Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-0915 Study Session PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Monday, September 15, 2014 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 5: 30 p.m. Study Session 1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum) 2. Look Ahead review 3. Discussion of a Resolution in support of fossil fuel divestment 4. Community Sustainability Framework proposal from the Conservation Commission In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014, CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US City of Ashland Cou #-jl Meeting Look Ahead *****THIS IS A DRAFT A °UBJECT TO CHANGE***** Departments Responsible , 10/21 11/3 1114 11/17 11/18 1211 1212 12115 12116 1/5 1/6 WWWWO 1211& r Courwill Meets 41116 16 Annual presentation b the Planning Commission Bill CD PRES 17 Annual appointment of Budget Committee and Audit Committee Recorder NEW members (Barbara) lam- Y 1rs Regular Council Meeting Commission Presentation Dates - 2014 February 18 - Transportation Commission March 18 - Tree Commission April 15 - Historic Commission May 20 - FireWise Commission June 3 - Band Board Jul 15 - Forest Lands Commission August 19 - Conservation Commission September 16 - Airport Commission October 21 - Public Arts Commission November 18 - Housing and Human Services Commission December 16 - Planning Commission Resolution declaring fountain surplus property Page 2 of 2 9/10/2014 City of Ashland CounlAeeting Look Ahead *****THIS IS A DRAFT AN[, )BJECT TO CHANGE***** Departments Responsible 0, 0. 10/7 10120 10/21 11/3 1114 11117 11/18 1211 12/2 12115 12/16 its 116 I' N4 $f3 w 3,111 , Continuation of strate is ~lanninq session SS AFN business plan Mark! ElectiicIT 10/7 Regular Council Meeting 101 3 Continued discussion of Unified Land Use Ordinance update (Bill) Planning UNFIN ORD-2 ORD-1 4 Ordinance reaardinq film & video olicv (Ann) Admin ORD-2 Discussion rcgardino Bee City. USA ✓rcpos-~l iDa,-- K i Ad1111n Discussion r~gardinq self insurance Tin,- a K HR Admin 10,121 Regular Council Meeting 10121 7 Annual presentation from the Public Art Commission Ann Admin PRES 8 Presentation on drought 2014 Mike Pw PRES 9 Su lemental Budget Lee Finance NEW 10 Recycle Center ad hoc Committee recommendations to Council Admin NEW (Adam) 1113 w. 11 Communications audit Ann Admin SS 12 Discussion of Black Swan Dave Admin SS 1114 Regular Council Meetf 11x4 1' CAFh (Heel Finance N~!^; 11117, tltl RQ 11117 'la Discussion of .vorkforce ✓roposal iAdaml Admin - 11/18 Councit Meeting 11118 Annual presentation by Housing and Human Ser;ices CD i~ Commission ~6ill I -'F E 1211 t~1. 1211 12/2 Regular Council Meeting 12/2 Page 1 of 2 9/10/2014 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication September 15, 2014, Study Session Discussion of a Resolution in Support of Fossil Fuel Divestment FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) is asking the Council to support their effort by approving a resolution in support of Fossil Fuel Divestment. The Oregon Short Term Board (OSTB) and the PERS Board both invest in companies identified as having the largest coal, oil and gas reserves found at the Fossil Free Indexes (http://fossilfreeindexes.com/). SOCAN would like to see these two boards "divest" from investing any funds in these identified companies. SOCAN would like the Council to move this resolution forward to a regular Council meeting for approval. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This item was brought forward during Public Forum of the June 17 Council meeting by individuals representing Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) and subsequently discussed at a study session on August 4. SOCAN representatives have worked closely with the City Recorder's Office in finding language that the council would support. This resolution would not make any changes to the City of Ashland Investment Policy as the City does not directly invest in any of these identified companies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION n/a ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Question/Answer sheet submitted by SOCAN Page 1 of 1 IMAM RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF FOSSIL FUEL DIVESTMENT RECITALS: A. The climate crisis is a serious threat to current and future generations here in Ashland and around the world. B. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report found that global warming is already causing costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the world. C. One hundred and fourteen (114) governments in the world have signed the International 2009 Copenhagen Agreement that any warming above a 2°C (3.6°F) rise would be unsafe. Furthermore, scientific analysis suggest that humans can only emit about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to maintain that limit. D. For the purposes of this resolution, a "fossil fuel company" shall be defined as any of the two hundred publicly-traded companies with the largest coal, oil and gas reserves found at the Fossil Free Indexes (http://fossilfreeindexes.com~. E. In its "Unburnable Carbon" report, the Carbon Tracker Initiative found that fossil fuel companies possess proven fossil fuel reserves that would release approximately 2,795 gigatons of C02 if they are burned, which is five times the amount that can be released without exceeding 2°C of warming. F. The City of Ashland believes that its investments should support a future where all citizens can live healthy lives without the negative impacts of climate change. G. The City of Ashland does not now directly invest in any fossil fuel companies. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Oregon Short Term Fund Board should review and consider divestment of directly held or commingled assets that include holdings in fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds. SECTION 2. The PERS Board and the Oregon Investment Council should review and consider divestment of directly held or commingled assets that include holdings in fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds. SECTION 3. The City shall send a copy of this Resolution, along with a cover letter signed by the Mayor, to the Oregon Short Term Fund Board and PERS Board urging them to review and consider their position on divesting their holdings from fossil fuel companies. SECTION 4. The State Legislature should consider enacting state legislation that requires consideration of divestment of statewide retirement funds (PERS) from fossil fuel companies and such investments in the future. The City shall send this resolution and a letter of support for consideration of future divestment legislation to elected state officials. Pagel of 2 SECTION 5. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2014, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2014: John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 Ashland City Council Study Session September 15, 2014 Responses to Questions Posed at August 4 Study Session Prepared by the Divestment from Fossil Fuels Project Team Southern Oregon Climate Action Now Background and update on the Unburnable Carbon Report The "Unburnable Carbon" report was completed in 2012 by The Carbon Tracker Initiative. The Carbon Tracker Initiative is a non-profit financial think tank working to enable a climate secure global energy market by aligning capital markets actions with climate reality. Unburnable Carbon refers to fossil fuel energy sources which cannot be burned if the world is to adhere to a given carbon budget. Although the original list was assembled by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, to reflect the rapidly changing nature of this field, the top 200 list was revised in April, 2014 by Fossil Free Indexes and is now called the "Carbon Underground 200." Fossil Free Indexes (FFI) was formed to provide benchmarks and strategies for ethical investing with an initial focus on broad market indexes ex-fossil fuels defined exactly in line with the divestment movement. Embracing the transition to a low carbon economy through responsible investing, and inspired by the growing fossil fuel divestment movement, FFI's aim is to fill the vacuum for index investors who see environmental sustainability as an imperative and seek to divest from the largest fossil fuel companies. 1. Who decides what companies are on the list? The Carbon Underground 200TM identifies the 100 largest public coal companies, and the 100 largest public oil and gas companies, based on estimates of the potential CO2 emissions of their reported reserves as of November 2013. The trends evidenced in this report demonstrate that reserve growth continues to be the norm for both the oil and gas and the coal sectors as a whole. The 546 Gt CO2 emissions potential estimated to be embedded in the reported reserves of the 200 firms - The Carbon Underground 200TM - represents over 400% of the firms' carbon budget allocation, based on their share of carbon emissions potential of global reserves. This report estimates an updated carbon budget based on the only IPCC climate scenario with a future less than 2° C above preindustrial levels with >66% probability. These estimates broadly confirm growing research on the exposure of public fossil fuel companies, especially those in the coal sector, to potential constraints and revaluation based on stranded assets. 2. Sustainable companies? Sustainable communities? What is meant by these terms? No longer part of the Resolution. 3. "Commingled funds" are identified. How many times removed to still be a target? A comingled fund is one consisting of assets from several accounts that are blended together. If a fund invests in one of the fossil fuel companies that has been identified, the resolution asks it no longer be held. 4. What are the financial implications of these changes in investments? Would like financial analysis. How does it affect us in the long term and short term? The Boards of the Oregon Short Term Fund and PERS have a strict policy that must be followed. For example, the Investment Manual for the Oregon Short Term Fund Board identifies the primary objectives of investment activities, in priority order, to be preservation of principal, liquidity, and yield. (Source: http•//www oregon.gov/treasury/Divisions/Investment/Audio/Oregon%20Short%20Term%2 OFund%20and%20Policy%20Rules.pdf). This suggests that the Board is required to assure that preservation of principal and yield are considered in their decisions. 5. Would like to see reports that are basis of Recitals at beginning of Resolution IPCC 5th Assessment Report Working Group Il. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc- wn2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5 SPM FINAL.pdf 2009 Copenhagen Agreement. http•//unfccc int/files/meetin sg /cop 15/application/pdf/copl5 cph auv pdf Scientific analyses that suggest that humans can only emit about 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This concept was publicized by Bill McKibben in "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math" in Rolling Stone Magazine on July 19, 2012 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmin sg terrifying-new-math- 20120719). The original research paper from which the 565 gigaton allowance was established for CO2 emissions is by Meinshausen and others, titled "Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 degrees C" published in Nature in 2009). Carbon Underground 200TM. http://fossilfreeindexes.com/the-carbon-underground-2014/ Unburnable Carbon Report. http://www.Ise.ac.uk/Granthaminstitute/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/PB-unburnable-carbon-2013-wasted-capital-stranded-assets.pdf 6. What has Eugene done? What is the wording of their resolution? Passed a resolution on July 16, 2014. Barbara has the resolution. 7. Where does this fit with the Governor's office and his proposals? The governor is focused on moving the State away from investments in fossil fuels. His ten year energy action plan lays out the direction for moving the State off fossil fuels. http://www.oregon.~ov/energy/pages/ten year/ten year energy plan.aspx 8. What are other groups doing (non-profits, universities, cities)? See list of those who have made a Divestment Commitment below. Additional questions from Greg Lemhouse (August 13, 2014) 1. The Copenhagen Accord was in 2009, which is five years ago. Can you provide an update? The Copenhagen Agreement presents the views of the delegates representing 114 nations at the 15th session of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They agreed that any warming above a 2°C (3.6°F) rise would be unsafe. This position was endorsed by The World Bank in its report "Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C increase must be avoided" (2013). http•//documents worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/06/17862361/turn-down-heat-climate- extremes-regional-impacts-case-resilience-fall-report. Additionally, this target was incorporated into the 2013-2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook Special Report: Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map (2014). http://www.iea.ore/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO Special Report 2013 R edrawing~the Energy Climate Map.pdf. 2. Define a fossil fuel company. See #1 in the first section with Council questions. 3. Fossil fuel companies are contained within mutual funds, and it is not as easy as one might think to liquidate mutual funds. It is possible that another fund would need to be selected. However, PERS is big enough that some mutual funds might be willing to set up a fossil fuel free "sleeve". For example, Blackrock is working with NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) to set up a fossil fuel free index fund. This is something that PERS would need to decide. 4. ExxonMobil is a large producer of solar panels, so if you get rid of that company (for example) are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If they make significant changes, then they would no longer be on the Carbon Underground 200TM and would thus not be on the list. However, even with this good work, ExxonMobil is responsible for a significant percentage of fossil fuel warming. 5. Address the fact that fossil fuel companies are getting huge tax subsidies which could be used by them to deal with global warming on their own. [Question not clear. If you want to clarify, we'll try to respond.] Divestment Commitments A growing number of institutions are committing to divest from fossil fuels. This page lists the commitments from colleges and universities, cities, counties, religious institutions, and other institutions. You can click on each name for more information about the type of commitment they're making. Colleges and Universities Prescott College College of the Atlantic San Francisco State University Foothill-De Anza Community College Foundation Foundation Stanford University Green Mountain College Sterling College Hampshire College Unity College Naropa University University of Dayton Peralta Community College District Pitzer College Cities Seattle, WA Provincetown, MA San Francisco, CA Providence, RI Portland, OR Cambridge, MA Eugene, OR Northampton, MA Berkeley, CA Ann Arbor, MI Richmond, CA Boxtel, the Netherlands Santa Monica, CA New London, CT Boulder, CO Amherst, MA Santa Fe, NM Sudbury, MA Madison, WI Concord, MA Bayfield, WI Framingham, MA State College, PA Dunedin, New Zealand Ithaca, NY Oakland, California Truro, MA Eugene, OR Counties San Francisco, CA Dane County, WI Religious Institutions United Church of Christ - National Quakers in Britain Massachusetts United Church of Christ Diakonia, Sweden Minnesota United Church of Christ Colorado Ratuashri Sangha Evangelical Lutheran Church of Oregon First Unitarian Church, Ottawa First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, UT Union Theological Seminary, New York First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church in City Cambridge, MA First Religious Society of Newburyport, Portsmouth South Church Unitarian First MA Unitarian Church of Pittsfield, ME Unitarian Society of Northampton & First Unitarian Society of Milwaukee, WI Florence, MA First Presbyterian Palo Alto, CA Unitarian Universalist Association Uniting Church, New South Wales & ACT, Central Philadelphia Monthly Quaker Australia Meeting, PA, USA Dover Friends Meeting, Dover, NH Lansdowne Monthly Quaker Meeting, PA, Melbourne Unitarian Church, Australia USA Unitarian Universalist Society of Amherst, Westtown Monthly Quaker Meeting, PA, MA USA Anglican Diocese of Wellington, New Lehigh Valley Monthly Quaker Meeting, Zealand PA, USA Anglican Diocese of Auckland, New Old Haverford Monthly Quaker Meeting, Zealand PA, USA Anglican Diocese of Dunedin, New Zealand Newtown Monthly Quaker Meeting, PA, Anglican Diocese of Waiapu, New Zealand USA Anglican Diocese of Waikato and Taranaki, Haverford Quarterly Quaker Meeting, PA, New Zealand USA Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand Jamaica Plain Unitarian Universalist, NY, and Polynesia USA Brighthelm Church, Brighton, UK World Council of Churches Society for Community Work Community Friends, OH, USA Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, MA Maine Council of Churches, ME Trinity St. Paul's United Church, Toronto, Canada Foundations Divest-Invest Philanthropic Group Solidago Foundation Sierra Club Foundation Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation Wallace Global Fund Granary Foundation Jubitz Family Foundation The Schmidt Family Foundation The Educational Foundation of America Ben & Jerry's Foundation Park Foundation Pax Fund The Russell Family Foundation Ross Knowles Fund Compton Foundation Madden Sainsbury Foundation KL Felicitas Foundation Earth Welfare Foundation The Chorus Foundation McKinnon Family Foundation Singing Field Foundation The Hunt Foundation Nia Community Foundation Pace Foundation The John Merck Fund Mullum Trust The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust NSRC Fund Other Institutions Conservation Breeding Specialist Group Students' Society of McGill University Santa Fe Art Institute j , New Progressive Alliance Island Institute Maine US Council of Canadians British Medical Association Santa Clara Valley Water District CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication September 16, 2014, Study Session Community Sustainability Framework Proposal From the Conservation Commission FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst SUMMARY As a continuation of an operational and sustainability planning goal from the 2011-12 City Council goals, the Conservation Commission is requesting Council adoption of the STAR (Sustainable Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities) Community Rating System as a framework to begin the process of developing a Community Sustainability Plan. The STAR rating system lays out seven major goal categories and five to seven emphasis areas within each one, all aimed at creating a "sustainable" community. The seven goal areas are: Built Environment; Climate & Energy; Education, Arts & Community; Economy & Jobs; Equity & Empowerment; Health & Safety; and Natural Systems. The Commission is also requesting Council to review and direct staff to incorporate the proposed schedule and resource commitment into the upcoming biennial budget proposal for FYI 5-17. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Conservation Commission has for some time been interested in the City increasing its efforts and focus in the area of Sustainability and has spent many years working on both individual sustainability related projects as well as the development and approval of more broad policy level sustainability initiatives to embed sustainability principles into City and community decision making. This current proposal and request is a result of the Commission's goal request for Council consideration for the 2011-12 Council goal setting process. The following goal was approved as part of the final Council goals for 2011-12, as amended by Council in May of 2012: "Develop a concise sustainability plan for the community and for City operations, beginning with development of a plan framework, suggested plan format, timeline and resource requirements for City Operations that can be used as a model for a community plan to follow " In November of 2012, Council approved the Commission's suggested Operational Sustainability Plan Framework, Plan Format and Process Outline document that staff has subsequently used as the basis for development and implementation of a formal Operational Sustainability Plan. The Commission's proposal to adopt the STAR Framework would similarly form the foundation and basis for the development and implementation for a community sustainability plan and move the Page 1 of 2 ~r, CITY OF -ASHLAND community sustainability plan goal to an active project. The Commission's proposal and background information about the STAR rating system are attached to this Council Communication. Implementation Schedule and Resources The Commission has included in their proposal three levels of implementation, each involving a set of actions/tasks and estimates of suggested levels of staff time to adequately move forward on plan development. In Commission meetings and in discussions with City staff, the Commission has recognized the potential for a variety of staffing methods that could be used to accomplish the proposed tasks and actions and utilized the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) metric as the means of conveying the overall level of activity they felt needed to be dedicated to the project over the next two to three years. Proposed FTE levels could be implemented as contract/consultant work, temporary staffing, reallocation of existing staff, creation of new staff with combined complimentary duties, etc. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Utilizing the implementation levels from the Commission proposal, staff estimates the FY2015-17 staff costs of a 0.5 FTE to be $40,000-$60,000 and FY2017-19 staff costs of a 1.0 FTE of $80,000- $120,000. Costs would be impacted by the desired speed and scope of implementation, whether the project is assigned to contract/consultant staff, whether existing staff is assigned/re-assigned or new staff is brought in. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A - For discussion between Commission and Council with staff direction and response as requested. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Conservation Commission STAR Framework Proposal Documents Conservation Commission Council Goal Setting Memo's - 2011 & 2013 Page 2 of 2 Imo, Community Sustainability Planning Conservation Commission Presentation to City Council September 15, 2014 The Opportunity • The City of Ashland has an opportunity to adopt a process that many other cities have adopted with positive results (see appendix 1). • The STAR Framework reporting system is in essence a more current and comprehensive way of assessing sustainability than the Valdez Principles which were originally adopted by City Council in May of 1990. The 10th Valdez principle requires an annual report on implementation which consisted of listing programs, initiatives and City activities that support each of the principles. • The STAR Framework principles engender good governance and best practices in support of local sustainability efforts that ask the community to consider the broader implications before embarking on specific projects, and look for ways to accomplish multiple goals rather than default to short-term, piecemeal efforts. (see appendix 2). • The Framework contains a rating system that covers approximately 44 objectives across seven-goals. Evaluation measures, consisting of community level outcomes and local actions, support the attainment of these objectives (see appendix 3). The Framework can be adapted to fit a community's identity, needs and priorities. • Ultimately, the framework will provide the City Council a method of assessing existing Council, City Administration, community, business, and education sectors sustainability outcomes and actions, and will serve to identify gaps where little or no outcomes or actions exist (see example in appendix 4). • Reporting parties would identify community level outcomes (per STAR) and/or completion of local actions that are essential to reaching those outcomes. • The reporting can be accomplished by providing easy to use electronic forms. • Supplied with this information, the Council would then have an opportunity modify or augment existing Council and City administration goals as appropriate. Additionally, this information is cumulative and can be used to demonstrate progress over time toward community sustainability outcomes. • The Conservation Commission and the City Staff compiled an initial draft list of outcomes and local actions that are already underway in support of the STAR Goals and Objectives. The Ask • Adopt the STAR Communities Sustainability Framework as a successor to the Valdez Principles • Mandate regular reporting on community and City government related efforts within the STAR framework initially, and then expand scope over time to include external entities. • Allocate adequate staff time and resources (e.g. FY 15-17 budget "add package") necessary to administer the program. Anticipated Workload and Benefits • Short-term workload: City Departments will provide content for reporting, and City Staff will coordinate the reporting process, which is foreseen to be manageable for internal City reporting. Community, business and education reporting will require City staff to coordinate and compile those reports. • Long-term workload: Dedicated staffing is anticipated as the matrix and framework become more thoroughly utilized in city and community sustainability assessment, prioritization, and decision making. This includes participation in the formal STAR reporting and certification process. • Benefits: Ashland should invest in the STAR system because: o Increase community resiliency. o It assists policy makers and citizens in defining and maintaining a healthy environment. o It helps build a strong economy. o It will improve the quality of life in our community. o It's an objective approach to problem solving. • Implementation levels: Adopting STAR is an investment into our immediate and long- term future, with a positive estimated return on investment. It is not an expense. o Level 1: Participating: assess current conditions, set goals and priorities, and share a sustainability framework across departments and with stakeholders. Estimated costs for membership is $500/yr. and .5 FTE or equivalent staff time. (Recommend Phase I begins in the 2015-2017 budget process). o Level 2: Reporting: Sustainability efforts nationally recognized through a certification program. Organized and motivated, and have been tracking sustainability metrics for some time. City Staff and citizens are on board and have a strong team of leaders and partners willing to help. Estimated costs for membership is $1,500/yr. and 1.0 FTE or equivalent Staff time. (Recommend Phase II begins 2017). o Level 3: Leadership: A structured program that will help Ashland to succeed in attaining our goals and objectives. At this level, we continue to evolve in a deeper understanding of our community's strengths and our needs to support current and future generations. We actively connect with other leaders in community sustainability, and, we are confident that sharing best practices and exchanging different approaches to the rating system with other leaders will benefit our community. Estimated costs for membership is $5,000/yr. and staff and 1.0 FTE Staff time. Recommend Phase III begins 2020). <End of main document> Appendix 1- List of participating STAR Communities Listing of STAR Communities, population and level of achievement Community State Population Level of Achievement Nederland Colorado 1,446 Reporting Community Village of Islamorada Florida 6,279 Participating Community Charles City Iowa 7,500 Reporting Community Park Forest Illinois 21,975 Reporting Community Rosemount Minnesota 22,000 Reporting Community El Cerrito California 23,549 3-STAR Community Blue Island Illinois 23,704 Participating Community Northampton Massachusetts 29,000 5-STAR Community Bay Area (Coos Bay, North Bend, Charleston), Coos County Oregon 30,000 Participating Community Grove City Ohio 40,000 Participating Community Blacksburg Virginia 42,620 Participating Community Bonita Springs Florida 46,000 Participating Community Dubuque Iowa 58,155 Reporting Community Hamilton Ohio 62,000 Participating Community Flagstaff Arizona 64,000 Participating Community Portland Maine 65,000 Reporting Community Frederick Maryland 66,879 Reporting Community Santa Fe New Mexico 68,642 Reporting Community Redlands California 69,916 Participating Community Madison County New York 73,365 Participating Community Evanston Illinois 75,000 4-STAR Community Fayetteville Arkansas 75,000 3-STAR Community Bloomington Indiana 80,000 Participating Community Victoria British Columbia 83,000 Reporting Community Reading Pennsylvania 87,893 Participating Community Santa Monica California 90,000 Reporting Community Beaverton Oregon 92,000 Participating Community Rockingham County North Carolina 93,000 Reporting Community Albany New York 97,000 3-STAR Community City of Dearborn Michigan 98,153 Participating Community Woodbridge Township New Jersey 99,585 Reporting Community Davenport Iowa 100,802 4-STAR Community Las Cruces, NM New Mexico 101,047 Participating Community Palm Bay Florida 106,714 Reporting Community City of Elgin Illinois 108,000 Participating Community Denton Texas 121,123 Reporting Community Lakewood Colorado 142,000 Participating Community Fort Collins Colorado 143,986 3-STAR Community Da on Ohio 148,000 Participating Community Chittenden County Vermont 156,545 Reporting Community Peoria County Illinois 183,000 Participating Community Tacoma Washington 196,000 4-STAR Community Boise Idaho 200,000 Participating Community Des Moines Iowa 200,000 3-STAR Community Birmingham Alabama 212,038 Participating Community Chandler Arizona 240,622 3-STAR Community City of Henderson Nevada 257,729 Participating Community Plano Texas 273,000 Reporting Community Riverside California 304,000 Reporting Community Saint Louis Missouri 318,000 Reporting Community Sarasota County Florida 383,664 Participating Community Cleveland Ohio 393,806 3-STAR Community Atlanta Georgia 420,000 3-STAR Community Omaha Nebraska 421,294 Participating Community Ralei h North Carolina 423,179 Reporting Community Tucson Arizona 580,000 4-STAR Community Portland Oregon 593,820 Reporting Community City of Las Vegas Nevada 596,424 Participating Community Vancouver British Columbia 603,500 Participating Community Seattle Washington 616,500 Reporting Community Washington District of Columbia 618,000 Reporting Community Baltimore Maryland 621,342 Reporting Community Lee County Florida 645,293 3-STAR Community Louisville Kentucky 746,900 Reporting Community Columbus Ohio 797,434 Participating Community Charlotte North Carolina 800,000 Participating Community Indianapolis Indiana 820,445 3-STAR Community Austin Texas 820,611 4-STAR Community Memphis-Shelby County Tennessee 950,000 Reporting Community Cam Alberta 1,200,000 Reporting Community Allegheny County Pennsylvania 1,229,000 Participating Community Phoenix Arizona 1,400,000 Reporting Community Orange County Florida 1,500,000 Participating Community Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,548,000 Participating Community Ville de Montreal / City of Montreal Quebec 1,650,000 Reporting Community Broward County Florida 1,748,066 4-STAR Community King County Washington 1,969,722 Reporting Community Houston Texas 2,100,000 Reporting Community Toronto Ontario 2,600,000 Reporting Community Appendix 2 - For more information, the STAR Rating System can be downloaded: htW://www.starcommunities.org./rating-Mtem./download Guiding Principles Think and act systen0cally. Sustainable communities take a systems perspective and recognize that people, nature and the economy are all affected by their actions. Local governments in these communities consider the broader implications before embarking on specific projects, and they look for ways to accomplish multiple goals rather than default to short-term, piecemeal efforts. Instill resllieney. Sustainable communities possess a strong capacity to respond to and bounce back from adversity. Local governments in these communities prepare for and help residents and institutions prepare for disruptions and respond to them swiftly, creatively and effectively. Foster Innovation. Sustainable communities capture opportunities and respond to challenges. Local governments in these communities cultivate a spirit of proactive problem solving to provide access to futures otherwise unobtainable and to enable the risk-taking inherent in innovation. Redefine progress. Sustainable communities measure progress by improvements in the health and welbeing of their people, environment and economy. Instead of focusing on GDP, local governments in these communities use a broad set of indicaton. Live within means. Sustainable communities steward natural resources so that future generations have as many opportunities available to them as vve do today.They also recognize that resources exist for the benefit of life forms other than humans. Loa governments in these communities assess resources, track impacts, and take corrective action when needed so that they meet the needs of today without depleting what they leave for futu re generations. Cultivate eollaboratlom Sustainable communities engage all facets of society in working together for the benefit of the whole. Local governments in these communities bring government representatives, community members and organizations together and create a culture of cdilaboration that encourages innovation, sharing of resources, and Ontly shared accountability for results. Ensure etµdtty. Sustainable communities allocate resources and opportunities fairly so that all people who do the full range of jobs that a community needs can thrive in it. Local governments in these communities actively eliminate barren to full participation in community life and work to correct past injustices. Embrace diversity. Sustainable communities feature a tapestry of peoples, cultures and economies underpinned by a richly functioning natural environment. Local governments in these communities celebrate and foster ethnic, cul- tural, economic and biological diversity and encourage multiple approaches to accomplish a goal. Inspire leadership. Sustainable communities provide leadership through action and results. Local governments in these communities recognize their opportunity to effect change by backing visionary policies with practices that serve as an example for citizens and businesses to emulate. Continuously Improve. Sustainable communities engage in continuous discovery, rediscovery and invention as they learn more about the impacts of their actions. Local governments in these communities track both performance and outcomes, are alert for unintended consequences, and modify strategies based on observed results. *STAR Community Rating System - October 2012 - Introduction a The STAR Community Rating System Framework While many sustainability frameworks focus exclusivdy on environmental performance, the STAR Community Rating System advances community priorities across the three pillars of susuinability. economy, environment and society By integrating strate4es across multiple goals, greater benefits are delivered for the resources invested.The rating system is organized around the following seven goal areas: Built Environment: Achieve limbs' choice, and access for all where people live, work and ploy Reduce climate impacts throro adaptation and mitgoton efforts and increase resource efficiency Education, Arts & Community: Empower vibmrt educated, connecte4 and dnerse communities Economy & Jobs: Create equitably shared prosperity and access to quafay jobs Equity & Empowerment: Ensure equitit indsim4 and access to opportunity for all citizens Health & Safety: Strengthen communi*s to be heahhK resilient and safe places fw residents and businesses Natural Systems: Protect and restore the naturd resource bole upon which fife depends An eighth category, Innovation & Process, addresses issues that span all three pillars and includes exemplary performance, innovation, best practices and processes, and regjonal privity STAR is organized around a typical strategic plan hierarchy of goals, objectives and evaluation measures: this design is intended to align with local government processes and standard practice, and be easily understood by policy makers.The structure features a set of components that reflect public sector mechanisms that are proven effective in advancing change.Terms are those commonly used by local governments to communicate strategic objectives and desired outcomes. Beneath each goal is a series of objectives aimed at achieving community-level aspirations. Objectives are measured in two ways, through attainment of community-level outcomes and/or through completion of local actions that are essential to reaching the outcomes.These evaluation measures provide the avenue for communities to achieve credit in the rating system. Below are definitions associated with the STAR framewori:. Term Definition Pillar The three pillars of sustainability: Environment Economy or Society Goal Desired susUnabdity state or condition that a juriufction intends to achieve Objective A clear, desired outcome intended to move the community toward the broader goal Purpose Statement to clarify relevance, to provide context, and communicate the desired outcome Evaluation Measures Qualitative or quantitative, using relative or absolute metrics Community Level Measurable, condition-level indicators that depict a community's progress toward a preferred state or outcomes condition as suggested by the STAR Objective Local Actions Range of decisions and investments that a local government or community can make, or the activities that they can engage in, that are essential to achieving desired outcomes STAR Community Rating System -October 2012 - Introduction Evaluation Measures Community Level Outcomes and Local Actions Community level outcomes are measurable,condition-level indicators that depict a community's progress toward a preferred state or condition as suggested by the STAR Objective, Outcomes are represented as trend lines, targets, or thresholds in the rating system. Local actions describe the range of decisions and investments that a local government or community can make, or the activities that they can engage in, that are essential to achieving desired outcomes. Actions focus on the key interventions that move the needle towards desired outcomes.They can include activities or partnerships where the local government is not the lead actor but a convener, participant, or active supporter in a community-scale effort to achieve the outcomes. Action Types Education and Outreach (EO) Plan Development (PD) Policy and Code adjustment (PoC) Preparatory Partnerships and Collaboration (PC) Practice Improvements (PI) Inventory, Assessment or Survey ([AS) Enforcement and Incentives (Ef) Programs and Services (PS) Implementation Facilities and Infrastructure (Fn There are nine action types in the rating system. Actions described as preparatory are foundational steps that a community should take fast to assess the community's needs and trends,identify and execute policy and regulatory changes, and strengthen partnerships and collaborations in order to effectively deploy resources and investments. Implementation based actions are the programs and services. enforcement and incentive mechanisms, and infrastructure investments a community makes in order to efficiently and equitably move the neede towards the desired outcomes. Evaluation measures were reviewed by technical advisors, staff and other stakeholders to determine whether they are relevant, feasible, systemic, timely, reliable and valid. Other criteria for inclusion in the rating system include alignment with the STAR Guiding Principles. All STAR content is analyzed for its interdependency with other aspects of the rating system: references and landings are documented in theTechnical Guide. OSTAR Community Rating System - October 2012 - Introduction m criteria for STAR's Objectives Relevarift Provide direct feedback on the outcomes of local implementation. Feasibla Leverage use of credible, commonly collected data for cost effective reporting that is flexible enough to be implemented in various local contexts. Timeiy: Capture actions and outcomes that are currently relevant, while looking forward to the future. Useful: Provide significant value to help cities and counties make decisions and address local priorities. Systemic Draw attention to the preferred future, while offering a metric that measures true progress toward that achievement goal: and, where possible, will satisfy performance reporting for multiple goals to highlight the integrated nature of sustainability. Rellablet Provide a consistent reflection of achievement or performance across communities regardless of community characteristics, facilitating comparisons between communities. Valid: Represent the concepts and underlying phenomena that are embodied in the STAR Objective accurately. Adgat4 {tom -k4i%r,+rs Ord r fcmna io- Systems {ar Suha naGk Ck vk pn entA Rtpc t to the C4von C"w w by ix eih P ca u s. 199.9 STAR Community Rating System - October 2012 - Introduction For more information, the STAR Rating System can be downloaded here: httP://www.starcommunities.org/ratinp,-system/`download Appendix 3 Table of STAR Goals and objectives I: Education, Arts & Jobs EmpwwwTnent Safety Systems Community Ambient Noise Climate Business Civic Green & Light Adaptation Arcs & Culture Retention men t Active Living Infrastructure Development Community Greenhouse Community Green Market Civil & Human Community Invasive Water Systems Gas Mitigation Cohesion Development Rights Health & Species Health System Compact & Educational Emergency Natural Complete Greening the Opportunity & Local Economy Environmental Prevention & Resource Communities Energy Supply Attainment justice Response Protection Industrial Equitable Housing Sector Historic Quality jobs & Food Access & Outdoor Air Affordability Resource Preservation Living Wages Access sss & Nutrition Quality Efficiency ~I& Resource Social & Targeted IndoorAir Water in the Efficient Cultural Industry Human Services Redevelcpnerit Buildings Diversity Development Quality Environment Resource Workforce Poverty Natural Public Spaces Efficient Public Readiness Prevention & & Human Working Lands Infrastructure Alleviation Hazards Transportation Waste Safe Choices Minimization Communities For more information, the STAR Rating System can be downloaded here: http://www. st a rco m m u n it i es. o rp,/ rat i nR-system/d ow n l oa d Education, Arts & Equity and Health and Safety Natural Systems Infrastructure Climate and Energy Economy and Jobs Community Empowerment Business Retention and _ Ambient Light and Noise Climate Adaptation - " Arts and Culture Civic Engagement Active Living _Green _Infrastructure Development Gmate Action Plnn, Vote OR campaign, Civic Pursuing Bicycle Friendly Campus Tree Committee, Tree Un distinction, ~agement Program Campus USA, Tree Care Plan LEED Bonus - Land Use Code, Public Master Plan (2007) - Green Street Standards, AMC Ch 9 Screening rode Economic Development Open City Hall -Citizen input a 2012 Water Master Plan dedicated revenue streams Transportation Element, Earth and Noise code Strategy 2010 software and grants Advantage standards and incentives Community H System alth/Health Community Water Systems Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Green Market Development Community Cohesion Civil and Human Rights Invasive Species s Climate Action Plan, Sustainability Council, E`✓ charging stations, lightln;-, F, IPM equipment upgrades, GHG inventories Housing Needs Analysis-2012; Forest Interface Plan -Fire Housing & Human Services RVCOG -Renewable Energy Dept (Water Utility funded); 2012 Water Master Plan Commission; Community Assessment Noxious Vegetation Program - Development Block Grant, Fire Dept Entitlement community Compact and Complete Educational Opportunity and Emergency Prevention and Greening the Energy Supply Local Economy Environmental Justice Natural Resource Protection Communities _ Attainment Response Raider Village built near transitloning fleet to EV/Ali fuels, EV charging stations, transit stop, walkability on-site solar Solar installations on Uurban Growth Boundary; municipal buildings; Citizen Alert - Automated Water Resources Protection Transportation System Plan - Community Solar (Solar Economic Development public communication Ordinance - 2008; Tree Multi-model Pioneer II); Solar incentive Strategy 2010 system Preservation and Protection programs for utility Ordinance customers Environmentally Preferred Pedestrian Places Grant, power (Wind), City owned CERT Program; "Are your Physical & Environmental Transit oriented hydro generation (2%), BPA Ready" Program; FireWise Constraints Ordinance (hillside development (TOD) grant as wholesale electricity Communities and wildfire zones, standards) provider Infrastructure Climate and Energy Economy and Jobs Education, Arts & Equity and Community Empowerment Health and Safety Natural Systems Industrial Sector Resource Housing Affordability Quality Jobs and Living Wages Historic Preservation E uitable_Servicesand Access Food Access and Nutrition Outdoor Air Quality Efficiency - Usr CCA conservation SOU Fn , I Pantry, Canter for Partnership w/RVTD, Tree SOU Family Housing incentives Campu USA, An,,-Idling fleet Commercial lighting and Living Wage ordinance for Five National Registered Housing Needs Analysis - other industrial incentives Historic Districts, design City staffing and City contract CDBG Funding 2012 through Conservation work standards, demolition Division standards Rental Needs Analysis - 2007 Economic Development Proposed Siesmic Code Strategy 2010 Infill and Redevelopment Resource Efficient Buildings Targeted Industry Social and Cultural Diversity Human Services In_do_or Air Quality Water in the Environment - - Deve opment LEED Gold Res & Dining Halls, LEED Platinum HEC Cultural events, Multicultur Offsets 100% of water use LEED Silver new construct:- Reso!,rce Center minimum Retrofits of older buildin,..: Ecconmlc, Cultural, Tourism Economic Development OHRA/ACCESS Resource Natural cooling of waste Land Use Ordinance Facilities Energy Audit - 2013 and Sustainability Grant Strategy 2010 Center treatment outflow program ($200k) Resource Efficicent Public Poverty Prevention and Public Spaces Workforce Readiness Natural and Human Hazards Working Lands Infrastructure Alleviation LEED Silver minimum on Ashland Forest Resiliency Center for Sustainabillty new construction, ongoing Increased student jobs Project retofits and up;,-ides Potential partnership with Funding to OHRA/ACCESS for Ashland Forest Resiliency City and Parks facilities Facilities Energy Audit - 2013 Options for Homeless help center in Ashland Project Residentas Transportation Choices Waste Minimization Safe Communities Bike parking, subsidized bus On-site recycle center, "You Have Options" sexual passes, rideshare program, recycling events & train r - Assault Response (National 6i~r In,~n free stuff shelf awards) Rcology franchise contract- Firewise Communities - Fire waste prevention education Dept BLUE - city Disclaimer: These are actual examples, but they are not comprehensive. Many additional actions have been and are being taken but are not listed in this table. This table is for example purposes only. It shows that both SOU and the City of Ashland are ALREADY taking action on sustainability. CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: January 7, 2013 TO: Mayor & Council FROM: Conservation Commission RE: 2013-14 Council Goal Setting As a part of the Council's upcoming goal setting session for the next 12-18 months, the Conservation Commission would like to offer its support for continued focus and effort towards the four goals that the Commission feels are most closely aligned with its mission and charge. They include: • The adoption of land use regulations, building codes, standards and fee structures that create incentives for resource efficient development with multi- modal transportation options. • Development of strategies to address upcoming wholesale power rate structure changes (Tier II) • Implementation of specific capital projects and operational programs that ensure City facilities and operations are leaders in the efficient use of water • Development of a concise sustainability plan for the community and for City operations As you know, the Commission has been particularly active on the four goal listed and would like to thank the Council for their support in the Commissions efforts in assisting to move the operational plan portion of this goal into the implementation phase. The Commission is looking forward to playing a role in supporting its completion and to begin work on helping move the community plan along a similar path. January 26, 2011 Ashland City Council, The Conservation Commission encourages the City Council to continue pursuing the Environmental goals established by Council in January 2011. The Commission has relied upon these goals as a basis for the development of recommendations of objectives, benchmarks and actions to support and achieve the stated goals. Current topics under Commission development are identified under each of the 2011 Council goals and will be presented to Council in the near future for consideration and adoption. Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures that creates strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient and supports a multi-modal transportation system. • The Conservation Commission recommends that the City require a minimum LEED Silver Certification for all new City buildings and retrofits. Develop a concise sustainability plan for the Community and for City Operations • The Conservation Commission will bring in a sustainability framework expert to City Council to discuss the guiding principles and framework for sustainability. • Conservation Commission will recommend and ask the City Council to adopt an Ashland Sustainability Resolution that sets the foundation for sustainable City government operations. • The Conservation Commission will further research other Oregon City's Sustainability Plans and provide feedback to the City of Ashland. • The City of Ashland will develop a City Operations sustainability plan with support and input from the Conservation Commission's research. • The City of Ashland will appoint a Sustainability Program Manager to work across all City Departments • Continue to educate and enforce anti-idling ordinance 2882 for city vehicles operations. Develop a strategy to use conservation and local renewable sources to meet Tier 2 power demands. • Pending implement specific capital projects and operational programs to ensure that City facilities and operations are a model of efficient use of water • Pending LEED Certification Recommendation A stated Ashland City Council goal is to: Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures that create strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient and supports a multi-modal transportation system. To obtain this goal, the Ashland Conservation Commission recommends that the City require a minimum LEED Silver Certification for all new City buildings and retrofits. "LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is an internationally-recognized green building certification system" that "provides building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions." While the LEED rating system is in no way perfect, it does create a viable framework for discussing and selecting the most appropriate sustainable strategies during the design and construction of new buildings. Adopting a progressive building standard is the next logical step in achieving the City Council's stated goal of long term sustainability. The Conservation Commission has made recommendations on LEED certification in the past (2006 Fire station #2), and the City Council has already adopted a fast-track permitting process for buildings seeking LEED certification (City of Ashland Ordinance 3035). Unfortunately, these actions have not resulted in as significant an impact as anticipated. To date, there are no LEED certified buildings in Ashland, and there are only 3 LEED buildings which have attempted registration. In order to create a development atmosphere conductive to sustainable design, the City needs to take a leadership role by ensuring that any future building projects and retrofits achieve at least some measurable positive affect on the environment. Creating the proposed resolution would not only help the City achieve its conservation goals but would also show the community that the City of Ashland is committed to making positive change in its built environment. Additionally, many other municipalities have adopted similar measures, including Cities of comparable or smaller size to Ashland (Oregon City, OR, Happy Valley, OR, West Linn, OR, Albany, CA). Respectfully, The City of Ashland Conservation Commission The Commission feels that there are a multitude of new goals relating to the environment, sustainability and resource efficiency that they could support, but also acknowledge and recognize the importance of all of the different challenges and responsibilities of the Mayor and Council to our community. We again thank you for your support of the Commissions efforts, your recognition of the advisory role we play in the process and we want to ensure that you know we are in support of the existing goals and would like them to remain and continue to be worked on for the short and long term benefit of the community.