would be well sealed, well insulated and therefore easier (and cheaper) to heat and cool.

We are completing the test-out (to check our work) as I type, and patiently await the word that we hit our target numbers. We look forward to showing the real impact of the work as we track actual savings (both kWh and cost) over the next year. So until then stay tuned…and check out our Facebook page (CharlestonWISE Impact Project) for regular updates on our progress and success.

Fayetteville delegates attend the NLC Congress of Cities

lcolley@southface.org (Lauren Colley) — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:29:26 +0000

The recent National League of Cities (NLC) Annual Conference in Boston was a great learning and networking opportunity for our community to sponsor two delegates from Fayetteville.

Michele Halsell, Director of the Applied Sustainability Center at the University of Arkansas, and John Kester III, PhD Student in the Environmental Dynamics program at the University of Arkansas, attended the conference on behalf of our community.

“The Congress of Cities meeting was an energetic gathering of just over 3,000 city officials and staff convening to share ideas on how to improve cities. The city strategies in focus were promoting strong local economies, building sustainable communities, and strengthening neighborhoods and families. The two days of presentations provided numerous opportunities for productive dialogue and supplied attendees with action steps to bring home with them,” said Kester.

Out of the many excellent conference sessions, both delegates targeted the “Building Sustainable Communities” track, which focused developing partnerships and strategies that go beyond stand alone investments in a city's built environment and move toward integrated approaches facilitating connected, intelligent and sustainable communities.

The conference opened with a rousing speech by Bill Taylor, cofounder of Fast Company, who submitted to the audience a new framework for defining the logic of success. Future ideas are likely to succeed when they redefine the terms of competition by embracing one-of-a-kind ideas. Taylor stressed creativity and innovation as the avenue to improving cities in this age of non-stop reinvention. The message was not to abandon our city roots, but rather to be open-minded about the available solutions to issues.

Opening plenary speakers continued to build on the theme of internal innovation and the compelling characteristic of cities to rise above external inputs to define the best path for local development as it fits into the national landscape.

The opening convocation wrapped up with youth delegates from Boston, who stressed that inclusive and diverse partnerships provide a platform for a higher level of cooperation and that sustainability should be benchmarked by the whole improving, not just individual parts growing. These opening remarks set the tone for the conference.

Halsell added, “I was fortunate to be able to attend the National League of Cities conference in Boston in November 2012, and I used the opportunity to dive deep into sustainability . . . what it means at the municipal level and the many ways that cities around the country are demonstrating leadership on a variety of sustainability-related issues – from energy to water to waste to transportation and local food systems. “

Our Fayetteville delegates attended multiple sessions but their “take home” favorites were:

Supporting Local Foods Roundtable - city leaders shared tips, strategies, and success stories for growing local food systems. Farmer’s markets, community gardens, and getting local produce onto school lunch trays and into local restaurants were common themes across cities. Community gardens provide food healthy, affordable food for people’s stomachs as well as food for the soul in the form of friendships and a sense of belonging. Local food systems can provide economic, environmental and social benefits for cities.

Clean Community Energy Systems - provided valuable information about the economic, environmental and energy security benefits of local energy districts. “Energizing Your Energy Efficiency Program” highlighted net zero energy buildings where the building actually generates more energy than it uses. Participants gathered in smaller groups to discuss working with state energy offices and ways to accelerate residential energy efficiency programs. Most memorable nugget: Tallahassee’s mayor explained the city’s Neighborhood Reach program as a way to engage low income families through a one-stop shop approach that helps them reap the economic benefits of energy efficiency at home.

Performance Tools to Measure Sustainability - highlighted measurement efforts in Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Pasadena. Cities are already measuring a whole host of sustainability-related dimensions including tree canopy, vehicle miles travelled, and greenhouse gas emissions to name a few. Cities are grappling with how to report sustainability metrics with stakeholders and citizens and ICLEI’s new STAR Community rating system will help to standardize sustainability metrics and reporting for cities.

Building Partnerships for Sustainability – focused on fostering a “big tent” approach to sustainability at the local level whereby sustainability is enhanced and accelerated by strong collaboration and investments in social capital. Cities that intentionally form partnerships with local school districts, the healthcare community, business and industry and the non-profit sector increase the chances for success of their sustainability initiatives.

The University of Arkansas’ Applied Sustainability Center recently launched a City Sustainability Network to provide the vehicle for these measurements throughout municipalities of all sizes within Arkansas. For more information about the ASC, you can visit their website or follow their sustainability conversation on Facebook.

The National League of Cities website facilitates a robust digital library of numerous educational materials, case studies and useful frameworks for putting new policies into action (www.nlc.org).

Information specific to building sustainable communities can be found here through the NLC Center for Research and Innovation.

Our special thanks to Tammy Zborel @ the National League of Cities, Robert Reed and Lauren Colley @ Southface and the Home Depot Foundation for helping make this partnership and community learning opportunity possible.

In summary, Halsell says, “The depth and breadth of municipal commitments to sustainability was inspirational and instills hope that we might yet be able to successfully address some of the most pressing environmental, economic and social issues facing the planet. From the presenters to the materials to the exhibitors in the expo hall, the learning and networking experience was top notch. Thank you NLC!”

Contributed by Melissa Terry, Michelle Halsell and John Kester.

SCI helps launch first annual Sustainable Communities Leadership Summit

lcolley@southface.org (Lauren Colley) — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:32:59 +0000

Jerry Tinianow, Chief Sustainability Officer for the City and County of Denver, Colorado delivering the keynote address at the Sustainable Communities Leadership Summit.

Led by the University of Arkansas’ Applied Sustainability Center, the Sustainable Communities Leadership Summit was a forum for speakers, guests and panelists to discuss the metrics of community sustainability.

This Summit was also a significant keystone of the SCI:Fayetteville team’s community engagement strategy, which represented all aspects of our work over the past two years of SCI program funding.

A variety of City of Fayetteville staff participated in sessions relating to our Low Impact Development policy developments, Sustainability Directors’ Panel, etc.. Fayetteville Mayor Jordan got in on the action as our conference welcome speaker and as a panelist of Mayors from around the State of Arkanas.

The pre-conference tours featured an urban trails bike tour, led by Fayetteville Sustainability Director Peter Niergarten, and Community Food Tour, led by SCI:Fayetteville Project Director Melissa Terry, and a Green Businesses Tour, led by staff from the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce.

Through the SCI:Fayetteville partnership, we were also pleased to welcome Jerry Tinianow as the Summit’s keynote speaker, Stever Perkins with the Center for Neighborhood Technologies as our facilitator of the H+T (Housing + Transportation) session and Jeff Birkby as a representative of the EPA’s Smart Growth Network. Additional educational support was provided by the National League of Cities.

This integrated approach to community sustainability would not have been possible without the leadership and cooperation from all of our SCI program partners and is a great example of how initiatives like the Sustainable Cities Institute can move the needle on community sustainability by recognizing the values of collective impact, intentional learning and outward-facing program goals.

Included below are two articles published in Arkansas state and regional newspapers that reflect additional perspectives of the Summit. You can also visit the Applied Sustainability’s Facebook page to see photos from this successful 3 day leadership summit.

UA meeting gives cities chance to plan growth

Data Shows Trails Lead to Happiness

Submitted by Melissa Terry, SCI:Fayetteville Project Director

City of Fayetteville Adds Weatherization and Energy Efficiency Outreach Position

lcolley@southface.org (Lauren Colley) — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:56:28 +0000

Joseph Beachner (right) participating in an energy audit field training with Viridian/Home Rx Energy Consultants, Corey Keen and Gary Kahanak at the Feed Fayetteville Sustainable Community Food Center.

In partnership with the SCI:Fayetteville team and the Energy Corps/AmeriCorps initiative, the City of Fayetteville has created a new position within the City’s Community Services Division.

As the Weatherization and Energy Efficiency Outreach Coordinator, Energy Corps/AmeriCorps member Joseph Beachner will be working to assist the Housing Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Programs through the federally funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.

Since 1992, Community Services have been focusing their rehabilitation efforts on South Fayetteville and there have been over 100 housing rehabilitation projects up to $25,000 each in this area. One of the main goals for this new position is to determine energy usage per household before a rehabilitation project compared to the energy usage after a CDBG project.

Thanks to this collaborative partnership, the Community Services Division has identified an additional 1034 homes in South Fayetteville to prioritize for specific energy efficiency and weatherization opportunities.

Additionally, the Community Service Division has committed to BPI Training for three of the CDBG staff members plus the purchase of their own energy auditing materials/equipment. By internalizing this expertise, the City will now be able to perform free energy assessments and audits to low-income home owners within the 1034 target group.

The Ozark Electric Cooperative predicts that energy costs in Northwest Arkansas will increase by 100% within the next ten years. Planning ahead for those costs by investing today in lower utility demands not only helps the homeowner’s pocketbook but also helps the utility companies make the most of their existing energy generation capacities.

Prioritizing energy efficiency and weatherization services for low-income home owners is a huge step in the right direction of overall community sustainability, as low-income homeowners are typically the most economically vulnerable to extreme temperature fluctuations and the consequentially high utility expenses that result.

The cheapest kilowatt is the one that’s not needed or wasted so facilitating energy efficiency and weatherization outreach with low-income home owners will also help reduce our community's collective energy demand.

The Community Services Division administers the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program delivered from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The CDBG Program is the Federal Government's primary program for promoting community revitalization throughout the country, providing annual grants on a formula basis to approximately 1,000 metropolitan cities such as Fayetteville.

CDBG funds are used for a wide range of community development activities directed toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and improved community facilities and services.

For more information about the City of Faytteville’s CDBG programs, please visit their website.

-- Contributed by Melissa Terry and Joseph Beachner

Growing Together in a SNAP Community Garden

dlangford@southface.org (dlangford) — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:14:22 +0000

According to www.snapgardens.org there are currently 46,449,850 people that depend on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamps) benefits to supplement their nutritional requirements. As of January 2012, there are currently 28,008 people participating in the SNAP program in Washington County, AR, which gives it the highest SNAP participation rate in Arkansas. The Washington Co. Department of Human Services reports that this number is on the rise, as the department is currently experiencing the highest level of assistance applications in its history meaning that an all time record number of people are experiencing food insecurity in Northwest Arkansas.

Recently, Northwest Arkansas (NWA) has seen an increase in the demand for access to healthy, safe, nutritious and local foods. This demand is evident by:

The establishment and growth of many NWA farmers’ markets
The ranking of the Fayetteville Farmers’ Market as the 5th best farmers’ market in the U.S.A. by the American Farmland Trust
The upstart, growth and support of many small local farms in the NWA area
The creation of several non-profits whose missions include fighting hunger, childhood obesity, providing access to local foods and cultivating a sustainable local food network

There is also a grass roots initiative spreading within the NWA local foods movement to increase access to healthy, safe, nutritious and local foods for SNAP participants. Currently, all of the farmers’ markets in NW Arkansas now have machines in place to accept Electronic Benefits Transactions (EBT) so SNAP participants can use their EBT cards at the farmers’ markets. Also, the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture has secured a Wal-Mart Foundation grant in the amount of $40,000 to provide SNAP participants with a dollar-for-dollar match for any benefits they choose to spend at a NWA farmers’ market in 2012. This program is called Farmers’ Market Double Dollars and will begin in May 2012 and run until all funds have been distributed.

On national scale, there is a new movement gaining momentum sparked by the re-discovery of a 1973 amendment to the Food Stamp Act, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), that makes it possible for all SNAP participants to purchase food producing plants and seeds with their SNAP benefits. This movement, called SNAP Gardens, started with a website, www.snapgardens.org, aimed at promoting the fact that SNAP benefits can be spent on food producing plants and seeds and encouraging SNAP participants to start gardens with the plants and seeds they purchase with their benefits.

The SNAP Gardens movement has found its way to Fayetteville, AR with the development of the nation’s first Community SNAP Garden. The Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI):Fayetteville, in partnership with Feed Fayetteville, is leasing a plot of land from the City of Fayetteville at the Walker Park Community Garden to develop a SNAP garden.

The Fayetteville Community SNAP Garden’s mission is: to create long-term food security for SNAP participants by providing the opportunity, resources and knowledge to grow their own safe, nutritious and local food in a community environment.

The Fayetteville Community SNAP Garden’s goal is: to work with community partners to build participation in and ownership of growing fresh food together with SNAP families, Walker Park Neighborhood residents and Fayetteville Senior Center visitors by facilitating regular community gardening hours, providing gardening supplies (tools, water, soil, etc.) and on-site gardening seminars.

The Fayetteville Community SNAP Garden’s objectives are to:

Raise awareness of SNAP participants that the Fayetteville Farmer’s Market accepts EBT.
Raise awareness that SNAP participants can receive a dollar-for-dollar match for SNAP benefits they spend at the Fayetteville Farmer’s Market.
Raise awareness that SNAP participants can spend their benefits on plants and seeds that grow food.
Direct SNAP participants to the Fayetteville Farmer’s Market to use their SNAP benefits and receive their matching funds.
Encourage SNAP participants to spend a portion of their matching funds on future food security.
Provide a space to grow food for SNAP participants that don’t have space at home.
Educate SNAP gardeners on organic gardening practices.
Educate SNAP gardeners on healthy food preparation.
Educate SNAP gardeners on healthy food preservation.
Build community.
Create a replicable model for Community SNAP Gardens.

The Fayetteville Community SNAP Garden is a multi-partner collaborative effort between SCI:Fayetteville, Feed Fayetteville, the City of Fayetteville, the National Center of Appropriate Technology, the Fayetteville Farmers’ Market, the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, the Fayetteville Community Garden Coalition, the Arkansas Department of Human Services, SNAPgardens.org, AR Energy Corps/AmeriCorps, Washington County Head Start, Walker Park Community Garden, Seeds that Feed, the Fayetteville Senior Activity and Wellness Center and the Washington County Extension Service.

In an effort to promote SNAP gardens on a larger scale, this partnership is focusing on all gardens targeting low-income families in the south Fayetteville area including community gardens at the Jefferson Adult Education Center, the Washington County Head Start and LifeSource International.

The SNAP communal garden plot is being provided free of charge to any SNAP participants to use as communal garden space, up to 10 participants total. As a communal garden space, there are no separations of individual plots for individual gardeners to maintain themselves. Instead the entire space will be grown as a community that shares in the effort to care for and maintain the garden space. Should the number of gardener applicants exceed 10 families, applicants will be directed to other community gardens in the area.

SCI:Fayetteville will provide a Master Planting Plan that specifies what should be planted where and will also provide a schedule of working hours when a representative will be stationed at the garden to assist participants in planting. This plan is not intended to be a restriction on plantings, but is more used to organize the space to achieve maximum production and ensure proper crop rotation for next year.

SNAP gardeners that want to use their SNAP benefits to purchase plants and seeds to grow in the garden can bring their purchases to the garden during the scheduled work hours and will be assisted with planting. Any individually purchased plantings will be tagged with the individual participants name and reserved for their harvest only. The remaining garden space will be planted with seeds and plants donated by SCI:Fayetteville, the harvest of which will be shared amongst all SNAP participants active in the garden during harvest time.

One-quarter of the SCI:Fayetteville community plot will be reserved for the Chef and staff at the Fayetteville Senior Center to plant and use for meals they serve. The Chef at the Senior Center has also volunteered to lead healthy cooking classes structured around the actual vegetables being harvested in the garden at the Senior Center commercial kitchen.

There have also been two community volunteers step forward to film the growth of the SNAP Garden. They are currently exploring the idea of documenting a SNAP families experience in learning to grow their own food and tracking their food from seed to table.

The SNAP Garden movement is an exciting emerging story that aligns closely with the sustainability goals SCI for south Fayetteville. Establishing a community garden is one way to leave a lasting mark on the Walker Park Neighborhood that will persist long after the SCI:Fayetteville program has concluded. Growing food is a proven way to provide food security and empowerment, especially in this time of economic stress where nothing seems to be guaranteed.

For more information about SNAP Gardens and the Fayetteville Community SNAP Garden please visit www.snapgardens.org and www.snapgardens.org/fayetteville.

Contributed by Dustin Langford

Low Impact Development - Fayetteville Drainage Criteria Manual

dlangford@southface.org (dlangford) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:38:42 +0000

The City of Fayetteville’s Engineering Division staff provides technical review and support for all development within the City including reviews for compliance with the City’s storm water runoff standards through use of the City’s Drainage Criteria Manual. The current Drainage Criteria Manual was developed in January 1995 and revised in 1998. Since then its concepts and design procedures have become out of date and are not compatible with Low Impact Development principals.

The Fayetteville selected FTN Associates and their project team which includes AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., the Low Impact Design Center, Inc., and EB LandWorks to develop a complete revision of Fayetteville’s Drainage Criteria Manual.

Currently the project team is focusing on the chapter dedicated to Low Impact Development (LID). Practices covered in the chapter include using site planning to conserve natural features and resources, minimizing soil compaction, managing stormwater close to the source, and reducing and disconnecting impervious surfaces.

A method is provided to calculate the decreased stormwater volume expected from LID practices. This decrease in runoff volume can be equated to a reduction in stormwater pollution. The runoff reduction achieved can also be translated into a potential decreased volume of storage necessary to meet flood storage requirements.

Methods to reduce runoff volume are presented as Green Stormwater Practices (GSPs) and are included in an extensive appendices providing guidance to property owners and designers for the design, installation, and maintenance of GSPs. Selection criteria is provided for the effectiveness of GSPs in meeting stormwater management objectives (ex. Bioretention can be effective for volume reduction) and land use suitability (ex. Green Roofs are suited for schools and commercial uses but not generally single family residential). These practices may be used with new development or re-development projects and are typically used in combination with traditional stormwater management techniques to develop a comprehensive stormwater management plan.

City staff and stakeholders have reviewed and made comments to the LID Chapter. The project team will produce the revised draft of the LID Chapter in mid April. The LID Chapter will be piloted through the project the Houses at Willow Bend’s drainage design. The entire manual is scheduled for completion by fall of this year.

Contributed by Sarah Wrede, City of Fayetteville Stormwater Engineer & Floodplain Administrator.

Sustainable Cities Institute Team Summit in Atlanta

dlangford@southface.org (dlangford) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:36:25 +0000

The first year of the Sustainable Cities Institute initiative in Fayetteville has been a ringing success and each of the cities represented within the initial award came together for some great brainstorming and to mark the end of the first year of the Home Depot Foundation’s Sustainable Cities Pilot program. Teams from across the nation have been working hard on their program initiatives, but haven’t had an opportunity to assemble as a collective group and learn about parallel efforts in partner cities. For this reason, city teams were invited to attend an all-team summit at Southface headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

This gathering was an opportunity to bring the city teams together and let each: tell their story on how they developed their initiatives, report on progress made in achieving program goals and share lessons learned over the course 2011. It was also nice nice to finally put some names with some faces and further develop professional relationships with sustainability leaders across the nation.

Pilot City finalists Salt Lake City, Utah and Ann Arbor, Michigan and Pilot City winners Charleston, South Carolina and Fayetteville, Arkansas convened with national partners from Southface, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, JP Consulting and the SCI Advisory Board for an all-day intensive conference on January 31st preceded by a meet-and-greet dinner the night before.

The ultimate goal for the City Program is to institutionalize sustainable infrastructure, but cities have different needs and with that, different methods for achieving this goal. During the conference each team presented an overview of their work during the first year of the Home Depot Foundation grant funding, followed by a Q&A session.

Cities Fayetteville and Ann Arbor presented broader project initiatives focused on land use policy and initiatives, while cities Salt Lake and Charleston presented projects whose efforts were focused on rehabilitation and revitalization on the ground level. It was interesting to see how many similarities there are between the programs - for example, it was discovered that both Fayetteville and Charleston effectively utilize Energy Corps/Americorps programs in their city initiatives, which is a great lesson for other cities that are looking for ways to get things done for their sustainability goals while simultaneously creating and promoting green economy jobs. Check out www.energycorps.org for more information on this great program.

One big take away from the presentations and Q&A sessions was that each city saw success in institutionalizing sustainability goals by engaging the community. Community engagement efforts were targeted at creating community buy-in, which in several cases lead to the unexpected formation of community partnerships that helped to garner additional support and solidify sustainability initiatives.

For example, Ann Arbor is a city with 26 different city plans and 226 correlating goals, resolutions, ordinances and policies, but the City lacks a unified vision of sustainability or a department to encapsulate and implement their plans. By taking the time to survey city staff and present a list of the 226 goals to city commissioners, they were able to hold a joint commission meeting that aided in reorganizing the 26 city plans into four planning categories. By engaging city staff and independent commissions in the process of developing these categories, Ann Arbor was able to create buy-in to the reorganization process, which helped streamline the approval process and garner support for using the new categories to form public community forums.

The all-team summit was a very engaging endeavor that was so beneficial for education and networking it left us all wanting more. Towards the end of the day there were already talks of scheduling another all team summit towards the end of 2012 to reconvene as a national group of sustainably oriented cities.

This summit highlighted the importance of social equity in achieving sustainability goals. We recognize that it is only through the support of our partnerships and social networks that we were able to accomplish any of our goals in 2011. We appreciate the opportunity that Southface provided in hosting the all-team summit and look forward to utilizing the connections we made during the conference to aid in achieving our goals for 2012.

Written by Dustin Langford & Melissa Terry

SCI:Fayetteville Team Joins the 2012 Southern Sustainable Agriculture Conference

dlangford@southface.org (dlangford) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:26:27 +0000

Approximately 1300 people came from all over the southern states to attend the annual Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (SSAWG) Conference with over 50 urban agriculture enthusiasts from NW Arkansas making the trip. Around 25% of all attendees hailed from the state of Arkansas, increasing visibility and recognition to the natural state’s agricultural infrastructure and network of sustainable growers.

This year we were lucky enough to have SSAWG hold their annual conference in Little Rock, Arkansas - just a few short hours drive south from Fayetteville. The conference was held January 20th and 21st at the Peabody Hotel with preconference activities taking place on the 18th and 19th.

“Southern SAWG’s mission is to empower and inspire farmers, individuals, and communities in the South to create an agricultural system that is ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just, and humane. Because sustainable solutions depend on the involvement of the entire community, Southern SAWG is committed to including all persons in the South without bias.” (Source: www.ssawg.org)

Attendees were offered a diverse grouping of pre-conference field trips, intensive mini-courses, general conference practical sessions and various opportunities to network amongst peers. With so many options for learning and networking provided at the conference, it was often hard to decide what to attend.

Field trips were taken to tour local farms, ranches and gardens like the Heifer Vegetable CSA and Dunbar Middle School Garden. Mini-courses covered a diverse range of topics from bee keeping to vermiculture to farm finance. The practical sessions supplied attendees with information on “organic and sustainable production and marketing information for commercial horticultural and livestock producers, enterprise management lessons, farm policy education and community food systems development information.”

The overarching theme for the conference was the priority of sustainable urban agriculture in developing healthy and secure community food systems. Keynote speaker, Will Allen, supported urban agriculture during a session where he spoke to a packed house about creating and developing Growing Power, “a national nonprofit organization and land trust supporting people from diverse backgrounds, and the environments in which they live, by helping to provide equal access to healthy, high-quality, safe and affordable food for people in all communities. This mission is implemented by providing hands-on training, on-the-ground demonstration, outreach and technical assistance through the development of Community Food Systems that help people grow, process, market and distribute food in a sustainable manner.” (Source: growingpower.org)

Growing Power has several urban farms in neighborhoods in Milwaukee and Chicago as well as other farms in rural settings where it’s more appropriate to raise livestock. Growing Power employes over 100 people and offers 60 internships through their various farm efforts. Mr. Allen shared that in 2012 Growing Power will be hiring an additional 150 people, more than doubling their current workforce, which is an amazing feat made possible by Mr. Allen’s dedication to paying workers and not bank loans for tractors and farm machinery.

Another highlight of the conference was learning about Arkansas’ participation in the national Food Corps program through the Delta Garden Study (DGS), which measures the impact of school gardens on childhood obesity, school bonding, and academic achievement in middle school children in Arkansas. Food Corps service members are currently positioned at rural schools in the eastern half of Arkansas to help develop school gardens, implement the DGS educational curriculum, and conduct outreach to local communities. While the program is currently restricted to the eastern delta region of Arkansas, discussions are taking place to bring the program to NW Arkansas and Fayetteville!

The SSAWG annual conference was a highly successful event that not only provided an inspiring and educational experience, but also served as a rallying point for sustainable agriculture supporters in NWA to unite around common passions, interests and projects occurring in our region. SSAWG attendees from NWA were motivated to reconvene after the conference for a round table debrief to make introductions and begin discussions about current sustainable agriculture programs and initiatives occurring in the region, of which there are many.

Cultivating a local food system is an exciting emerging story for Fayetteville with all the potential in the world to assist our community in becoming more sustainable. We are excited to see what the future holds, and how SCI:Fayetteville can be involved in the process of working with organizational partners like Feed Fayetteville to re-establish a local, secure and sustainable food network in our community.

Written by Dustin Langford & Melissa Terry

Cottage Housing Development as a Tool for Affordable Housing

dlangford@southface.org (dlangford) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:36:55 +0000

Cottage Housing Developments are gaining popularity across the U.S. as an effective tool in promoting urban infill within existing neighborhoods.

This trend is sparked by an increasing demand for small and affordable single-family housing stock by an expanding and diverse demographic. Defined by their smaller than average square footage, Cottage Housing is a development model where higher density, single-family homes are designed in a cluster format and oriented toward a central common open space rather than streets.

Coordinated design plans and smaller unit sizes allow Cottage Housing Developments to achieve densities that are higher than typical single-family neighborhoods. These densities are similar to that of attached row housing, but have less impact on connected residential areas due to their smaller building footprints.

Cottage Housing Developments strive to maintain visual and pedestrian relationships with their surroundings by blending into existing neighborhood form and scale and by orienting homes so that windows, doors and porches face human activity on the common green. This orientation also promotes community interaction and safety.

Although the average U.S. household size is decreasing, single-family housing still remains the preferred housing type. Cottage Housing Developments offer an alternative housing opportunity that responds to changing household demographics, lifestyles and housing needs.

Cottage Housing provides an affordable, single-family housing environment by maintaining detached units with small private yard space combined with reduced cost and maintenance attributes of attached housing.

The City of Fayetteville formally adopted a Cottage Housing Ordinance at their December 6, 2011 City Council meeting. The passage of this ordinance was a proposed action item in the City Plan 2030 update, which was adopted by the City Council in 2011. Specifically, the Cottage Housing Ordinance addresses the following City Plan 2030 goals:

Goal 1 - We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities.

Goal 2 - We will discourage suburban sprawl.

Goal 6 - We will create attainable housing.

Additionally, by allowing the creation of housing lots that are not required to have street frontage, the City is offering a powerful incentive for infill development so long as proposed Cottage Housing Development (CHD) projects meet strict design requirements. The following is a list of the important standards and regulations:

CHD’s are permitted as a use by right in multi-family zoning districts and as conditional use in all single-family zoning districts.
Review process dependent on the size and scale of the project – small projects processed as Site Improvement Plans – large projects < 1 acre processed as LSD.
Minimum of 4 Cottage Housing units and a maximum of 12 cottage housing units in a CHD.
Minimum separation of 1,000 linear feet between CHD’s located in the same neighborhood.
CHD in Multi-family zoning districts limited to the density of the underlying zoning district – CHD’s in single family zoning districts restricted to no more than two times the underlying density allowed.
There are no regulations in regard to Lot Width Minimum, Lot Area Minimum and Land Area per Dwelling Unit and the property may be set up by either a condominium or fee simple ownership regime.
Building setbacks are set by the underlying zoning district – with the exception that separation requirements in-between structures are a minimum of 10 feet.
Cottages limited to a maximum of 1,100 sq. ft.
Cottages shall be oriented towards the street or around a common open space.
A minimum of 300 sq. ft. of common open space and 250 sq. ft. of private open space is required for each cottage.
Adequate and appropriate parking shall be provided for each cottage.
Fire Department access is required for all structures – Sprinkler systems are required for cottages located 150 ft. or greater form the designated Fire Dept. access area.
All CHD’s are required to obtain a drainage permit and perform any drainage study’s or detention requirements according to UDC Ch. 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control.
Solid Waste service should primarily be residential in nature (trash carts and recycling bins), exceptions may be allowed for CHD’s located in primarily commercial areas of the City.
Architectural standards apply to all structures within a CHD in order to ensure quality design and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

The adoption of the Cottage Housing Ordinance is a major step forward for the City of Fayetteville in achieving its City Plan 2030 goals. This ordinance is also beneficial to our SCI:Fayetteville affordable housing project, Houses at Willow Bend, as it allows Cottage Housing units to be incorporated into the Master Plan. Utilizing Cottage Housing in the design of Willow Bend allows the development to achieve a higher density of units and a greater diversity of housing types for target residents to choose from.

Willow Bend is currently in Phase II of its schedule, which includes the production of the site Master Plan and a presentation to the neighbors in the Walker Park Neighborhood.

Community by Design (CBD), Willow Bend’s design consultant, has been working steadily on the site design with much to show for their efforts. Three conceptual site plans have been produced for the Willow Bend site. By weighing the opportunities and constraints of each plan, CBD has been able to merge the best ideas into a fourth and final concept plan, which will be the working foundation for the Master Plan. These conceptual plans can be viewed on the SCI:Fayetteville public Wiki site here.

The passage of the Cottage Housing Ordinance is one of three progressive planning policies that have been passed by the Fayetteville City Council in current Fayetteville Mayor, Lioneld Jordan’s term. The other two ordinances (Low Impact Development and Stream Side Protection) are also pivotal in the evolution of sustainable community development in Fayetteville.

Written by Dustin Langford, Leif Olson & Melissa Terry

Image source: http://pocket-neighborhoods.net

LID Technical Manual Kick-Off Meeting

dlangford@southface.org (dlangford) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:39:24 +0000

On October 24th the City of Fayetteville Engineering Division and FTN Associates held a kick-off meeting to begin work on the new Low Impact Development (LID) section of the City’s Drainage Criteria Manual.

The meeting took the format of an input session where stakeholders were invited to give feedback on what they saw as key concerns with the current Drainage Manual and their desires for the new manual.

Twenty people were present including City staff, FTN project team representatives and several local contractors, developers and designers. The meeting was informal by nature with City staff leading an open discussion amongst peers and taking detailed notes on the key points of discussion to be referenced by the City and FTN as they begin their work on developing the new Drainage Manual.

The discussion proved to be very productive and covered several topics. A few highlights are listed below. Please be advised that these are the concerns/desires expressed by the stakeholders who attended the meeting and don’t necessarily reflect the final content of the manual.

Planning

The City’s 2030 plan encourages infill and discourages sprawl. The new Manual should be consistent with encouraging infill and discouraging sprawl.
The Manual should encourage a transect-based approach to design.

Site Planning

Developers should get credit for not stripping a site of vegetation and topsoil.
The new Manual should count trees towards stormwater mitigation and account for newly planted trees maturing over time.

LID Elements

The Manual needs to encourage disconnected impervious areas as a good design tool to maximize sheet flow over pervious areas and ground infiltration.
The Manual could recommend a specific ratio for amended soils and how to prevent compacting amended soils during construction.
Simple details that are easy to use and are more likely to be cost effective would be beneficial.
The cost of implementing LID design components compared to standard stormwater management is a major concern.

Constrained Sites

Flexibility or an altogether different set of criteria is needed for smaller infill sites that have easement or right-of-way constraints.

Construction

The higher level of construction observation required for LID components increases short-term costs.
Who will be overseeing and certifying the LID components during and after construction?
Enforcement at construction sites, by the City, could help ensure that LID systems are installed correctly.

Administrative Process

The Manual should be clear on the process for variances and administratively approved changes.
Providing more flexibility in the new manual than the current manual will ensure that the best solution can be reached.

All of the issues/concerns/desires addressed by the stakeholders at this initial meeting should prove beneficial for the City and FTN as they move forward in their effort to produce a new Drainage Criteria Manual, one that’s rooted in lessons learned from past experience and that plans for the future.

As part of the ongoing process in developing the new Drainage Criteria Manual, the City and FTN will be distributing draft copies to the stakeholders present at the first meeting (and any others, upon request) via email to get feedback on its effectiveness.

Our partners in leadership with The Houses at Willow Bend have been designing to be a demonstration site for the LID section of the new Manual since the beginning of the SCI: Fayetteville Pilot City Program. To assist PfBH and CBD in their effort to incorporate LID into the Willow Bend site design, the City and FTN have committed to produce a draft of the LID chapter first.

We look forward to seeing this first draft on December 19th and the feedback it generates from the stakeholders about how the LID protocol will be demonstrated within the Willow Bend Site Plan. The new Drainage Manual and LID chapter have been in the works for some time now and it’s exciting time to be in Fayetteville as we see final products starting to come to fruition.

Written by Dustin Langford & Melissa Terry

3rd Party Certification for Affordability, Energy Efficiency and LID

dlangford@southface.org (dlangford) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:28:34 +0000

The word replicable means to possess the ability to be duplicated, copied, reproduced or repeated. As a SCI Pilot City, Fayetteville is dedicated to ensuring that all of our projects are not only sustainable, but also replicable for those who come after us.

One way to achieve our replicability goal for the Houses at Willow Bend is to pursue a green development certification from a third party verification program. These programs establish criteria that all projects applying for certification must meet. Administering standard criteria that can be applied to multiple and varying projects promotes replicability.

It is the opinion of our Fayetteville Advisory Board that attaining a third party verification certificate is a confirmed method for producing a replicable project as well as publicly demonstrating that sustainability goals for Willow Bend have been accomplished.

Three target areas we are focused on achieving and providing replicable models are:

Perpetual Affordability for multiple generations of homeowners;
Energy Efficiency of the homes so that they are not only for sale at an attainable price point but are also affordable residences in which to dwell;
Low-Impact Development is only a concept until it’s applied…the Houses at Willow Bend is a perfect test case for the City of Fayetteville’s recentlyapproved Low-Impact Development ordinance.

In order to determine the best fit for Willow Bend, a thorough analysis of potential verification programs was conducted by a Partners for Better Housing board member (Laura Chioldi) and our SCI Project Assistant (Dustin Langford).

Laura and Dustin were asked to look at four potential programs and analyze them based on their merits and drawbacks and make a recommendation to the PfBH Development Committee on which certification was most suitable for the Willow Bend Project to pursue.

The four programs analyzed were:

Below are brief summaries of the analysis of each verification program. These summaries are the opinions of the two volunteer analysts and apply solely to their application to the Willow Bend site. These summaries are excerpts from a more complete analysis document that can be found here.

LEED ND

LEED ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development) is probably the most well-known and well-utilized program. It was co-developed by the US Green Building Council, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Congress for New Urbanism and has been used as a foundation for several other sustainable rating systems including the other programs analyzed here.

The program is based on a point system divided into three main categories: Smart Location and Linkage, Neighborhood Pattern & Design, and Green Infrastructure & Buildings. There are four levels of certification, based on points earned.

LEED ND takes a broad approach to neighborhood development with a strong focus on transportation and regional connectivity. This emphasis on Smart Growth aligns well for infill development in dense urban areas, but doesn’t align well for the Willow Bend project, as it would probably not be able to achieve all of the prerequisite points for smart location, compact development, mixed use and walkable streets due to site constraints.

LEED ND can also be quite costly and time consuming as it requires a significant amount of paper work that can demand using an outside consultant to complete. This isn’t advantageous for PfBH, a non-profit developer run by volunteers.

NAHB Land Development

This program is heavily based on the foundation of LEED ND, but is designed for projects that can occur in a variety of locations – urban to rural, flat to rolling terrain – as well as a variety of housing types and markets. This aligns better with the Willow Bend scope of work as it consists of only single-family detached housing, no mixed use, as per the surrounding neighbors request.

The program criteria include categories for site planning that respects local landscape and topography with allowances for street patterns that minimize grading, excavation and disrupting steep slopes. This aligns well with Willow Bend’s vision and goals and accommodates for many of the site constraints as well.

Overall this certification was a better fit for Willow Bend than LEED ND with the biggest disadvantage coming from the additional cost attaining the certification entails.

EarthCraft Communities

The EarthCraft certification program is intended to “assist land developers and local government agencies to create sustainable, market-rate and affordable housing communities.” The criteria focus on low impact development, walkable design & community connectivity, transit-ready density, storm water management, and access to open space.

These criteria align well with the vision and goals of Willow Bend and allow for projects to follow an urban grid design or a conservation cluster design. This system does not incorporate differing levels of certification; a development is either certified or not. This simplified format was attractive to PfBH as it would require less paperwork while eliminating some of the confusion multitier systems can create.

PfBH was impressed with EarthCraft’s commitment to Community Engagement, dedicating an entire point category to the topic, as well as the amount of administrative assistance provided by means of regular site visits, facilitating charrettes and trainings for residents, property managers, builders & realtors.

EarthCraft was seen as a nice fit for the Willow Bend project with few drawbacks. Had it not been for the last program analyzed, EarthCraft would have been the most appropriate choice.

Enterprise Green Communities

The Enterprise Foundation has over 25 years of experience with green homes and affordable communities. Their Green Communities site verification program has been around since 2004 and like the other programs researched by PfBH, has strong roots in LEED ND.

The Green Communities criteria focus on using environmentally sustainable materials, reduction of negative environmental impacts, increased energy efficiency, designs and materials that safeguard residents health, and smart locations providing access to services and public transportation. All criteria align well with the Willow Bend scope of work, vision and goals.

The biggest difference between Enterprise and the other programs is that Enterprise is restricted to affordable housing projects only. In order to be accepted into the program, 80% of the project’s total housing must meet Enterprise’s definition of affordable housing, which is consistent with Willow Bend’s own definition of affordable housing.

Once accepted into the program, the Enterprise Foundation covers all certification fees, which is a great benefit for PfBH. The certification process is a simple two-step process. The first step is to fill out an on-line application that can be completed without outside consultation prior to construction. The second step is a site visit to verify the project after construction.

Furthermore, Enterprise does not have multiple levels of certification. Like EarthCraft, projects are either certified or not, which presumably makes the system simpler and easier to navigate.

This ease of application is very appealing since it doesn’t require any additional fees or consulting services that could prove prohibitive to a non-profit run by volunteers, like PfBH. Though the waiver of certification fees is a big advantage of Enterprise, PfBH feel like the program is the best fit for Willow Bend regardless of the cost.

While Willow Bend as a green infill site meets many of the criteria for smart location mandated by the other programs reviewed, it does have some unchangeable site restrictions that prevent it from achieving the full level required by systems like LEED ND.

Enterprise Green Communities criteria focuses more on the project site rather than the broader regional issues and connectivity consistent with some of the other programs. These topics are in no way ignored by Enterprise; simply, the system takes into account varying project site locations.

What’s Next?

The analysis of the four third party certification options and the resulting recommendation to pursue Enterprise was presented in full to the PfBH Development Committee, who gave their support to bring it before the full PfBH Board. The Board voted to pass a resolution in full support of pursuing an Enterprise Certification and asked Dustin and Laura to continue volunteering their time to further evaluate the Enterprise Criteria and begin the online application form, to which they both agreed.

PfBH has asked their project contractor, Community by Design, to evaluate the Enterprise Criteria to determine if there is any additional work created through the application process not specified in PfBH/CBD contract. With SCI project staff and P4BH board members willing to do most of the work involved in applying for the certification, hopefully this will not be a concern and not an add cost.

As far as moving forward on pursuing Enterprise Certification, the first step in the process is to call a project team meeting consisting of the client, contractors, designers and engineers to establish a plan demonstrating how the team will achieve certification.

We look forward to the kick off of this meeting and are eager to utilize the structure a third party verification program provides in planning and constructing our affordable housing project.