i      Office of Policy, Planning  EPA 231-R-98-004
             al Protection  and Evaluation     April 1998
Smart Investments for
City and County Managers:
Energy, Environment, and
Community Development

f  jj  his Guide was compiled using infonnation from a wide range of sources,
   •   including published and unpublished documents, Internet sites, and per-
 JL sonal communications with numerous federal, state and local government
  representatives. In documenting these sources, a conscious effort was made to
  strike a balance between the standards of documentation normally applied to
  more technical reports and the desire to maintain the flow and readability of
  the text in a resource guide intended for a more general audience. In general,
  specific notations are provided here for written sources  that may prove most
  useful for readers wishing to obtain more detail on individual programs or case
  studies; where the information in the Guide was based largely on personal com-
  munications, appropriate contacts for additional information have been listed
  at the end of each chapter.

      Urban and Economic Development Division
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Washington, DC 20460

Executive Summary	i

     Fiscal Crisis: Growth and Development Factors	1-1
     Smart Investments: The Tools for Smart Growth	1-2
     Why Smart "Investments?"	1-3
     Why Should Smart Investments Matter to You?	1-4
     How to Use This Guide to Help Your Bottom Line	1-5

     SMART ENERGY EFFICIENCY INVESTMENTS                                             2-1
     Benefitting from Smart Energy Efficiency Investments	2-1
     Smart Energy Investments for Public Buildings	2-2
     Smart Energy Investments in Public Services	2-7
     Financing Smart Energy Investments	2-9
     Getting Started	2-11
     Sources of Additional Information	2-12

     Benefitting from Smart Water Resource Investments	3-1
     Smart Water Conservation Investments	3-2
     Getting Started	3-6
     Sources of Additional Information	3-7

     Benefitting from Smart Waste Reduction and Recycling Investments	4-1
     Smart Investments in Municipal Solid Waste Reduction	4-2
     Smart Investments in Construction and Deconstruction Waste Minimization	4-6
     Promoting C&D Waste Minimization: Local Government Policies and Outreach Tools	4-8
     Smart Investments in Purchasing Recycled Products	4-12
     Getting Started	4-17
     Sources of Additional Information	4-18

     SMART TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS                                              5-1
     Benefitting from Smart Transportation Investments	5-1
     Smart Public Transit and Commuting Investments	5-2
     Smart Vehicle Fleet Investments	5-7
     Getting Started	5-9
     Sources of Additional Information	5-10


     Benefitting from Smart Development Investments: Lowering the Public Costs of Development	6-1
     Getting Assistance for Smart Development Investments	6-7
     Getting Started	6-9
     Sources of Additional Information	6-10

     The Importance of Public Support	7-1
     Community Outreach Tools	7-1
     Developing an Outreach Strategy	7-2
     Successful Local Initiatives	7-2

                  Executive  (Summary
          s a local government manager, you work hard to make your
          community a better place. Every day your organization faces
          new public demands and budgetary constraints, and you are
          under the constant pressure of media scrutiny. Through it all,
you are expected to attract, and find ways to accommodate, new growth
and development for your community. Where  others may see only the
short-term economic opportunities and social benefits  of growth, your
job demands that you also consider the costs and long-term impacts. For
unstructured or poorly planned development, those costs and impacts
may include unanticipated capital expenditures for public infrastructure,
increased operation and maintenance costs for existing public facilities,
and long term environmental impacts.

One way to accommodate  the budgetary demands of new growth and
development is to find new ways to manage existing government operations
so that they cost less, work more efficiently and make better use of limited
financial resources. You may feel that every dollar you  spend is already
stretched to its limits, but even the most skilled and experienced managers
can benefit from fresh approaches and new ideas. Challenge and encourage
everyone, from department heads to clerks and maintenance workers, to
take stock of their operations. Do they really use resources as efficiently as
possible? Can anything more be done to streamline procedures? You maybe
surprised at the opportunities for savings you can identify.

Another way to accommodate the fiscal demands of new growth and
development is to promote "smart growth." Smart growth utilizes existing
infrastructure  more efficiently, reducing the need to  expand that infra-
structure. Working with developers and local  businesses to shift  new
growth away from undeveloped areas, for example, minimizes the need —
and the  capital costs — for new roads,  water lines, and sewer systems.
Encouraging the use of public transit reduces traffic flow, lowering costs
for road construction and maintenance. And providing incentives to con-
serve water and reduce waste not only lowers your operating costs for
public services, but also reduces the environmental impacts of growth and

This Smart Investments Guide is designed to provide you with concrete
examples of tools and practices that will enable you to use resources more
efficiently in existing operations, and to promote smart growth for the
future. Its goal is to ensure that your community can continue to grow and
prosper without having to choose between increased taxes or decreased
public services and a reduced quality of life. To assist you in making Smart
Investments, the guide provides numerous examples of communities that
have pioneered these ideas and seen them work. By drawing on these suc-
cess stories, you will be able to design a Smart Investments plan to pro-
mote smart growth and fiscal stability in your community.
Smart Energy Efficiency Investments. One of the easiest ways to help your
budget and show people the advantages of Smart growth is to improve the
energy efficiency of public facilities. Some local governments have achieved
energy cost savings by starting with simple no-cost or low-cost measures.
Directing public employees to turn off unneeded lights and turn down
thermostats during off hours produces savings that can be used to finance
additional conservation measures. A variety of other  flexible financing
mechanisms allow local governments to reap savings by replacing standard
lighting, heating and air conditioning equipment with energy efficient
models, often with no capital outlay. Installing computerized control sys-
tems to minimize energy consumption in water distribution and waste-
water treatment,  while requiring larger initial  investments,  can  yield
substantial savings that often repay those investments within a few years.

Smart Water Conservation Investments. As cities grow and expand, local
water supplies may dwindle or become polluted. As a result, local  govern-
ments  will often face increased costs to develop or purchase new water
supplies, or provide additional treatment for existing supplies. New devel-
opment may also increase  wastewater flows to sewage treatment plants,
increasing local costs for plant operation or necessitating capital expendi-
tures for plant expansion. By reducing both water demand and wastewater
flows,  water conservation  measures can help local governments hold
down costs at both ends of the pipe. Municipalities profiled in this guide
have realized substantial savings through a variety of water conservation
ordinances, pricing policies, leak detection programs, plumbing fixture
retrofits, or rebates and other financial incentives.

Smart  Waste Reduction and Recycling Investments. Waste management
and disposal practices affect  local government budgets in several ways.
First and foremost, because local governments typically provide  or con-
tract for disposal of municipal solid waste at landfills, their costs have sky-
rocketed  as landfill  tipping fees  and waste volumes have increased  in
recent years. To reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills, and hence the
cost of disposal, more than 2,000 communities have implemented unit
pricing, curbside recycling,  and/or composting programs. These programs

often have the added benefit of generating revenue from the sale of recy-
clable materials. The stimulation of local recycling markets can also result
in lower prices for recycled products that local governments may be pur-
chasing for use in their own operations.

Local governments also incur substantial costs for disposal of construc-
tion and demolition waste from public projects. Practices such as sal-
vaging  and reusing materials, requiring  deconstruction  rather than
demolition of buildings, and providing waste management education and
technical assistance to contractors have saved millions of dollars in costs
for new materials and waste disposal.

Smart Transportation Investments. Local governments spend large por-
tions of their budgets on roads, highways and public transit. Many com-
munities are  finding that they  can reduce road  construction and
maintenance costs,  improve air quality, and increase the  utilization  of
their transit investments through a variety of measures to promote alter-
natives to automobile commuting. Municipal electric shuttle bus systems,
subsidies and economic incentives for carpooling and transit use, flexible
work schedules,  and telecommuting and videoconferencing have  all
proven successful in reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled  by
both public and private sector employees. Light rail systems, while requir-
ing larger and longer term public investments, can also stimulate sub-
stantial economic growth by improving businesses' access to  customers
and employees.

Local governments also spend billions of dollars annually to operate and
maintain their vehicle fleets. In many cases, these costs can be reduced
through such measures as eliminating  nonessential  vehicles  or buying
more fuel-efficient models. Converting or purchasing vehicles to run on
alternative fuels such as propane or compressed natural gas is not only
saving many communities money, but is also improving air quality.

Smart Development Investments. New commercial and residential
development often increases the demand for a variety of public services,
but in the absence of tax increases may not generate the revenue needed
to offset the associated costs. Some local governments have succeeded in
minimizing the impact on their budgets through changes to building
codes and zoning ordinances that influence the nature and configuration
of new development. As in public facilities, building codes that require
water conservation, energy efficiency, and waste reduction in commercial
and residential construction can reduce operating costs for local govern-
ment services. Zoning ordinances can be crafted to promote high-densi-
ty development  near existing infrastructure, encourage mixed use,  or
charge developers the full cost of infrastructure expansion. All of these
measures can help to lower capital and operating costs for public services,
conserve open space, and create pedestrian-oriented communities with
an enhanced quality of life.

Smart Investments for the Environment. In addition to their financial
benefits, all of the Smart Investments described above yield important
environmental benefits. Every dollar spent to reduce energy consumption
and solid waste generation, or to increase recycling and public transit use,
also decreases the consumption of fossil fuels and  the depletion of raw
materials. Less pollution is produced, air and water quality improves, and
public exposure to contaminants decreases. Similarly, water conservation
and open space protection not only ensure  adequate supplies of clean
water and recreational areas for future generations, but also help preserve
the integrity of local watersheds, forests, wildlife habitat, and  ecosystems.


This guide describes the Smart Investments tools you can use to design a
more  sustainable approach  to growth and development, but  Smart
Investments will do more than just save money and protect the environ-
ment. They will help  you to continue providing public services that are
responsive to your community's changing needs without increasing resi-
dents' financial burdens. They will also help  preserve your community's
fundamental character and quality of life while creating a favorable cli-
mate for economic growth and development. All of these goals can be
achieved with the broad support  and involvement  of local government,
businesses, and residents. To help you gain that support, the final chapter
of the guide profiles public outreach and education programs other com-
munities are already using to ensure community support and involvement
for their Smart  Investments strategies. By following their examples, you
can engage your own  community in developing and implementing effec-
tive Smart Investments strategies, making it  an even better place  to live
and work in the years to come.

                      SMART INVESTMENTS
 f m   ypany °f America's local governments are in the grip of a growing fis-
 ^ /•  fm cal crisis. Newspaper headlines tell the story: one state abolishes a
   i Uf m financially strapped county; voters in another state's largest
^J   *  ^L. city consider a referendum to dissolve the debt-plagued city
   government and turn its functions over to the county; towns large and
   small struggle to pay for basic services and infrastructure maintenance.
   Although the details of the stories differ, they are linked by one recurring
   theme: much of the fiscal crisis stems from growth and development that
   could no longer be sustained.

   Consider  a typical,  heavily urbanized city. After the rapid economic
   growth and population influx of the 1950s and 60s, it has now fallen vic-
   tim to many of America's urban ills: the flight of investment dollars away
   from the  central city, the migration of businesses and residents to the
   sprawling suburbs, the proliferation of idle "brownfields" properties and a
   shrinking city tax base. Many suburbs, meanwhile, suffer from growth-
   related fiscal pressures of a different sort. Having experienced rapid devel-
   opment in the '60s, '70s and '80s, they now face the end  of the building
   boom. The growth in their local tax bases is leveling off just as large num-
   bers of young families are sending their children to already overcrowded
   schools. The financial burden on local governments is increasing.
                                                Even rural communi-
                                                ties have begun to feel
                                                the pinch. Demand for
                                                land and open space is
                                                escalating in propor-
                                                tion to the spread of
                                                nearby suburbs. It fre-
                                                quently triggers con-
                                                version of rural land
                                                to residential subdivi-
                                                sions.  Such change is
                                                often unsupported by
                                                sufficient  growth  in
                                                the tax base to pay for
                                                the increased  infra-
                                                structure and service

needs. As  a  result, these communities  must now
cover higher  costs while trying to maintain the very
characteristics that have attracted new residents.

Such fiscal pressures require short-term measures to
hold down local government costs and avert imme-
diate fiscal crisis, and, even more important, long-
term efforts to change patterns  of growth and
development. Community leaders need to recognize
that  unstructured  development, or "sprawl," is  a
major cause of rising infrastructure and service costs.
This guide contains ideas to help identify and imple-
ment a mix of short-term and long-term fiscal solu-
tions that should alleviate the pressure on limited budgets, while enhancing the
ability to provide public services and encourage better development.


The guide serves three purposes:
  • to help  local governments control rising costs and avert fiscal crises,
  • to promote growth that benefits the economy and the environment and
  • to highlight outreach  activities that will build  public support for  these

Smart Investments are  innovative money-saving practices that help city  man-
agers stretch their limited resources to provide more and better services with less
damage to the environment. Many Smart Investments  in energy efficiency,  waste
management, and  water conservation are already paying off for local govern-
ments across the country. By also promoting greater  use of public transit and
existing infrastructure in new developments, communities can create local and
regional growth patterns that will enhance rather than compromise their future
economic and environmental health.
       mart   Investments
     Programs and practices with returns
       that exceed initial costs and that
           promote smart growth.
                                               To assist communities in
                                               recognizing  and over-
                                               coming the effects of
                                               unchecked sprawl devel-
                                               opment, EPA  recently
                                               formed   the    Smart
                                               Growth  Network,  a
                                               coalition of public, pri-
                                               vate, and  non-govern-
mental organizations devoted to the goal of improving development practices.
Through the creation and dissemination of reports, manuals, and guides on
"smart growth" practices, the Smart Growth Network  provides communities
with the tools and guidance they need to revitalize existing communities and bet-
ter manage development on the ex-urban fringe. This Smart Investments Guide,

one of EPA's Smart Growth Network tools, is intended to serve as an informa-
tion and policy planning resource for city and county managers. By helping
managers avert fiscal crisis while improving the quality of public services, this
guide can help ensure both continued economic opportunity and a high quali-
ty of life for local residents.
This guide to Smart "Investments" for City and County Managers highlights
programs and innovative practices that, like investments, yield financial returns.
And in most cases, like other good investments, they yield returns that far exceed
their initial cost. In fact, many can be implemented at little or no cost to local
governments, and will leverage benefits to the community over and above the
cost savings for public services alone. Those programs that do require initial out-
lays will often pay for themselves within one or two years. Although some steps,
such as extensive water conservation for large municipalities, may involve longer
term investments with paybacks of six to ten years, those investments can fre-
quently be financed through low-interest loans, grant programs, utility rebate
programs, or leasing agreements that substantially reduce up-front costs.

Not all of the investments listed in this guide are equally useful for every local
government, but many cities, counties and even small towns have pioneered
these ideas and realized substantial gains. The key to their success is thorough
evaluation of local assets, needs and options; evaluation that led those commu-
nities to sound  investments in their future.  From the range of short-term and
long-term investment opportunities and financing mechanisms illustrated here,
local government managers can select those that best fit their needs and promise
optimal returns.
Smart Investments will save you money. As a city or county manager, you
work hard to make your community a better place for everybody. Every day, you
are faced with the challenge of delivering more and more essential public ser-
vices, while at the same time minimizing the costs to taxpayers (see page 1-4).
That's why Smart Investments should matter to you. They will save you money!

And as much  as smart investing should matter to you, your choices matter to all
of us as citizens. Collectively, local governments in the United States operate a
dizzying array of public facilities — from schools, libraries, convention centers,
and office buildings, to hospitals, fire stations, airports, and prisons. We all want
them to work well. Investments that reduce the amounts of water and energy
these facilities use, as well as the amounts of wastewater and solid waste they
generate, simply make good financial sense because they lower operating costs.
By lowering local government costs, these investments can eliminate the need to
raise the taxes and fees that residents must pay. Local governments can further

                                  THE LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET PICTURE
   Local governments' costs for the operation and maintenance of public infrastructure and services are consider-
   able. Public works expenditures account for approximately 16 percent of local budgets and represent about 25
   percent of city budgets. In 1993, sewerage and sanitation, electricity generation, public  water systems, and high-
   ways were among the six largest budget categories for city governments.
                     ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
                                                             CITIES ONLY
                                E TOTAL EXPENDITURES
                                           PUBLIC WORK

                                                                     AGGREGATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS
                                                                              EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORY
                                                                            (Fiscal Year Ending in 1993)
                                                                        Water Supply
From 1980 to 1993, excluding electric power supply costs, annual city and county spending for public works nearly
tripled, rising from $44.2 billion to $110.5 billion, led by a $15 billion increase in water supply costs. Between 1990 and
1993 alone, local public works expenditures increased by more than 16 percent.1 Slowing this growth in spending is
increasingly important in the face of dwindling federal and state assistance for a variety of local programs.
        A breakdown of local government public works costs for
the fiscal year ending in 1993 reveals that the top six categories —
electric  power supply,  highways, water supply, sewerage,  mass
transit  and  solid waste management —  together totaled  more
than $130 billion,  accounting for  19 percent  of local  budgets.
Operation and maintenance costs  (O&M) account for nearly 75
percent of electric  power supply, water supply and mass transit
expenditures, and nearly 90 percent of solid waste  management
costs. The  potential fiscal  benefits to local governments  from
reductions in these O&M costs are significant. Although municipal
electric utilities are usually operated as quasi-private entities  using
separate funds, and do not  directly impact local budgets, keeping
their costs low can  still benefit the local government and the com-
munity by lowering electric rates and creating  a more attractive
business and investment climate.
   1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
     Energy, Technical Information Program. "Energy Efficiency Strengthens
     Local Economies," Cities and Counties Project Fact Sheet #3.
                                                                                                    Mass Transit
                                                                           Electric Power
                                                                                Solid Waste
                                                                     Gas Supply $4.5
                                              SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, INTERNET
                                              INDEX.HTML (ACCESSED 5/6/9/)

reduce costs by facilitating private development near existing infrastructure and
encouraging greater use of public transit, eliminating the need to expand infra-
structure and transportation corridors into undeveloped property.

Smart Investments protect the environment. In addition to their fiscal ben-
efits, many of the investments  identified in this guide will yield  significant
environmental benefits. Cutting energy consumption reduces air pollution from
power  plants and slows the use of natural resources such as coal and oil.
Increased recycling and decreased production of solid wastes can prolong the life
of existing landfills or eliminate the need for new ones. Better conservation of
water results  in healthier ecosystems. Improved public transit and expanded
alternatives to commuting relieve traffic congestion and improve air quality. In
short, Smart Investments should matter to everyone.


This guide  highlights Smart Investments in five major categories: energy effi-
ciency, water conservation, waste management, transportation and development.
Each category is addressed in its own chapter, with a focus on policies, programs
and practices that reduce local governments' costs and promote the goal of smart
growth. Each  chapter presents information on federal programs, case studies of
innovative local initiatives, and specific examples of savings.

Local governments can use the program information and case studies to gener-
ate ideas and  options for Smart Investment plans for their communities. At the
end of each chapter, a section entitled "Getting Started" presents considerations
and tips for designing and implementing local programs, along with a list of con-
tact people  and sources of additional information. By drawing on the ideas and
experiences of others who have made Smart Investments work for them, you will
be well on your way to improving your local government's bottom line and your
community's  economic and environmental health.

The final chapter of the guide, entitled "Community Outreach: Gaining Public
Support for Smart Investments," emphasizes the importance of involving local
residents, businesses and community leaders in the planning and imple-
mentation of your Smart Investments strategy. Case studies of suc-
cessful  outreach  efforts  provide guidance  in  developing an
outreach plan for your community. This chapter also  demon-
strates ways to implement that plan through examples  of spe-
cific education and outreach tools that have proven effective in
building community support for Smart Investments.

                   SMART ENERGY

          merican cities and counties spend billions of dollars annually on
          energy  to operate public buildings, wastewater treatment plants,
          office machines, water pumps, street lights and the like. According
          to the California Energy Commission, energy costs for the state's
local governments amount to more than $1 billion annually, while its schools
spend more per student on energy than on books and other instructional mate-
rials. The Philadelphia school district, the fifth largest in the country, spends $33
million on energy each year. And in Chicago, the Center for Neighborhood
Technology's Community Energy Program estimates that the area's local govern-
ments, including the city, Cook County, and local schools and special districts,
spent $235 million on energy in 1995.

Another issue for local governments is that a large portion of their energy expen-
ditures flows out of the local economy. According to the Department of Energy
(DOE), each dollar spent on natural gas and electricity results in only $1.48 and
$1.75 of local economic activity, respectively. Similar economic multipliers for
ordinary consumer goods and energy conservation are $2.06 and $2.32 for each
dollar. Economists with the State of Nebraska estimate that the state economy
loses as much as 80 percent of every dollar spent on energy.'
Smart Energy Investments yield substantial financial returns. The poten-
tial financial returns on investments in energy efficiency are enormous. The
National Science Foundation has estimated that cities can often reduce their
total energy costs by as much as 15 percent through improvements in energy
efficiency, without affecting the quality of services they provide. Some measures,
such as the installation of energy efficient lighting, can save 60 percent or more
in that category alone.

$mart Energy Investments yield public health and environmental benefits.
Energy efficiency investments also benefit public health and the environment.
The burning of fossil fuels to generate energy contributes to smog and acid rain,
as well as to the greenhouse gas emissions  that cause global warming. As the
international community seeks to reduce pollution worldwide, and as fossil fuel
sources are depleted, local efforts to improve energy efficiency become increas-
ingly important.
Cost Savings up
to 60%
Pollution Prevention
Resource Conservation

  Make low-cost lighting upgrades in
     public buildings (compact fluorescents)
  Install LED traffic lights
  Promote energy awareness among
     public employees
                                                   Install water supply SCADA systems
                                                   Upgrade building HVAC systems
                                                   Generate electricity from wastewater
                                                   Construct AIP wastewater treatment systems
Local governments have a large financial stake in reducing energy use in public
office buildings, city halls, county courthouses, schools, and other public facili-
ties. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), buildings consume 36 per-
cent of all energy used in America,  at an annual cost of $200 billion. The
Washington State Energy Office's Public Sector Program estimates that operation
and maintenance costs account for 91 percent of the total cost of owning a build-
ing. Energy costs for lighting, heating, and cooling constitute a large portion of
those expenses.2 The  potential for significant savings from  Smart Energy
Investments in building operations is clearly demonstrated by the programs and
case studies below.

The Green Lights Program is an innovative voluntary partnership of building
          owners and EPA that promotes the installation of energy efficient
             lighting. EPA provides technical assistance through energy effi-
                ciency manuals, free software for energy cost savings calcula-
                 tions, and information on lighting technologies. In return,
                  program partners conduct lighting audits of their facilities
                  and upgrade lighting to make it more energy efficient and
                 cost-effective. With its focus on cost savings, Green Lights has
                          grown from 39  partners in  1991 to more than
                           2,500 in 1997, including 250 local, state and fed-
         -r  .   i           eral government entities. Green Lights partners
         JL/1 QTliS       operate on more than six billion square feet of
                             space, and have reduced their electricity use for
                             lighting by an average of 48 percent.
               1   ;s
an ENERGY STAR program
Many local governments have achieved great cost savings on energy through
their Green Lights upgrades.
   • San Diego County, California saves nearly $ 100,000 in annual energy costs
     from the lighting upgrades in its County Operations Center Annex.
                                                                                  RETURNS ON
                                                                                  GREEN LIGHTS
                                                                                  IN PUBLIC
Lighting electricity
savings: 31% to 58%.
Energy cost savings:
$10,000 to $383,000
Investment yields:
IRR from 22% to 66%.

   • The City of Provo, Utah reduced lighting energy use in its City Hall by 59
     percent by upgrading to a mix of T-8 lamps and electronic ballasts, com-
     pact fluorescent and high-pressure sodium lamps.
   • Baltimore County, Maryland cut its annual lighting energy use by nearly
     six million kilowatt hours and its energy costs by about $400,000 after
     upgrades in over two million square feet of floor space.
   • Denver, Colorado, after reducing its energy costs by $52,000 per year and
     achieving a 50 percent internal rate of return on lighting upgrades at its
     City and County Building, retrofitted several other facilities for combined
     savings  of  nearly  $1  million annually.  Denver received  EPA's  Local
     Government Green Lights Partner of the Year award in 1996.

Such investments at local government facilities have yielded internal rates of
return of 22 to 66 percent, as shown below.

Baltimore County, MD
Provo, UT
Gilbert, AZ
San Diego County, CA
Leon County, FL
Denver City & County, CO
Memphis, TN
Sarasota, FL

$ 383,428
$ 36,678
$ 10,213
$ 99,009
$ 91,782
$ 52,353
$ 20,000
$ 17,236
Lighting represents only one component of overall energy use in buildings. To
continue and expand the adoption of cost-effective energy technologies, EPA
and DOE established the Energy Star® Program, targeting five different areas
of energy consumption.
                          The ENERGY  STAR®  Buildings Program
                          promotes comprehensive energy manage-
                          ment and efficiency  upgrades  of lighting,
                          HVAC,  and energy control systems through
                          partnerships with building owners.
                          The ENERGY STAR® Homes Program improves
                          energy efficiency in new residential construction
                          through partnerships with builders.

  • The ENERGY STAR® Product Labeling Program identifies the most ener-
     gy efficient products in a wide range of product categories, including per-
     sonal  computers, office equipment,  residential heating and  cooling
     equipment, appliances, TVs and VCRs, and exit signs.
  • The ENERGY STAR® Transformer Program encourages the manufacture
     and use of high-efficiency electrical transformers by electric utilities.
  • The ENERGY STAR® Purchasing Initiative promotes energy efficiency as
     an important  criterion in state and local government  procurement, and
     provides the information and other tools state and local governments need
     to make specifying energy efficient products and equipment standard prac-
     tice. This program  complements many existing federal, state, and local
     energy conservation programs and gives  state and local governments
     another avenue for reaping the  multiple benefits of energy efficiency.

To popularize the ENERGY STAR® programs, EPA conducts workshops and train-
ing courses, offers free analytical software for calculating energy and financial
savings, and operates a hotline for technical assistance, information on energy
saving technologies, and mailing of efficiency upgrade manuals.

More than 75 ENERGY STAR® Buildings partners have so far upgraded 400 million
square  feet  of floor space. EPA launched the program in 1994 with a series of
ENERGY STAR® Showcase projects to demonstrate the economic potential of
whole-building energy efficiency upgrades. One noteworthy local government
showcase project is the Hungerford Office Building in Montgomery  County,
Maryland. In  1994,  the county retrofitted the 84,000 square foot social services
facility with energy efficient equipment. The improvements  save the county
$90,000 annually on energy bills and have increased  the facility's asset value by
$8.82 per square foot, at a total cost of only $1.82 per square foot. With a project
cost of approximately $153,000, the payback period was less than two years.3
          RETURN ON
Office Building,
Montgomery County, MD
• Comprehensive
   upgrade of 84,000
   square feet.
• $90,000 in annual
   savings on energy
• Payback of $153,000
   cost within two years.
• $8.82 per square foot
   increase in facility's
   asset value
             No initial funding required.
             Incentive program returns 40% of savings to individual schools.
             First-year savings of $3 million.
             $85 million in savings over 13 years.
In 1983, while looking for ways to trim its budget and provide better education-
al services, the Philadelphia School District discovered that it was spending more
than twice as much on energy for heating and lighting as it was on books and
supplies. With energy costs rising and no money available for capital investments

to improve the energy efficiency of its 258 schools, the District created the Save
Energy Campaign, a voluntary incentive-based energy conservation program
that has become a model for communities across the country.

The cornerstone of the campaign is the  provision of financial incentives for
schools to reduce their energy consumption. Schools that save over their three
previous years' average energy bills keep 40  percent of the savings. The School
District's general fund also gets 40 percent, with the remaining 20 percent going
into a special revolving fund earmarked for capital improvements that result in
additional energy conservation. With no start-up funds at the beginning of the
campaign, the district encouraged schools to focus initially on the simplest and
least expensive conservation measures, such as turning off unused lights, turning
down boilers earlier in the day, and maintaining better overall temperature con-
trol. In the campaign's first year, these measures yielded savings of $3 million.
Over 13 years, the program has brought cumulative savings of $85 million, much
of which has been used to purchase  computers, textbooks, sound systems, film
projectors, and other equipment and supplies.4
              $150,000 in first-year savings from low cost lighting upgrades.
              Savings Reinvestment Plan uses 50% of energy savings for further upgrades.
              Annual energy cost savings exceeded $1 million by 1986.
              Net savings of $18.4 million returned to city's general fund over 16 years.
In the late 1970s, city officials in Phoenix, Arizona realized that if energy use in
city-run facilities were treated as a single expense, it would be the largest budget
item after payroll. To bring down these costs, the city  instituted its Energy
Management Program to audit energy use and begin upgrades of its 300 build-
ings. Starting with simple, low cost projects, such as replacing incandescent light
bulbs with compact fluorescent lighting, the program saved $150,000 in its first
year. The city has since reaped tens of thousands of dollars in additional savings
simply by assigning a "utilities monitor" to check all electric bills for errors and

In 1983,  the  City Council used $50,000 in state oil overcharge funds as seed
money to create the Savings Reinvestment Plan (SRP), a revolving fund that uses
energy cost savings to finance additional capital improvements  and efficiency
upgrades. Each year the SRP reinvests half of all energy savings back into the
fund, up  to a cap of $500,000. By 1986, energy savings had already exceeded $1
million annually, surpassing the reinvestment cap. The City Council recently
voted to  raise the  cap by $50,000 annually over five years, to a new limit of

Phoenix has achieved phenomenal returns on its investment in energy efficien-
cy. By  1994, the Energy Management Program had yielded $22.8 million in
cumulative energy savings. The city put $18.4 million of this savings into its gen-
eral fund, and reinvested about $4.4 million in the SRP. By annually investing
$500,000 of its energy savings in energy efficiency (the equivalent of 1.25 percent
of its $40 million energy bill), the city now saves $4 million, or 10 percent of its
energy costs, each year.5
              Funded through a fee of 1% of each city department's annual energy bill.
              Provides energy audits, annual energy use reports, and technical assistance.
              Energy cost savings returned to individual departments for discretionary use.
              Annual energy savings approaching $1.2 million after five years.
              $3 million in cumulative savings over five years.
              5.7% average IRR on investments of $2.6 million; payback within four years.
The City of Portland, Oregon is a leader in promoting sustainability and envi-
ronmental awareness. Portland adopted a formal energy policy in 1990, setting a
goal of 10 percent reduction in energy consumption for both the public and pri-
vate sectors. To demonstrate its own commitment to energy efficiency and to
serve as an example to local business leaders, the city  initiated its City Energy
Challenge (CEC) in 1991, with a goal of reducing its own annual energy bill by
$1 million (more than 11 percent) within five years.

To fund salaries for CEC staff, the City Council charges each of the city's eight
bureaus a fee equal to one percent of its  annual energy bill, up to a limit of
$15,000 per bureau. In return, the CEC staff provides each bureau with an annu-
al report on its energy use, energy audits of its facilities, and energy conservation
training. The CEC staff also assists the bureaus in preparing bid solicitations and
selecting contractors for capital improvements. In addition, the CEC publishes a
newsletter with information on energy conservation technologies  and project
successes. As an incentive for the bureaus to implement CEC recommendations,
all energy cost savings are returned to them for their own use.

CEC staffers have also worked with the city's Office of Fiscal Administration
(OFA)  to help bureaus obtain financing for capital improvements. By "piggy-
backing" funding for energy efficiency on larger municipal debt sales, OFA has
created a low-interest loan fund; bureaus repay the loans out of their energy sav-
ings. By the end of 1996, the city's annual energy savings under the CEC topped
its five-year goal of $1 million, with a total of $3 million in cumulative savings.
The city has invested $2.6 million in capital improvements, but has achieved an

average internal rate of return of 25.7 percent, yielding payback in less than four
Local governments incur substantial energy-related expenses in the operation of
public utilities and infrastructure. The Department of Energy has estimated that
energy consumption accounts for 50 to 75 percent of municipal water system
operating costs, with pumps consuming as much as 80 percent of the electricity
used in drinking water  treatment and distribution.7  Similarly, electricity  to
power pumps and aerators accounts for a large portion of wastewater treatment
system operating costs. A single streetlight or traffic light consumes only a small
amount of energy, but collectively they can cost some communities more than a
million dollars a year. The examples of energy efficiency investments presented
below include cost-saving success stories for each of these energy applications.

By installing a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition  (SCADA) computer
network on its water distribution system, the City of Fresno, California is saving
$725,000, or 13 percent of its water supply electricity costs each year. Energy sav-
ings paid for the $3.2 million cost of the network within five years.8

The California Water Service Company is  saving an average of $47,000 annual-
ly in energy costs, following installation of a SCADA network at a cost  of
$100,000. During the first four years of its operation, the cost  per pumped gal-
lon of water averaged 29 percent lower than in the prior four years.9
  • Fresno, California; Water supply SCADA
     	Annual savings = $725,000 (13%)
     	Project cost = $3.2 million
     	Payback period = 5 years
  • California Water Service Co.; SCADA
     	Annual savings = $47,000 (29%)
     	Project cost = $100,000
     — Payback period = 2+ years
  • Philadelphia Wastewater Treatment Plants;
    Standby electrical generation using methane
     	Expected savings = $44.7 million over
         20 years
                                                San Jose, California; Energy efficient streetlights
                                                 	Annual savings = $1.5 million
                                                City and County of Denver; LED traffic lights
                                                 	Annual savings = $300,000
                                                Santa Monica, California; LED traffic lights
                                                 	Annual savings = $200,000 (estimated)
                                                 	Project cost = $500,000 to $600,000
                                                 	Payback period = 2 to 3 years

In 1993, the Philadelphia Water Department instituted an innovation to gener-
ate additional electricity at two of its three wastewater treatment plants. Methane
from sludge digesters is used to power a standby electrical generator. This stand-
by generating capacity allows the  department to purchase power at low inter-
ruptible rates, which are expected to save $44.7 million over 20 years.10

Advanced Integrated Pond (AIP) wastewater treatment systems use microalgae in
place of conventional electro-mechanical systems to aerate wastewater. According
to DOE, because aeration often accounts for over 60 percent of the energy used in
conventional treatment plants, AIP systems may use as little as 20 to 25 percent of
the total energy consumed by conventional plants. As a result, AIP systems have
substantially lower costs. The total  operating costs, excluding payroll, for the AIP
wastewater treatment plant in St. Helena, California, for example, are less than
$100,000 per year to treat flows of 500,000 gallons per day.11
   • Between 1981  and 1984, the City of San Jose, California, replaced 48,000
     incandescent and mercury vapor streetlights with more efficient low- and
     high-pressure sodium lights, achieving annual savings of $1.5 million.
   • The City of Hanford, California is saving $11,700 per year after replacing
     incandescent lights in its traffic signals with energy efficient light-emitting
     diodes (LED). The $80,000 project  was funded with a loan from  the
     California Energy Commission and a rebate from the local electric utility.
   • The City and County of Denver have replaced their entire stock of 17,000
     traffic signals with new LED lights, saving over $300,000 per year in energy
     and maintenance costs.
   • Santa Monica, California planned to retrofit all of its red traffic signals with
     LED lights in 1997. The city estimated that the project would cost $500,000
     to $600,000 and have a payback period of three years or less.
   • In 1989 the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico installed 21 lights powered
     by photovoltaic cells over its Tramway Boulevard Bike and Walking Path.
     The $2,500 cost of each solar light was $500 less than the cost of connect-
     ing conventional lights to the closest underground line, yielding up-front
     savings of $10,500. In addition, the solar cells eliminate the cost of electric-
     ity to power the lights.
   • The City of Carrollton, Texas has installed 80 solar-powered school zone
     flashers at 40 schools, saving more than $3,500 apiece compared to the cost
     of flashers connected to the electrical grid.
   • As part of California's Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE)
     project, 26 of the state's 58 counties installed photovoltaic emergency call
     boxes along freeways. The solar call boxes cost from $2,200 to $2,300 to pur-
     chase and install, and about $350 per year to maintain. They reportedly have
     a 10-year life-cycle and cost about 75 percent less than conventional grid-
     connected call boxes.

Local governments can use a variety of innovative tools to finance energy effi-
ciency improvements and upgrades, and thus reap significant savings on energy
costs at minimal expense. Leasing and performance contracts, revolving funds
and state loans are three popular financing options that can be paid for with
energy savings, requiring little or no up-front cash outlay.
Among the most widely used and successful financing tools are leasing arrange-
ments  through which contractors — known as energy service companies —
fund and provide the capital equipment for the upgrade, and may also contract
to operate and maintain the equipment, in exchange for lease payments from the
local government. Leases may take any of several forms, but they generally allow
local governments  to make lease  payments out of the energy cost savings
accrued from the project. At the end of the lease term, the lessee (in this case the
local government) typically takes ownership of the capital equipment,  which
normally has a useful life substantially longer than the lease term.

There are three basic lease options. The best one for any given situation will
depend on several questions such as the cost of the project, the desired lease term
and whether the local government wishes to take over the capital equipment at
the end of the lease. Under a financing lease, the lessee pays for the equipment
in equal monthly installments, and  usually purchases the equipment at the end
of the term for a nominal fee. Operating leases are often used for shorter terms,
with the lessor (the contractor) retaining ownership of the equipment and the
lessee (the local government) having the option to purchase the equipment at
market value, upgrade to other equipment or renegotiate the lease when it
expires. Under a guaranteed savings lease, also known as a performance con-
tract, the contractor guarantees that the annual lease payments for the improve-
ments will not exceed the energy savings, and there is often a clause stating that
if the savings exceed the lease payment, the local government keeps the differ-
ence. As with a financing lease, the local government takes ownership of the cap-
ital equipment at the end of the lease.12 The guaranteed savings lease is often the
most attractive financing option for cash-strapped local governments, since it
has no  up-front cost and is risk-free.

The Iowa Energy Bank provides one example of a leasing contract. The bank
finances projects through leasing agreements, with lease payments structured to
be less than or equal to the energy savings. Originally created to finance energy
projects in public schools and community colleges, the Energy Bank now oper-
ates separate lease-finance programs for hospitals, local government facilities
and private colleges.13
• Leasing and
   performance contracts
    improvement costs
    paid out of energy
    cost savings.
• Revolving funds
   • Energy cost savings
    from no-cost or low-
    cost efficiency
    upgrades used to
    finance later capital
• State loan programs
   • Loans repaid out of
    energy cost savings.
Revolving funds, such as those employed in the Philadelphia School District's
Save Energy Campaign and the City of Phoenix's Energy Management Program,

are other popular and effective financing mechanisms that often require little or
no initial funding. The essence of a revolving fund is that the initial savings gen-
erated from implementation of simple, low-cost energy efficiency improve-
ments,  or  no-cost behavioral  and operational changes, are used to fund
subsequent, more capital-intensive improvements. Thus, early savings leverage
even greater energy efficiency gains over time.

A  Canadian  program similar to  Philadelphia's Save Energy Campaign,
Destination Conservation, was started in Alberta in 1987 by the Environmental
Resource Center. This program promotes the use of simple, no-cost or low-cost
"lifestyle" changes in schools, such as turning off unneeded lights, to generate
savings that are subsequently used for low cost retrofits such as the installation of
occupancy  sensors for classroom lights. Savings from these low cost retrofits are
in turn used to finance more capital intensive retrofits, such as lighting upgrades.
Two hundred  and twenty schools from 24 districts in Alberta have participated
in the program, with the 87 schools in TransAlta Utilities' service territory saving
an average  of 25 percent on their baseline utility bills.14

Local governments may be able to finance capital-intensive energy efficiency
investments in public facilities through loan  programs  administered by state
energy offices. For example, the Texas State Energy Conservation Office admin-
isters the Statewide Retrofit Demonstration and Revolving Loan Program, better
known as  the Loan to  Save Taxes and Resources (LoanSTAR)  program.
LoanSTAR uses a portion of the state's oil overcharge payments as a revolving
loan fund to finance energy efficiency upgrades of public facilities such as hospi-
tals, schools and libraries. The low-interest loans are repaid out of energy cost
savings. Under a separate initiative, the Texas Education Agency is using $23 mil-
lion  in oil  overcharge funds to provide School Energy Management grants to
public schools for energy efficiency projects.15

Other states have similar programs. The Oregon Department of Energy offers the
Small Scale Energy Loan Program, providing loans at 5.9 percent interest for up to
15 years. The California Energy Commission has three separate initiatives to provide
energy efficiency funding and technical assistance to local governments. The Energy
Partnership Program provides loans to cities and counties to retrofit existing facili-
ties, as well  as energy efficiency design assistance for new facilities. The Schools and
Hospitals Program provides grants and loans for energy projects at public schools
and hospitals. The Water Energy Efficiency Program provides technical assistance to
cities, counties, and water districts to improve the energy efficiency of municipal
water and  wastewater facilities. Using an  Energy Partnership loan, the City of
Riverside completed energy efficiency retrofits of its seven story City Hall building in
1993, gaining annual savings of $85,649 that paid for the  project in 2.5 years and
saved three  jobs in the city's building services department.16

             GETTING  STARTED
  From the  case studies presented in this chapter, local governments  can
  extract some general guidelines:
  •  Start with simple, low-cost measures. Using a revolving fund is a cost-
     effective way to leverage early savings from low-cost retrofits to finance
     more capital intensive projects as the program proceeds.
  •  Take advantage of state loan programs and innovative financing mecha-
     nisms, such as leasing arrangements that allow energy efficiency upgrades
     of public facilities at no  cost to local governments.
  •  Educate government units  (e.g., schools or departments) about energy
     and ways to reduce its use. Perform audits and allow departments to track
     their progress in improving energy efficiency to promote awareness of
     energy consumption.
  •  Provide financial incentives to government units by returning to them a
     portion of their energy cost savings, thus increasing their commitment to
     energy conservation.
  •  Adopt alternatives to the extension of power lines, such as the use of solar
     cells, for small scale electricity uses in remote locations. Many communi-
     ties find that the cost savings can be immediate and substantial.
  •  Publicize successes  through public forums, newsletters or infor-
     mation campaigns. Use  the example of the local government to
     spur energy efficiency improvements across the whole commu-

 EPA Green Lights/ENERGY STAR® Buildings
 Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
 Office of Air and Radiation
 Contact: Doug Gatlin,
 Manager, State & Local Government sector
 Phone: (202) 564-9619
EPA ENERGY STAR® Purchasing Initiative
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division
Office of Air and Radiation
Contact: Jennifer Dolin,
Program Manager
Phone: (202) 564-9073
                              U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAMS
 U.S. Department of Energy Programs
 Office of State and Community Programs
 Office of Building Technology
 U.S. Department of Energy
 1000 Independence Avenue, SW
 Washington, DC 20585
 Phone: (202) 586-4074
 Internet Site: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings
The Office of State and Community Programs pro-
vides funding to state governments for energy pro-
grams and low income housing weatherization
assistance. Individual states may distribute these
funds to local governments. OSCP's Internet site cur-
rently provides a directory of more than 90 comput-
er software tools for evaluating energy efficiency in
buildings. The site also provides information about
advanced building technologies, case studies, techni-
cal and financial assistance opportunities, and part-
nership opportunities that promote energy efficiency
and pollution prevention.
 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
 PO Box 3048
 Phone: (800) 363-3732
 Internet Site: http://www.eren.doe.gov/
DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy administers the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Clearinghouse to make available a
wide range of documents on energy efficiency. The
clearinghouse's Internet site contains 26 subject
directories with over 500 files (text files and soft-
ware) that can be downloaded. Many of these docu-
ments are also available in hard copy.
 Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development
 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
 U.S. Department of Energy
 Denver Regional Support Office
 1617 Cole Boulevard
 Golden, CO 80401
 Phone: (800) 363-3732
 Fax: (303) 275-4830
 Internet Site: http://www.sustainable.doe.gov
DOE's Center of Excellence for Sustainable
Development provides information on technical
assistance and sources of funding. Its Internet site
serves as a clearinghouse for articles concerning sus-
tainable communities, energy efficiency, land use
planning and management, transportation, green
building and related topics.
 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network
 Internet Site: http://www.eren.doe.gov
EREN is an extensive network of Internet sites that
provides information related to DOE's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's initiatives.

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
 1617 Cole Boulevard
 Golden, CO 80401
 Phone:(303) 275-3000
 Internet Site: http://www.nrel.gov
DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), managed by the Midwest Research Institute,
conducts research to develop renewable energy tech-
nologies and improve energy efficiency. NREL's
Office of State and Local Partnerships was created in
1994 to  provide information and technical assistance
to state and local governments. As part of its Cities
and Counties Project, NREL developed a series of 30
fact sheets describing innovative energy efficiency
initiatives developed by city and county govern-
ments. These fact sheets are available in hard copies
or online from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Clearinghouse.
                            LOCAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
 Urban Consortium Energy Task Force (UCETF)
 Public Technology, Inc.
 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
 Washington, DC 20004-1793
 Phone: (202) 626-2400
 Internet Site: http://www.pti.nw.dc.us/etf.htm
The Urban Consortium is a membership organiza-
tion of 23 large municipal governments from around
the country. Its Energy Task Force develops strategies
to address local energy and environmental concerns.
UCETF also offers publications on energy-related
topics, including a workbook entitled, Sustainable
Energy — A Local Government Planning Guide for a
Sustainable Future.
 International City/County Management Association
 777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 500
 Washington, DC 20002-4201
 Phone: (202) 289-4262
 Fax: (202)962-3500
 Internet Site: http://www.icma.org
ICMA is a professional and educational association
for more than 8,000 local government administrators
worldwide. ICMA provides training programs, tech-
nical assistance, data services and publications to
improve the quality of local government manage-
ment and administration.
 City of Portland Energy Office
 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1170
 Portland, OR 97212-3711
 Phone:(503) 823-7222
 Fax: (503)823-5370
 E-mail: pdxenergy@ci.portland.or.us
 Internet Site: http://www.ci.portland.or.us/energy/web
Portland, Oregon's energy office manages a variety of
programs to reduce energy use in the public and pri-
vate sectors.
 National Association of Energy Service Companies
 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 800
 Washington, DC 20036
 Phone: (202) 822-0950
 Fax: (202)822-0955
NAESCO represents energy efficiency industries and
energy products and service companies. It provides
information about energy service companies and
demand side management programs, and publishes
the Energy Efficiency Journal.

  City of Minneapolis
  Center for Energy and Environment
  Butler Square, Suite 412A
  100 6 St. N
  Minneapolis, MN 55403-1520
The Center for Energy and Environment offers an
assortment of energy efficiency programs to
Minneapolis residents and businesses, including
energy education and low cost weatherization assis-
tance to low income households, and low interest
financing of up to $7,000 to residential property
owners for efficiency improvements. The Fluorescent
Lighting Installation Program helps businesses
finance and install energy efficient lighting, and
Operation Installation provides one stop service for
residential energy conservation retrofits to cut the
use of natural gas for heating.17'18
 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical Information Program. "Energy Efficiency
   Strengthens Local Economies," Cities and Counties Project Fact Sheet #3.
 2. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical Information Program. "Procurement Works
   Hand in Hand With Energy Efficiency," Cities and Counties Project Fact Sheet #15.
 3. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. Montgomery County, Maryland. Resource Conservation Program. The Results
   Center Profile #125. 1996.
 4. U.S. Department of Energy. The Rebuild America Financing Handbook. 1996. See also The Results Center, Division of IRT
   Environment, Inc. School District of Philadelphia. Save Energy Campaign. The Results Center Profile #114.
 5. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. The City of Phoenix. Energy Management Program. The Results Center
   Profile #118.
 6. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development.
   "Cities and Counties: Portland, Oregon," accessed 5/16/97 at http://www.sustamable.doe.gov/ss/pti/PORTLAND/index.html.
 7. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical Information Program. "Cities Cut Water
   System Energy Costs," Cities and Counties Project Fact Sheet #13.
 8. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical Information Program. "Cities Cut Water
   System Energy Costs," Cities and Counties Project Fact Sheet #13.
 9. Ibid.
10. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. Philadelphia Water Department. Conservation Assistance Program. The
   Results Center Profile #109.
11. George Milanes, Chief Operator of the AIP wastewater treatment plant in St. Helena, California. Personal Communication, July 16,
12. U.S. Department of Energy. The Rebuild America Financing Handbook. 1996
13. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Energy Bank. The Results Center
   Profile #73.
14. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. Environmental Resource Center. Destination Conservation. The Results
   Center Profile #82.
15. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. The State of Texas. LoanSTAR Revolving Fund. The Results  Center Profile
16. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. California Energy Commission. Energy Partnership Program. The Results
   Center Profile #64.
17. City of Minneapolis, Center for Energy and Environment, "City of Minneapolis: Energy & Environment," Internet  Site,
   http://www.ci.mpls.mn.us/departments/city-coordinator/neighborhood/cee.html (accessed 5/29/97).
18. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, "Minneapolis, USA: Residential Energy Conservation," Project Summary
   #47, Internet  Site, http://www.iclei.org/leicomm/lei-047.htm (accessed 5/13/97).

                 SMART INVESTMENTS
                 FOR  WATER  RESOURCES
                                                jjocal governments spend $46 billion a
                                                year on water supply and waste water
                                               treatment systems—40% of public works
       conomic growth  and community develop-
       ment often have the unwanted  result of
       depleting or degrading natural resources,
       most notably water supplies. As populations
expand and existing water supplies dwindle  or are
threatened, local governments must face additional
costs trying to find, purchase or develop new water
sources and treat existing supplies. In 1993, local gov-
ernments spent a total of $24.2 billion, nearly 22 percent
of their public works budgets, on water supply system construction, operation,
and maintenance. After use, water is typically discharged to municipal sewage
treatment systems, imposing additional costs. Local  government sewerage
expenses totaled $21.6 billion in 1993, almost 20 percent of their public works
budgets, $mart Investments in water resources have the potential to yield sub-
stantial returns at both ends of the pipe.
Water resources management and conservation also yields environmental bene-
fits. Smart Investment in water conservation can help preserve watersheds for
healthy ecosystems and wildlife habitats. Conservation measures help to main-
tain adequate water levels in rivers and streams for aquatic ecosystems, and
reduce the quantities of wastewater discharged to surface waters. Local govern-
ments can make Smart Investments to conserve water resources; many have
found that such investments can bring high returns.
  SHORT-TERM	    	    	     LONG-TERM
  Adopt landscaping codes
     • Institute irrigation restrictions
     • Implement increasing block pricing
                                            Conduct leak detection programs
                                            Subsidize plumbing fixture retrofits


EPA's Water Alliance for Voluntary Efficiency (WAVE) Program promotes water
conservation through voluntary partnerships with hotel chains to upgrade and
improve plumbing fixtures, laundry facilities and other equipment. Signing a
Memorandum of Understanding with EPA, partners promise
to conduct water use audits, evaluate water conservation
options, upgrade existing water systems  and fixtures, and
update EPA annually  on the progress of implementation.
They also agree to install water  conserving fixtures  and sys-
tems in all new facilities, and to provide information to cus-
tomers and employees on the benefits of water conservation.
Program partners receive EPA technical assistance, including
a free "WAVE-Saver" software package for tracking water con-
sumption, calculating marginal water costs and conservation
budgets, and projecting the cost and performance of various
water conservation options. EPA also provides education and
outreach through training workshops for facility managers
and engineers, and information  on water conservation prod-
ucts and equipment suppliers.

The WAVE partnership program will soon be expanded to
schools, hospitals, and other public facilities. EPA has been
adapting the WAVE-Saver software for schools, with testing
scheduled for late 1997. The agency also encourages munici-
palities, local and regional water resource  boards, water dis-
tricts  and water utilities to join  the WAVE program  as
supporters. In addition to upgrading their own water fixtures
and systems, program supporters assist EPA in promoting water conservation,
educating industry and the public about water conservation technology, and
encouraging the development of new technologies. By mid-1997, WAVE sup-
porters included ten city and county level water districts, water conservation
departments, and water supply boards from around the country.
                                                   Water Alliances For
                                                   Voluntary Efficiency
EPA estimates that a hotel or motel can cut its water consumption by as much as
30 percent by installing water conserving fixtures and equipment, and that the
payback period for  installation costs is often three years or less. Some WAVE
charter partners have reported reductions in annual water use ranging from 2.7
to 11 million gallons. That translates into annual water savings of 14 to 52 per-
cent and corresponding cost reductions of $32,000 to $60,000 for water and
sewer  services.1 Schools and hospitals, which use water in the same ways as

hotels, may be able to achieve similar cost savings once they are enrolled in the
program. Until then, local governments can benefit from participation as WAVE
supporters promoting water conservation. Because the marginal costs of devel-
oping additional water supplies are normally borne by municipally owned water
utilities, local governments' promotion of water conservation can reduce their
operating costs and help defer capital expenditures associated with the expan-
sion and maintenance of water supply systems.

There are a variety of proven water conservation investments and practices that
can reduce water demand and save money. They range from water conservation
ordinances and pricing policies to leak detection and voluntary conservation.
For example, "increasing block price" programs charge more for each gallon of
water if consumption increases beyond a specified threshold, creating an eco-
nomic incentive for conservation.
   • Nationwide,  lawn watering accounts for about  32 percent of residential
     outdoor water use. Landscaping codes can promote significant water sav-
     ings by restricting the time and amount of lawn and landscape irrigation.
     They can also require xeriscape landscaping, low-flow irrigation technolo-
     gies and reuse of gray water.
   • Use of increasing block prices or time-of-day pricing can also significantly
     reduce water demand.  In Tucson, Arizona, increasing water prices pro-
     duced a 33 percent drop in demand  from 1974 to 1980.
   • A  combination of  increasing block rates,  irrigation  restrictions, and
     plumbing code changes, in  Tampa, Florida, reduced the community's
     water demand by more than 15 percent within the first nine months of the
   • Many cities have found  that a retrofit of plumbing fixtures yields substan-
     tial savings: in San Pablo, California,  replacing conventional 4.5 gallon-per-
     flush toilets  with low-flow 1.6 gallon-per-flush models in a 30 year-old
     apartment building cut  average water use by 34 percent per household. At
     a replacement cost of $250 per fixture, the average annual savings of $46
     resulted in a  five and a half-year payback.
   • Leak detection programs, both for water mains and for residential plumb-
     ing fixtures, can reduce costly water losses. The City of New York estimates
     that leakage accounts for as much as 10 percent of its total water demand.
     By surveying its water mains with computerized electronic leak detection
     equipment and completing repairs, the city contained the leaks and saved
     89 million gallons per day. A separate program of residential leak detection
     by city inspectors reduced leakage by an additional four million gallons

The local  initiatives profiled on the following pages illustrate  many of these
• Water use reductions:
  • 2.7 to 11 millions
  • 14 to 52 percent of
    total use
• Water and sewer
  services savings:
  •$32,000 to $60,000

              Direct installation or rebates for ultra-low flow toilets in commercial and residential
              Restrictions on lawn and landscape watering, fountains and swimming pools.
              Implementation of increasing water rate structure.
              New development water supply costs paid in full by developers.
              Water use and wastewater flows reduced by 14% and 21%, respectively, over five years.
              Five-year, $12.5 million reduction in city water supply and wastewater treatment costs.
Santa Monica, California meets only about two-thirds of its water needs from
local ground water supplies, purchasing the rest from the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. The city also purchases wastewater treatment
services from the City of Los Angeles at significant cost. In an effort to reduce
both expenses, and avoid constructing its own wastewater treatment plant, Santa
Monica initiated a comprehensive water conservation and management program
in 1988, revising its plumbing code to require ultra low-flow (ULF) toilets in new
buildings. The city also enacted a water conservation ordinance to regulate resi-
dential water use, including restrictions on lawn and landscape watering, foun-
tains and swimming pools.

Santa Monica has also established economic incentives to encourage water con-
servation, including an inclining rate structure which charges higher unit costs as
consumption grows, and a water-demand mitigation fee imposed on developers
to cover the full water supply costs of new development. The city's Bay Saver
Toilet Retrofit Program  offers two options to encourage property owners to
install ULF toilets: a $75  rebate for purchase and installation of a city-approved
toilet, or a $35 payment to have the city provide and install one. The rebate and
direct install options are financed with general water and wastewater revenues,
credits given to the city by the Metropolitan Water District for conservation ini-
tiatives, and surcharges on water  bills for property without  upgraded fixtures.
Having surpassed its original goal of retrofitting 25 percent of residential toilets
in less than three years, the program was extended in 1992 to target an addition-
al 25 percent of residential buildings and at least 25 percent of toilets in com-
mercial buildings.

By late 1997 the Bay Saver Program had retrofitted 53 percent of toilets in resi-
dential buildings,  but only 9.5 percent in  commercial buildings. Commercial
participation has been low since water costs constitute a smaller percentage of
commercial budgets. Nonetheless, the program has reduced water demand and
wastewater flows by 1.9 million gallons per day. Combined with other conserva-
tion measures, the  city realized  a 14 percent decrease in water use  and a

21 percent drop in wastewater flows from 1990 to 1995, producing net savings of
$12.5 million on water purchases and wastewater treatment services.2
             Water conservation program to reduce non-payment of water bills.
             Average household water savings of 25%.
             48% return on investment to city's water department.
The Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) serves a population of 1.74 million
people, supplying the area with 349 million gallons of water per day. In 1986
PWD instituted  the  Conservation Assistance  Program  (CAP) to help low-
income and "payment-troubled" residential customers manage their water use.
The CAP educates consumers about water use and provides direct installation of
low-flow toilets,  shower heads and faucet  aerators, in addition to minor leak
repairs. Such  assistance lowers customers'  water use to levels they can afford.
Because PWD has an abundant supply of water, the program was intended to
serve only as a means to reduce non-payment of bills. However, it has also result-
ed in average household  water savings of 25  percent. Through reduced bill
arrearage and reduced water supply operating costs, PWD  expects net savings of
$97 per household over ten years, or $1.48  for every dollar invested in the pro-
             Rebates for purchase and installation of low-flow toilets.
             Annual savings of $15 million in water supply and treatment costs.
             Two-thirds reduction in sewer hookup fees.
Since 1988, the City of Los Angeles has required the use of low-flow water fix-
tures in all new construction. In 1990, to increase water conservation, the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) began replacing toilets in exist-
ing buildings with low-flow models. Offering rebates of $75 to $100 for anyone
purchasing a low-flow toilet, and distributing free toilets through local  commu-
nity organizations, the city replaced 620,000 toilets by 1996. The DWP has invest-
ed a total of $65 million in the rebate program, but now saves $15 million in
water supply and treatment costs annually, for a payback period of less  than five
years. Residents also save on sewer  charges, which are based on the amount of
water piped into their homes. Reduced wastewater flows have enabled the city to
cut costs for wastewater treatment,  resulting in a two-thirds reduction in sewer
hookup fees for new construction, the largest fee cut in the city's history.4

             Retrofit 20,000 households in Empowerment Zone with low flow fixtures.
             Funding provided by corporate and non-profit partners.
             Projected savings of $2.7 million on water bills.
EPA Region 4 has recently been involved in a public-private partnership with the
City of Atlanta, Georgia Power Corp. and the Turner Foundation to distribute
low-flow toilets, shower heads, and faucet adapters to low-income residents of
the Atlanta Empowerment Zone, with funding provided by corporate and non-
profit partners. The initial phase of the project, started with distribution of low-
flow fixtures to 960 households, is expected to reduce annual water consumption
by 25 million gallons, yielding savings of $87,000 on residents' water bills. The
long-term project goal is to retrofit all 20,000 households in the Empowerment
Zone with low-flow fixtures, with projected savings of $2.7 million on water
             GETTING  STARTED

  • Design a water conservation program to address the specific needs of the
     community. This may require analyses  of water metering or billing
     records to identify the largest water consumers.
  • Target reductions in commercial and residential use through changes
     in water rate structures, or modifications to plumbing codes.
  • Address  non-payment of bills through in-home water
     audits, leak repairs, and  subsidized retrofits with water
     conserving fixtures for low-income residents.

                                      EPA WAVE PROGRAM
 EPA Office of Water
 Contact: John Flowers,
 WAVE Program Director
 Phone: (202) 260-7288
 EPA's WAVE Technical Support Hotline
 Phone: (800) 993-WAVE
The WAVE Program promotes voluntary water con-
servation. EPA provides program partners with tech-
nical assistance tools for plumbing upgrades,
including free "WAVE-saver" software for tracking
water use.
                                     WATER CONSERVATION
 City of Santa Monica
 Environmental Programs Division
 200 Santa Monica Pier
 Santa Monica, CA 90401
 Contact: Dean Kubani
 Phone: (310) 458-2227
 Fax: (310) 393-1279
Santa Monica's Environmental Programs Division
tracks progress on a number of the environmental
initiatives the city is undertaking as part of its
Sustainable City Program.
 City of San Jose
 Environmental Services Department
 777 N. First St., Suite 450
 San Jose, CA 95112
 Phone: (408) 277-5533
 Fax: (408)  277-3606
The city is reducing wastewater flows by installing
ultra low-flow toilets in new construction and pro-
viding incentives to local businesses to install water
conserving fixtures. San Jose also plans to develop a
Nonpotable Reclamation and Reuse Facility to pro-
vide water for irrigation, fire fighting, fountains,
street sweeping and vehicle washing.6
                                      GENERAL RESOURCES
 International City/County Management Association
 777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 500
 Washington, DC 20002-4201
 Phone: (202) 289-4262
 Fax: (202) 962-3500
 Internet Site: http://www.icma.org
ICMA is a professional and educational association
for more than 8,000 local government administrators
worldwide. ICMA provides training programs, tech-
nical assistance, data services and publications to
improve the quality of local government manage-
ment and administration.

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Introducing WAVE - Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency: Hotel Water
   Management for the 21st Century. September 1994.
2. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Project Summary Series, "Santa Monica, USA: Water Conservation,"
   Project Summary #37, Internet Site, http://www.iclei.org/leicomm/lei-037.htm (accessed 5/13/97).
3. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. Philadelphia Water Department. Conservation Assistance Program. The
   Results Center Profile #109.
4. Wilgoren, Jodi. "Council Panel Agrees to Slash Sewer Hookup Fee," Los Angeles Times, April 10, 1996. p. B-l.
5. Perez, Ernesto A. "Atlanta Empowerment Zone - Water Conservation retrofit Kick-off results," Memorandum to John H. Hankinson,
   Jr., Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4, and Allison Wise, Special Assistant to Regional Administrator. June 3, 1996.
6. Renew America, Success Stories Series, "The Sustainable City Project," Internet Site,
   http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/ss/sustainable_city__project.htm (accessed 5/13/97).

      Xocal governments usually pay for collecting and disposing of municipal
      solid waste (MSW). Over the last three decades, the volume of MSW
      has grown from 88 million tons in 1960 to 208 million tons in 1995,
      and local governments' waste disposal costs have risen steadily as well.
From 1980 to 1992, local government expenditures for solid waste management
more than tripled, raising from $3.3  billion to $10.7 billion. The increase has
been driven in part by the escalation in nationwide average landfill tipping fees,
which went up nearly fourfold in a decade. In some cases, the rise in tipping fees
has been even more sudden and dramatic: when Portland, Oregon's landfill
closed in 1988 and the city was forced to contract with a private regional landfill
150 miles away, its tipping fees grew from $17.50 to $75 per ton.1
                              LANDFILL TIPPING FEES
                                                          West Central
                                                      |    | Mid Atlantic
         1985   1986  1987   1988   1990  1992  1995


     Use crushed concrete for road base
     Recycle toner cartridges
     Buy retread tires for fleet vehicles
     Buy recycled plastic "lumber"
     Salvage and reuse building materials
                                             Use recycled paper
                                             Implement unit pricing for solid waste
Smart Waste Management Investments yield cost savings. Given these
costs, cutting the amount of waste generated in the community and sent to land-
fills can yield immediate savings. By also implementing waste reduction practices
in public facilities, local governments can reap additional savings. Recycling, one
of the most widely used ways to divert materials from the waste stream, may pro-
vide further financial benefits through the sale of recyclable materials, as well as
economic benefits  through job creation.  A study by the Massachusetts
Department of Economic Development found that recycling industries have cre-
ated 10,000 jobs and added $588 million to the state's economy.2 Newark, New
Jersey's recycling program saved residents and local businesses $15.4 million in
disposal fees and generated almost $167,000 from the sale of recycled materials
over six years.3 Many cities and counties that buy recycled products to support
local recycling markets  have also  realized savings through the lower prices of
some recycled products. Finally, holding down waste disposal costs for local busi-
nesses can stimulate private investment in more productive economic activities.

Smart Waste Management Investments  yield environmental benefits.
Waste reduction and recycling yields environmental benefits  to the community,
as well. By prolonging the life of existing landfills, reductions in waste volumes
can postpone or eliminate the need for new or expanded landfills. The environ-
mental impact of existing landfills  is alleviated, since less waste means less
leachate that might contaminate ground water and less loose trash that can  blow
into surrounding neighborhoods. With fewer trucks needed to collect and trans-
port waste, and with less trash burned in municipal incinerators, local air quali-
ty may also improve.
The goal of WasteWi$e, a program launched by EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) in 1994, is to cut the generation of municipal
solid waste through voluntary waste reduction and recycling agreements. Under
the current program, which targets the commercial sector, companies volunteer

to develop their own waste reduction and recycling plans, and provide EPA with
annual progress reports, along with updated goals for the coming year. Goals
must include three components: (1) implementation of three significant waste
reduction or prevention steps, (2) establishment or improvement of a recycling
program, and (3)  increased manufacture or purchase of recycled products.
Annual progress reports must include data on the amount of waste reduction,
the quantity of recyclable items diverted from the company's waste stream, and
examples of recycled material purchases.

EPA provides information and technical assistance to participating companies
through the WasteWi$e Update newsletter, a help  line, various workshops and
"how-to" publications, and a "peer exchange" through which participants can
share ideas and learn from one another's experience. Participants also receive
public recognition through EPA newsletters and press releases, and are permit-
ted to use the WasteWi$e logo in their promotional and advertising materials.
During the first two years of the WasteWi$e program, more than 500
businesses and industries volunteered for the program, including many
Fortune 1000 corporations. Late in 1997, EPA was finalizing a compre-
hensive plan to expand the program to local governments and com-
munity development groups. As drafted, the plan offers two parallel
options for local governments:

  • Under the first option, local governments can join the WasteWi$e
     program as Partners, by signing agreements with EPA to develop
     voluntary waste reduction and recycling goals and to report
     annually how they have progressed. Under this option, EPA may
     allow school districts to join the program as independent entities.

  • Under the second option, local governments, along with commu-
     nity development and business assistance organizations, can join
     WasteWi$e as Allies, to assist EPA in providing information and
     outreach services to small and medium sized-businesses in their
     areas. Together with such local organizations as chambers of com-
     merce, university extension services and small business develop-
     ment centers, EPA plans to support a series of interactive satellite
     broadcasts on solid waste reduction topics, to  be publicized and
     aired locally around the country.
WasteWi$e benefits local governments by fostering innovative public-private
partnerships that in some instances yield direct economic gains. For example,
Virco Manufacturing, a maker of school and office furniture, in partnership
with the Conway School District in Arkansas, initiated a recycling program for
corrugated cardboard. During its first five months in one school, Virco collect-
ed and sold 39,000 pounds of corrugated cardboard, returning $2,000 in rev-

enue to the district. The following year, after the program was expanded to other
schools, the district received  $3,800  from the collection and sale of 85,000
pounds of cardboard.4 There may also be significant potential for school districts
to cut their costs for waste disposal. By instituting a recycling and garbage reduc-
tion program in its cafeterias alone, the Richmond School District in Contra
Costa County, California saved $30,000 in waste transportation and disposal

By the end of 1997, all but six states had some requirement for waste reduction
or diversion from landfills. Unit pricing programs are one mechanism that can
help local governments comply with those requirements. A 1994 survey of 80
cities with populations of 50,000 or more found that 35 percent paid for waste
disposal services out of property tax revenues.6 In these communities, or where
waste disposal costs are paid out of general revenues, residents may be unaware
of the true cost of their waste disposal, and may have no incentive to reduce the
quantities they generate. Unit pricing programs, also known as variable rate pric-
ing or "pay-as-you-throw" programs, provide a direct  economic incentive for
waste reduction and recycling by charging households a disposal fee for each bag
or container of waste they generate. Revenues from disposal fees offset the costs
of disposal and recycling programs.

By 1996, more than 2,000 communities nationwide were operating unit pricing
programs for solid waste, with the resulting MSW volume reductions averaging
around 30 percent and ranging as high as 50 percent or more in some commu-
nities. Recent studies indicate that unit pricing can also  produce increases of 30
to 70 percent in local recycling and composting rates. San Jose, California, the
nation's eleventh largest city, began a unit pricing and recycling program in 1993.
From 1993 to 1994, the volume of landfilled residential waste decreased more
than 20 percent, from 250,000 tons to 198,000  tons, while the volume of resi-
dential recyclable materials collected more than doubled, rising from  less than
31,000 to nearly 76,000 tons. The amount of residential yard waste diverted from
the city's waste stream increased by nearly 50 percent, from 66,500 tons in 1993
to 96,800 in 1994.7

In general, the greatest waste reduction and recycling increase can be expected in
communities that combine unit pricing with  curbside recycling pickup and
composting programs.  One study has concluded that  curbside recycling pro-
grams alone reduce waste volumes  more than unit pricing programs alone.
However, because recycling may initially increase capital and operating costs for
solid waste disposal, it is often advisable to institute unit pricing programs con-
currently in order to generate the needed revenue.

In designing unit pricing programs, local governments  should consider several
factors, including the size or type of container, the method of payment and the
fee  structure. Some programs charge a small base fee to cover the fixed costs of
waste collection and transportation, combined with  a per-container fee for dis-
posal. Other programs charge a flat rate for  each container of a given size  or
          AND WASTE
   Dover, New
   •64.5% decrease in
    residential waste
   * MSW budget down
    from $1.2 million to
   South Kingstown,
   Rhode Island
   •71.4% decrease in
    residential waste
   •Average annual
    household disposal
    cost down 43%
    from $92 to $52.
   Falmouth, Maine
   •35% decrease in
    residential waste
   •Waste collection
    savings of $30,000.
   •Disposal fees
    savings of $88,000.

weight. Either way, careful estimation of waste volumes and program costs can
ensure that fees are sufficient to cover program costs. Many communities have
not only managed to cover their waste disposal costs with unit pricing, but have
also achieved significant cost savings over "conventional" solid waste manage-
ment programs, as demonstrated by the following examples.8
   • Dover, New Hampshire. In 1990, prior to implementation of its unit pric-
     ing and curbside recycling program, the City of Dover disposed of 11,000
     tons of residential trash each year at a cost of $1.2 million. By  1996, after
     five years of unit pricing, residential solid waste amounts had dropped to
     3,900 tons — a  64.5 percent decrease — and the city's waste disposal bud-
     get was down to $878,000 for  its  1997 trash disposal and recycling pro-
     grams combined.
   • South  Kingstown, Rhode Island. South Kingstown's unit pricing pro-
     gram, instituted in 1994 in combination with the opening of a free recy-
     cling center, reduced the  city's  residential waste volume by 71.4 percent,
     from 7,608 tons in 1992 to 2,175 tons in 1995. Within the first year of the
     program, the average annual waste disposal cost per household for a fami-
     ly of four dropped from $92 to  $52.
   • Falmouth,  Maine.  Residential  waste volumes  in Falmouth decreased 35
     percent and recycling rates increased from 12 to 21 percent of the waste
     stream following imposition of a unit pricing program in 1992. The 900
     ton drop in waste generation reduced the cost of the town's collection con-
     tract with a private waste hauler from $146,000 to $116,000, and, at the cur-
     rent tipping fee  of $98 per ton, is saving the town an additional $88,000 per
     year in disposal fees.
   • Mendham  Township, New Jersey. Mendham Township followed up the
     initial waste reduction  success  of its recycling program with a switch  to
     variable rates for solid waste disposal. The combination of these two pro-
     grams allowed the town to cut back from two garbage collections each week
     to one  and saved residents an average of $200 annually. The town saved
     money, increased recycling volumes by 83 percent, and reduced
     garbage production by 55 percent, all with no increase in illegal

Because of the  high  degree  of public involvement and residents'
cooperation  needed to make them successful, most unit pricing pro-
grams  also include extensive  outreach and public education efforts.
San Jose, for example, spent more than $1.5 million on its education
and outreach program, which included radio, television, and newspaper
public  service announcements, mailings to all residential households, and more
than 250 community meetings. The  city has been responsive to residents' con-
cerns, and random telephone  surveys  have indicated 80 to 90 percent approval of
its unit pricing program. Equally high resident satisfaction has been reported in
Seattle, where unit pricing increased recycling by 60 percent from 1980 to 1985.
Eighty  percent of the  Seattle population favors the system.


EPA estimates that  construction and demolition (C&D)  waste  accounts for
approximately 24 percent of all solid waste disposed in landfills nationwide. To
encourage greater recycling and reuse, the  agency's procurement  guidelines,
developed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), include
recycled-content recommendations for a variety of construction products (see
p. 4-13). Although C&D waste is usually sent to dedicated C&D landfills rather
than MSW landfills, local governments can still realize significant cost savings
from C&D waste minimization in public construction. Recycled C&D materials
are often less expensive than virgin materials, and the recycling of demolition
debris and unused construction materials can yield significant savings on trans-
portation and disposal costs. Most successful C&D waste minimization strategies
draw upon the solid waste management principles of reduction, reuse, and recy-
cling to divert material from disposal in landfills. While these principles can be
applied to private projects, the focus here is on their application  to the  public

For construction projects, waste reduction results from plans designed to mini-
mize the amount of construction materials needed and from adopting on-site
practices that generate less debris. The following measures can help achieve these
   • Use the pre-existing shell of a former building. Metro, the three-county
     regional government of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area, acquired
     the site of a former Sears department store for its new headquarters, it
     designed new offices within the shell of the pre-existing building. Using this
     approach, Metro saved approximately 80 percent of the building's structure
     from demolition and disposal, and saved $4 million in costs  of new mate-
     rials  and  construction.9
   • Design new buildings to use materials efficiently. Incorporating standard
     sizes in building design, or "optimum value engineering," can reduce waste
     of excess materials as well as material and labor costs. For example, using
     increments in the floor and wall layout that match the standard dimensions
     of building materials can minimize the need to cut  materials to special
     sizes. In addition, using computer design software that integrates informa-
     tion  on project layout and materials, builders can easily assess the effects of
     different  design options on material requirements.
   • Prevent material loss and damage. Storing materials in a secure, protect-
     ed place on the job site prevents losses and damage from weather, accidents
     and vandalism.
   • Save on materials packaging. Purchase materials whose packaging is min-
     imal, reusable or recyclable. It will reduce the quantity of waste disposed in

Many materials that enter the C&D waste stream can be reused, often on the
same project site. These  include wood flooring and framing, plumbing and
lighting fixtures, doors, windows, insulation, molding, siding, wall boxes, cabi-
nets and various scrap materials. These items can often be salvaged through
deconstruction. As opposed to  conventional demolition,  deconstruction
involves carefully dismantling a structure and removing materials for reuse.
Because deconstruction is more time and labor intensive than demolition, it
may complicate planning and scheduling and raise initial costs of a project.
However, deconstruction not only reduces the costs of waste disposal and pur-
chase of new materials, but can also yield substantial revenue from the resale of
salvaged materials, often more than offsetting the additional labor costs.
   • When two California  groups,  Beyond Waste  and  San  Francisco
     Community Recyclers, teamed up  to deconstruct a  building  at San
     Francisco's Presidio in 1996, they salvaged 66,000 board feet of lumber. At
     a total cost of $53,000 for the one-month project, the $43,660 in lumber
     resale income yielded a net deconstruction cost of only $9,340 — nearly 45
     percent less than the demolition bid of $16,800.
   • In 1997, assisted by the Youth Employment Partnership, Beyond Waste
     deconstructed a warehouse owned by the Port  of Oakland, at a total cost
     of $330,000. With $280,000 in income from the resale of 450,000 board
     feet of salvaged lumber, the net deconstruction cost of $50,000 was only
     one-third the demolition bid of $150,000.

The optimal mix of deconstruction and demolition for a specific project and the
potential economic benefits of material reuse depend on several factors, such as
the value of recoverable items, the prevailing cost of disposal and the availabili-
ty of local salvage markets. In some cases, contractors simply salvage select items
before conventional demolition. In others, they dismantle entire structures to be
sold and rebuilt elsewhere.

As is the case with recycling of municipal solid waste, recycling of C&D
materials diverts them from the waste stream for reprocessing into  new
products. Recyclable materials salvaged during C&D  projects include lum-
ber, cardboard, stumps and brush, metal, drywall, glass, concrete, asphalt
and composition roofing. Potential cost savings from C&D debris recy-
cling depend on several local factors. Usually, planners need to compare
recycling fees against landfill tipping fees, and consider requirements
for source separation and the distance materials must  be transported to
reach recycling outlets.

Because C&D waste minimization depends largely on the economic advantages
of recycling over conventional disposal, local governments may be able to pro-
mote salvage and recycling markets by enhancing these advantages. They can
make conventional disposal more expensive, for example, by raising tipping fees
at municipally-operated C&D waste landfills. By including waste minimization
requirements in their bid specifications for public projects, local governments
can also use their purchasing power to help develop local markets for recycled
materials. Use of source separation dumpsters free of charge can be another
incentive. However,  even where economics favor C&D waste minimization,
builders and contractors may be slow to change long-established waste manage-
ment practices.  Enacting ordinances requiring C&D waste minimization may
overcome their reluctance, but will not always ensure that the most efficient and
cost-effective  practices are adopted. Local governments,  therefore,  have an
important role to play in promoting C&D waste minimization. They can help by
combining technical  assistance with education and outreach in order to increase
contractors' recycling expertise and awareness while overcoming their resistance
to new or unfamiliar practices.

A variety of outreach tools have been successfully used to encourage builders and
contractors to minimize and recycle their C&D wastes. Guides to local reuse and
recycling businesses  help contractors identify outlets for materials. Technical
assistance such  as information hotlines  and recycling manuals and videos,
together with salvage and reuse education workshops for project managers and
construction workers, can improve contractors' expertise and speed adoption of
C&D waste minimization practices. Motivational tools such as work  site bill-
boards that tally quantities of diverted waste remind crews of the importance of
waste reduction and  recycling. Billboards can also engage the public if properly
       TOOLS TO
       C&D WASTE
C&D waste reduction
Economic incentives
Contractor bid
Technical assistance
Guides to area
Training and outreach
Motivational tools
The  five  case studies presented below  exemplify successful local government
efforts to cut C&D waste in the public sector and promote it in the private sector.
             Contracts for public construction specify recycling/reuse of demolition debris.
             Free technical assistance to contractors developing waste management plans.
             95% of debris from demolition at the new Regional Justice Center site salvaged or
             recycled, saving the County $265,000 in waste disposal cost.

King County, which includes the City of Seattle, uses a variety of policy and out-
reach tools to  foster  C&D waste minimization.  Rather than mandate specific
practices by ordinance, the county has chosen to encourage waste minimization
through its contracts and bid specifications for selected public projects, such as
the recent  construction of its new justice center. The county's  Solid Waste
Division further encourages waste minimization in both public and private pro-
jects by providing free technical assistance to contractors and project managers
in developing on-site waste control plans. The division also offers outreach and
education through case studies of successful work site programs and a guide to
the area's recyclers, as well as C&D  waste recycling and contract  specification
booklets developed by the state's Clean Washington Center.

These tools brought the county impressive cost savings on the recent construc-
tion of its new regional justice center. The demolition of 28 buildings to clear the
site produced 37,523  tons of material. Ninety-five percent of it was salvaged or
recycled, saving $265,000 in waste disposal costs. Crushing 33,358  tons of con-
crete and asphalt debris and reusing it on site as fill material saved approximately
$159,000.  Salvaging  750 tons of reusable timber and lumber  saved about
$57,000, and recycling 918 tons of unsalvageable wood saved an additional
              C&D waste makes up 26% of region's solid waste stream.
              Executive Order 47 requires waste minimization on public construction projects.
              Technical assistance and a guide to local C&D salvaging and recycling  businesses.
              $4 million savings on reuse of existing building shell for new headquarters.
Metro is the regional government of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area,
with a population of 1.2 million. Metro estimates that C&D waste makes up
approximately 26 percent of its municipal solid waste stream, even though local
economic conditions appear to favor C&D waste minimization. Regional land-
fill tipping fees are about $75 per ton, while recycling fees for most C&D wastes
are $35 per ton or less. Nonetheless, only 49 percent of all C&D materials were
diverted from the waste  stream in 1995. According to Metro, diversion rates of
more than 80 percent are possible.11'12

In an effort to increase diversion rates, Metro issued Executive Order 47, man-
dating C&D waste reduction, salvaging and recycling at all of its facilities and on
all its property. The order requires contractors bidding on public projects to
include  plans to salvage or recycle waste whenever  it is cost-effective. Metro
assists contractors in developing such plans by providing them with education
and outreach material, including a list of publications on C&D waste recycling
and a guide to area salvaging and recycling firms.

Metro's waste minimization policy for public projects resulted in significant cost
savings in the design and construction of its new headquarters in a former Sears
department store. Willingness to reuse the existing building  shell effectively
"diverted" about 80 percent of the structure from demolition and disposal, and
saved $4 million in avoided costs of new materials and construction. Through
additional salvaging and recycling on the project, Metro diverted 8,024 tons of
materials (77 percent of the waste generated during remodeling) and saved an
estimated $35,000 (70 percent of the project's original waste hauling and dispos-
al budget). Contractors salvaged 159 tons of wood, carpet, doors, bathroom fix-
tures  and  shrubs, and recycled 725  tons  of metal, wood, sheet rock and
corrugated cardboard. Seven thousand tons of brick, concrete, sand and dirt were
reused as fill material both on and off the site, and as capping material for a
closed landfill.13'14'15
              Sustainable Building Guidelines establish "green" standards for municipal construction.
              City assisted demolition contractors by compiling a database of prospective salvage
              Housing units relocated for reuse as low-income housing, eliminating need for new
Landfill tipping fees in the Austin area are low, less than $20 per ton, and outlets
for recycling C&D waste are limited. Nevertheless, the city is among the leaders
in promoting C&D waste minimization. Through its Green Builder Program, an
environmental rating system for private sector construction, the city sets criteria
for C&D waste  reduction.  In  1994 the Austin  City  Council created the
Sustainable Building Guidelines for construction and operation of municipal
buildings. The guidelines require C&D waste reduction, reuse and recycling in all
municipal projects.

Before adopting the Sustainable Building Guidelines, Austin tested various C&D
waste  reduction  measures  during demolition of  a former Air Force  base.
Demolition involved removing airplane hangars, residential buildings and other
structures. The project bid requests encouraged waste minimization and gave
examples of possible practices, but stipulated that the city would not pay extra
for reuse or recycling. To help hold the costs down, the city compiled a database
of prospective buyers of salvaged materials and provided contractors with space
at the job site to sell salvaged items. Several waste minimization measures were
implemented successfully, including the following.
   • Contractors stockpiled  asphalt for  recycling and reuse in  new road con-
     struction and crushed concrete for use as fill material on the site.
   • The city moved some residential buildings to  new sites to be refurbished
     and used as low income housing. The moving and renovation costs were

     comparable to the estimated cost of building new homes, thus conserving
     resources without extra expense.
     One contractor salvaged and  resold cabinets, dishwashers, hot water
     heaters, vanities, doors and windows from demolished houses, and sepa-
     rated concrete, wood and metal debris from demolition waste for recy-
     cling. The contractor charged the government less for the demolition job
     because he incurred less cost.
     Contractors deconstructed airplane hangars piece by piece and sold them
     for reconstruction at other facilities.
             C&D waste comprises 15% of city's solid waste stream.
             State law requires 50% reduction in waste sent to landfills by the year 2000.
             $14 million in savings from recycling materials for road base and asphalt.
             1.6 million tons of debris diverted from disposal following the 1994 IMorthridge
             Technical assistance and guide on C&D waste recycling and reuse.
Los Angeles has developed ambitious waste minimization practices to comply
with a state law that requires towns and cities to reduce the amount of waste sent
to landfills by  50 percent by the year 2000. The  city's Bureau of  Street
Maintenance, for example, recycles old paving materials into crushed road base
and new asphalt. This program has saved the city $14 million in its first nine
years. Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the Earthquake Demolition
Recycling Program diverted approximately 1.6 million tons of debris from land-

C&D waste accounts for  15  percent of the city's  solid waste stream. The
Integrated Solid Waste Management Office is responsible for developing and
implementing C&D waste reduction, reuse and recycling programs and policies,
and providing technical assistance to the public and private sectors. The office
offers a broad range  of outreach and  information resources,  including audio
tapes of a sustainable building workshop and a series of guides on C&D waste
minimization. The guides provide information about  recycling  and reuse
options for specific types of C&D waste in the Los Angeles area.

              Private landfill charges $90 per ton for C&D waste.
              County started a C&D recycling service to provide a less expensive alternative.
              District's recycling/reuse fees cover all facility costs
              Contractors save $22-$85 per ton on waste disposal costs.
              Illegal dumping has decreased by 1,000 tons annually.
Rutland County, encompassing 16 towns with a combined population of 50,000,
has taken a unique approach to C&D waste minimization by opening its own
recycling facility. The Rutland County Solid Waste District hauls waste to a local
private landfill where tipping fees for C&D waste are $90 per ton. As a result, the
county has suffered from a considerable amount of illegal dumping by local con-
tractors. In an effort to decrease illegal dumping by providing a less expensive
alternative to the private landfill, the district has started its own grinding and
recycling service for construction and demolition waste.

Providing the service at cost, either on-site or at its facility, the district charges $20
per ton to grind clean  wood for use as boiler fuel, compost and mulch; $10 per
cubic yard for concrete and asphalt that it crushes and sells to private contractors
for road construction;  and $5 per cubic yard for metal that it resells for $30 per
cubic yard. Much of the remaining demolition debris is ground for $68 per ton
and sent to the private landfill for use as daily cover. Thus, contractors save a min-
imum of $22 per ton by recycling mixed waste and they can save more by sepa-
rating clean wood, concrete and asphalt. The district processes about 5,000 tons
of material per year, half of all C&D waste generated in its service area, and esti-
mates that illegal dumping has decreased by as much as 1,000 tons annually.

By designing a small-scale facility suitable for the limited quantity of waste it
expected to process, the district was able to keep equipment costs low, purchas-
ing a tub grinder, excavator, loader, detached trailer and mister (to limit dust) at
a cost of $206,000. The facility also uses a truck that the district already owned
and requires labor equivalent to  1.5 full time positions. As a  result,  the fees
charged for recycling are not only lower than prevailing disposal costs, but also
cover the district's costs to provide the service. Consequently, local governments
that require  their contractors to recycle C&D waste from public projects at the
district's facility can save on disposal costs and the county incurs no additional
costs for district operations.
Although local recycling programs are a common means to promote resource
conservation and reduce the environmental impact of waste disposal, they often
suffer from a lack of buyers for recycled materials. In an effort to improve the

viability of local recycling markets, hundreds of local governments have taken
steps to specify recycled products in their purchasing contracts. With their con-
siderable buying power, local governments are in a position to negotiate favor-
able pricing terms, and have found  that many recycled products became less
expensive as a result.

Recycling markets and local "buy recycled" efforts have also been stimulated by
federal and state procurement  regulations. The  Resource Conservation  and
Recovery Act (RCRA) requires government agencies to develop "affirmative pro-
curement" programs for the purchase of various recycled-content products des-
ignated by  EPA. This requirement applies  to  any  federal, state,  or  local
government agency or contractor that receives federal funds and spends more
than $10,000 per year on one of the 24 designated recycled-content products.16
EPA's Recovered Materials Advisory Notice lists representative recycled-material
content ranges for each designated  product, to assist purchasing agencies in
developing contract specifications.
 Paper and Paper Products
    Non-paper Office Products
    Office Recycling Containers
    Office Waste Receptacles
    Plastic Desktop Accessories
    Toner Cartridges
    Plastic Trash Bags
 Transportation Products
    Traffic Cones
    Traffic Barricades
Vehicular Products
Engine Coolants
Re-refined Lubricating Oils
Retread Tires
Park and Recreation Products
   Playground Surfaces
   Running Tracks
Landscaping Products
   Hydraulic Mulch
   Yard Trimmings Compost
Construction Products
  Structural Fiberboard
  Laminated Paperboard
  Floor Tiles
  Patio Blocks
  Building Insulation Products
  Cement and Concrete Containing
     Coal Fly Ash
  Ground Granulated Blast
     Furnace Slag
At least 45 states, the District of Columbia, and more than 500 local govern-
ments also have laws, ordinances or administrative policies mandating the pur-
chase  of recycled-content products  by  government  agencies  or their
contractors.17 The State of Washington, for example, requires local governments
annually buying more than $500,000 in supplies to  purchase recycled products,
periodically report on their progress, and appoint procurement  officers as
liaisons with the state.18 The City of Seattle has had a Buy Recycled  Ordinance
since 1992, requiring all city agencies and their vendors, contractors and consul-
tants to purchase recycled products. The ordinance sets recycled-content stan-
dards for  paper products, building insulation, lubricating oils, cement made
with fly ash, latex paint, glass and plastic. It also  lists specifications for retread
tires and compost.19

Recycled paper products are perhaps the most widely used and commonly avail-
able recycled office products. Most state and local government procurement poli-
cies include  provisions for buying recycled paper, often specifying required
percentages of recycled and/or post-consumer content. Office products made
from recycled plastic, such as binders, desk accessories, wastebaskets and trash
bags, are also increasingly available .

Some local governments have been reluctant to use recycled paper and other
products due to a misperception that recycled materials are more expensive and
lack quality.  Many local governments that have switched to recycled products,
however, have found that their fears about product quality were unfounded and
have realized cost savings.
  • By purchasing remanufactured toner cartridges for office  copiers and
     printers, King County, Washington saved $200,000 in 1996  alone.20
  • Under  its Recycled Product Procurement Policy, 93  percent of King
     County's paper purchases in 1995-96, totaling nearly $953,000, were recy-
     cled-content products, up from only eight  percent prior to adoption of the
     policy in 1990.21 The County's policy specifies a 15 percent price preference
     for recycled paper, although it is normally available for less than a  10 per-
     cent price differential.22
  • The City of San Jose, California saves $10,000 annually by returning toner
     cartridges to the supplier to be refilled and reused.
  • The City of Cambridge,  Massachusetts saves 75 percent by purchasing
     remanufactured toner cartridges through a state contract.23

Local government public works departments spent more than $26 billion on
highways in  1992. Although cost breakdowns are not available, it is likely that a
large portion of that expense was devoted to roadway resurfacing. Some local
governments reduce costs for road maintenance and repair by using demolition
wastes such as crushed concrete and recycled asphalt for road surfacing. Some
public works departments have also found that  the use of recycled  glass or plas-
tic for construction and infrastructure maintenance applications can further cut
their costs, as seen in the examples below.
  • King County, Washington saved $75,000 in 1995-96 by using crushed con-
     crete instead of virgin gravel for temporary road surfacing  at the Cedar
     Hills landfill.24
  • The Houghton Landfill in Kirkland, Washington saved over $6,500 in the
     summer of 1994 by using crushed concrete instead of virgin gravel  as road
     surfacing material. At the same  time, the Houghton Landfill also saved
     nearly $3,600 by substituting recycled glass aggregate for pea gravel  as bed-
     ding for drainage pipes.25
• King County,
   • 1996 savings
    = $200,000
• San Jose, California
   •Annual savings
    = $10,000
• Cambridge,
   •Savings =
    75% of cost of
    new cartridges
          SAVING ON
          IN PAVING
• King County,
   •1995-96 Cedar Hill
    Landfill: $75,000
• Kirkland, Washington
   • 1994 Houghton
    Landfill: $6,500
• Los Angeles,
   •9 years of road &
    parking area
    $14 million

   • The City of Los Angeles saved $14 million over nine years by crushing old
     asphalt for use as  road base, and by using 15 percent recycled-content
     asphalt for all street and parking area improvements.26
   • By switching from conventional wooden boards to "lumber" made of recy-
     cled plastic for anchoring astroturf at the Kingdome stadium, King County
     saved 160  hours in maintenance labor and $1,600 on the cost of replace-
     ment wood, for total savings of more than $5,100 per year. The County also
     purchases  recycled plastic lumber for stadium fence slats, signs and bleach-
     ers, and the Parks Department uses plastic lumber for park benches.27
   • King County's Fleet  Administration Division buys truck siding boards
     made of recycled plastic to replace wooden ones. The plastic boards are
     stronger and last longer, cutting replacement costs.28
   • King County's Construction and Facilities Maintenance Department is test-
     ing Eco-glass paint that contains 30 percent ground recycled glass, as a seal-
     er for cement block walls and swimming pools. The cost is comparable to
     latex paint, but the glass paint may offer superior water seepage preven-

Still other cost savings may be available to local governments through purchas-
es of alternative road and public building maintenance supplies, as illustrated by
the following examples.
   • At water line  repairs, the Santa Monica  Street Maintenance Division uses
     cold mix asphalt as temporary backfill, but excavates and replaces it with
     permanent hot mix asphalt once repairs  are complete. The Division is test-
     ing an alternative fill  material which can be left in place permanently and
     capped with hot mix asphalt, for potential annual savings of $46,000 on
     excavation and disposal costs.30
   • By switching from disposable air filters to reusable ones in ventilation sys-
     tems at county garages, Itasca County, Minnesota  is  saving $4,700 and
     reducing waste generation by 53 cubic yards annually. This is a 97 percent
     savings over the costs of single-use filters. Installing partially reusable fil-
     ters in the  county courthouse saves an additional $780, or 46 percent of fil-
     ter costs, and reduces  waste generation by nearly 26 cubic yards each year.31

The large fleets  of trucks and equipment, buses and passenger vehicles owned
and operated by local governments  provide opportunities for cost savings
through the use of a variety of recycled maintenance supplies, including retread
tires, re-refined engine  oil, and recycled or remanufactured antifreeze and
coolant. Retread tires perform as well as new tires and they cost much less. Prices
of re-refined oil or remanufactured antifreeze do not yield  great savings, but
there can be a significant drop in transportation and disposal costs for used oil
and antifreeze. Under so-called "closed loop" contracts, suppliers collect the used
products for re-refining and re-processing. As the following examples illustrate,
local governments have had favorable, and in  some cases long-standing, experi-
ence with such products.
          NANCE COST
• Retread tires
• Re-refined oil
• Reconditioned air
• Propylene glycol
• Re-manufactured
• High pressure spray

     The Town of Natick, Massachusetts purchases retread tires rather than new
     ones for its public works vehicle fleet, saving 43 to 57 percent or $80 to $140
     per tire.32
     King County, Washington, spent $100,000 on retread tires in 1995-96, sav-
     ing 62 to 69 percent ($218 for heavy equipment tires, $191 for light duty
     tires) over new tire costs. The county's public works fleet alone saved over
     $30,000 on such purchases in 1995 and almost $39,000 in 1996.33
     Phoenix, Arizona's Sanitation Truck Tire Recap Program diverted 409 tires
     from the city's waste stream and resulted in total savings of over $94,000 in
     disposal costs and tire purchases in 1995 alone.34
     The City of Santa Monica's Fleet Management Division has used retread
     tires for more than twenty years. For the past several years, the Division has
     also been  using re-refined oil and propylene glycol antifreeze. Although
     propylene glycol is not a recycled product, it is less toxic  than the standard
     ethylene glycol antifreeze. It also saves on supply costs  and maintenance
     time because it does not require the addition of a pH enhancer.35
     By reconditioning  air filters for multiple use in road graders and large
     trucks, Itasca County, Minnesota reduced the number of filters it purchas-
     es each year from 350 to 88. The county was able to cut  filter replacement
     costs by $7,300 annually, or 52 percent.36
     By switching from a chemical degreaser to  a high pressure spray washer
     using soap and water to clean engines and equipment, the Itasca County
     maintenance garage saves more than $9,000 each year, or 99 percent of the
     cost of purchasing the chemical solvents. The soap and
     water  system not only performs  as well as the
     chemical degreaser, it also requires ten hours
     less labor each week.37

             GETTING STARTED
  Local governments can benefit fully from potential cost savings in their
  waste control and recycling programs through the development of a coordi-
  nated waste reduction and recycling plan that incorporates elements of the
  Smart Investments highlighted in this chapter. Important considerations in
  developing such a coordinated plan include:
  • Unit pricing systems for waste reduction work best when combined with
    curbside recycling and yard waste composting programs. However, it is
    important to set fees for waste disposal high  enough to cover any added
    costs of recycling and composting.
  • To be most effective, C&D waste minimization programs should combine
    requirements for salvaging and recycling on public projects with educa-
    tion  and outreach to contractors. Where possible, outreach materials
    should include guides to local outlets for salvaged and recycled materials.
  • When initiating procedures for buying recycled products, pilot
    tests of such products may be necessary to overcome skep-         Y ft/I J*
    ticism about their performance and resistance to change.

                                      EPA WAVE PROGRAM
 Smart Growth Network
 Urban and Economic Development Division
 Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2127)
 401M Street, SW
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone: (202) 260-2750
 Fax: (202) 260-0174
 Internet Site: http://smartgrowth.org
EPA coordinates the Smart Growth Network, com-
prised of private sector, public sector and NGO part-
ners. The network seeks to create and promote
development practices that are economically, envi-
ronmentally and socially beneficial. The network's
Internet site includes information on deconstruction
and construction waste management.
 Triangle } Council of Governments
 P.O. Box 12276
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
 Contact: ludy Kincaid, Solid Waste Planning Director
 Phone: (919) 558-9343
 Fax: (919) 549-9390
 E-mail: jkincaid@nando.net
The Triangle J Council of Governments (TICOG) is
the regional planning council for the Wake, Durham,
Orange, Chatham, Lee, and lohnston County region
in North Carolina. TJCOG is working to promote
C&D waste minimization in the triangle area. It has
investigated state and local rules and regulations that
created barriers to waste minimization and identified
changes in public policy necessary to remove those
barriers. TJCOG produces and distributes several
resources, including a video for construction workers
on C&D waste minimization, and the following
•  Guide to Construction and Demolition Waste
   Recycling and Disposal in the Triangle
•  Construction and Demolition Debris Reduction
   and Recycling: A Regional Approach
•  WasteSpec: Model Specifications for Construction
   Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling
 King County Solid Waste Division
 Department of Natural Resources
 400 Yesler Way, Room 600
 Seattle, WA 98104-2637
 Contact: Theresa Koppang
 Phone: (206) 296-8480
 Fax: (206) 296-0197
Metro Regional Environmental Management
600 Northeast Grand Avenue
Portland, OR 97232-2736
Contact: Bryce Jacobson, Associate Planner
Phone: (503) 797-1663
Fax:(503) 797-1795

 City of Austin
 Planning, Environmental and Conservation
 Services Department
 206 East 9th Street
 Austin, TX 78701
 Contact: Laurence Doxsey
 Phone: (512) 499-3504
 Fax: (512) 499-2859
City of Los Angeles
Integrated Solid Waste Management Office
Bureau of Sanitation
200 N. Main Street, Room 1450, City Hall East MS
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Contact: Kelly McArthur Ingalls
Direct Phone: (213) 237-0143
General Phone: (213) 237-1444
Fax: (213) 847-3054
E-mail: ISWMO@loop.com
 Rutland County Solid Waste District
 2 Green Hills Lane
 Rutland, VT 05701
 Contact: Michael Samson, District Manager
 Phone: (802) 775-7209
                              MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE REDUCTION
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste
 WasteWi$e Helpline
 Phone: (800) EPA-WISE
 Contact: Joanne M. Oxley, Marketing &
 Communications Manager, WasteWi$e Program
 Phone: (703) 308-0199
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
 Pay-As-You-Throw Helpline
 Phone: (888) EPA-PAYT [toll-free]
 Contact: Janice Canterbury
 e-mail: canterbury.janice@epamail.epa.gov
Through its toll-free Pay-As-You-Throw Helpline,
OSWER offers a tool kit for solid waste planners who
are considering unit pricing programs. Many of the
materials in the tool kit are also available through
OSWER's Pay-As-You-Throw world-wide web site
(URL: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ non-
hw/payt/index.htm), including fact sheets, reports,
and recent case studies of communities using unit
pricing systems.
 International City/County Management Association
 777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 500
 Washington, DC 20002-4201
 Phone: (202) 289-4262
 Fax: (202) 962-3500
 Internet Site: http://www.icma.org
ICMA is a professional and educational association
for more than 8,000 local government administrators
worldwide. ICMA provides training programs, tech-
nical assistance, data services and publications to
improve the quality of local government manage-
ment and administration.

                                        BUYING RECYCLED
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
 RCRA Hotline: (800) 424-9346 [TDD (800) 553-
 7672 for the hearing impaired]
 Internet site: URL:
The hotline provides Comprehensive Procurement
Guideline, as well as Buy-Recycled Series fact sheets
on the recommended recycled content of different
products. OSWER's Internet site, titled "Reduce,
Reuse, Recycle... Through Procurement," is designed
to facilitate implementation of the Comprehensive
Procurement Guideline. The site lists manufacturers
and suppliers of recycled-content products in the fol-
lowing categories:
• Construction,
• Landscaping,
• Park and recreation,
• Transportation,
The list also includes vehicular and non-paper office
products containing recovered material.
 Buy Recyled Campaign
 U.S. Conference of Mayors
 1620 Eye Street, NW
 Washington, DC 20006
 Phone: (202) 293-7330
 Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
 25 S. Charles Street, Suite 2105
 Baltimore Maryland 21201
 Phone: (410) 333-2730
The U.S. Conference of Mayors' Buy Recycled
Campaign, in coordination with the Northeast
Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, has developed
the "Buy Recycled Training Manual" for local gov-
ernment procurement officers. Additional informa-
tion on obtaining the manual, or on buying recycled
products, can be obtained by calling either organiza-
 Recycling Data Management Corporation
 P.O. Box 577
 Ogdensburg, NY 13669
 Phone: (800) 267-0707
 Fax: (315) 471-3258
Recycling Data Management publishes The Official
Recycled Products Guide, a national directory of
more than 5,000 manufacturers and distributors of
recycled products. Reprinted annually, the guide is
also updated periodically throughout the year.
 King County Recycled Product Procurement
 500 4th Avenue, Room 620
 Seattle, WA 98104
 Contact: Eric Nelson
 Phone: (206) 296-4234
 Fax:   (206)296-4211
 e-mail: eric.nelson@metrokc.gov
King County, Washington has developed sample pro-
curement contract specifications, modeled on its
Recycled Product Procurement Program, that can be
obtained from its world-wide web site
(http://www.metrokc.gov/oppis/recyclea.html). The
site also includes copies of the county's fact sheets
summarizing its experience with various recycled
products, as well as annual reports for its Recycled
Product Procurement Program.

  Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling       Source Reduction and Recycling Board has spon-
  Board                                                    sored the development of a buyers' manual on source
  Contact: Mark Cullors                                   reduction and recycled product procurement entitled
  Phone: (510) 614-1699   Alameda County,               "Resourceful Purchasing." This manual includes
  California's                                               information on federal and state (California) pur-
                                                            chasing requirements, recycled content standards,
                                                            contracting procedures and model language for a
                                                            recycled product procurement policy.
 1. Woods, Randy. "C&D Recycling Blooms in the City of Roses," Waste Age. October 1996.
 2. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority. Buy Recycled Training Manual. December 1993; p. 4.
 3. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development.
   Renew America Success Stories, "Planet Newark Recycling Business Development Program."
 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. WasteWiSe Second-Year Progress Report.
   September 1996; p. 14.
 5. California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Schools: laboratories of waste prevention," at
   http://www.ciwmb.ca.gOv/mrt/wpw/wpcoord/01 .htm.
 6. Cuthbert, Richard. "Variable Disposal Fee Impact." Biocycle. May 1994.
 7. Miranda, Marie Lynn and Joseph E. Aldy. Unit Pricing of Residential Municipal Solid Waste: Lessons from Nine Case Study
   Communities. Report prepared for Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March, 1996.
 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Pay-As-You-Throw Success Stories, EPA530-
   F-97-007. April  1997. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt/index.htm.
 9. Metro Solid Waste Department. 1993. Metro's Resourceful Renovation (video).
10. King County Solid Waste Division. 1996. Regional Justice Center Demolition Phase Fact Sheet.
11. Metro Regional Environmental Management Department. 1995. Metro Construction Site Recycling: A Guide for Architects. Builders
   and Developers.
12. Bryce Jacobson. Metro Regional Environmental Management Department. Personal Communication.
13. Metro Solid Waste Department. 1993. "Metro Regional Center Resourceful Renovation."
H.Metro Solid Waste Department. Job Site Recycling Fact Sheet for Metro Headquarters.
15. Metro Solid Waste Department. 1993. Metro's Resourceful Renovation (video).
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Environmental Fact Sheet: EPA Issues
   Comprehensive Procurement Guidance. EPA530-F-95-010, April 1995.
17. Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. Greening the Government: A Guide to Implementing Executive Order 12873. p. 6.
18. Revised Code of Washington, Section 43.19A.030. See also, King County Procurement Services Division. King County Recycled
   Products Procurement Program. 1996 Annual Report. Available on the Internet through the Division's world-wide web site at
   http://www.metrokc.gov/oppis/recyclea.html. September 1996.
19. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical Information Program. "Procurement Works
   Hand in Hand With Energy Efficiency," Cities and Counties Project Fact Sheet #15.
20. King County Procurement Services  Division. King County Recycled Products Procurement Program. 1996 Annual Report. Available
   on the Internet through the Division's world-wide web site at http://www.metrokc.gov/oppis/recyclea.html. September 1996.
21. bid.
22. King County Procurement Services  Division. Model Recycled Procurement Policy: Implementation Guide. Available through the
   Division's world-wide web site  at http://www.metrokc.gov/oppis/recyclea.html.
23. Steve Brennan, City of Cambridge Purchasing Department. Personal Communication with Michael Hester, Industrial Economics,
   Inc., 2/14/97.
24. King County Procurement Services  Division. King County Recycled Products Procurement Program. 1996 Annual Report. Available
   on the Internet through the Division's world-wide web site at http://www.metrokc.gov/oppis/recyclea.html. September 1996.

25. King County Procurement Services Division. Recycled Product Experience Fact Sheets.
26. Kelly Ingalls, City of Los Angeles, Integrated Solid Waste Management Office. Personal Communication with Aaron Martin,
   Industrial Economics, Inc., 3/4/97.
27. King County Procurement Services Division. King County Recycled Products Procurement Program. 1996 Annual Report. Available
   on the Internet through the Division's world-wide web site at http://www.metrokc.gov/oppis/recyclea.html. September 1996. See also,
   King County Procurement Services Division. Recycled Product Experience Fact Sheets.
28. Joyce Mitchell, King County Fleet Administration Division. Personal Communication with Michael Hester, Industrial Economics,
   Inc., 3/20/97.
29. King County Procurement Services Division. Recycled Product Experience Fact Sheets.
30. City of Santa Monica, Task Force on the Environment. Sustainable City Progress Report. December 1996.
31. Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Waste Prevention: Source Reduction Now. February 1993.
32. George Russell, Town of Natick, Department of Public Works. Personal Communication with Michael Hester, Industrial Economics,
   Inc., 2/14/97.
33. loyce Mitchell, King County Fleet Administration Division. Personal Communication with Michael Hester, Industrial Economics,
   Inc., 3/20/97 and 6/30/97.
34. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development.
   "Cities and Counties: Phoenix, Arizona," accessed 5/16/97 at http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/ss/pti/PHOENIX/index.html.
35. City of Santa Monica, Task Force on the Environment. Sustainable City Progress Report. December 1996.
36. Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Waste Prevention: Source Reduction Now. February 1993.
37. Ibid.

                    SMART TRANSPORTATION
       Xocal governments incur substantial costs to provide transportation ser-
       vices. In 1993, local governments spent more than $17 billion on public
       transit and over $26 billion on highways. These sums represented 80
       percent and 38 percent respectively, of all governmental expenditures on
public transit and highways and accounted for 6.3 percent of local government
budgets. In addition, local governments spend millions
to maintain and operate large fleets — public works and
sanitation trucks, buses, and police and fire safety vehi-
cles. A 1991 survey of 168  cities and 56 counties in
California found that fleet costs approached five percent
of their budgets, totaling $885 million.1
     jocal governments spent $43 billion in
     1993 on public transit and highways.
$mart Transportation Investments, particularly in efficient transit systems that
offer an attractive alternative to the use of automobiles, can both increase public
transit revenues and decrease highway construction and maintenance costs.
Local governments can also lower fleet maintenance and operation costs by
reducing vehicle usage, eliminating underutilized equipment and buying less
expensive or cleaner-burning fuels. All of these moves can reduce traffic conges-
tion and air pollution and generally benefit both public health and the environ-
ment. $mart Public Transit Investments can also help to revitalize downtown and
other neglected urban areas. The resulting opportunities for private investment
and development can bring new tax revenues to fund indispensable community
services and social programs.
  SHORT-TERM                                     LONG-TERM
     Eliminate idle vehicles
     Reduce VMTs on fleet
     Purchase fuel-efficient vehicles
Improve public transit
Design commuting alternatives
Buy Alternatively Fueled Vehicles

EPA's Transportation Partners Program supports local efforts to expand public
transportation and to make it both more efficient and more accessible. In part-
nerships with local governments, businesses, and citizens' groups, EPA encour-
ages new approaches to public transportation, and provides technical assistance
for its improvement and expansion. The program also promotes mass transit,
pedestrian-friendly community designs and such alternatives to automobile
dependency  as  carpooling,  bicycle commuting   and  telecommuting.
Furthermore, EPA assists its partners with information on financing sources and
brings publicity to the most innovative and successful projects through its annu-
al "Way To Go!" awards and national media  attention. After only two years in
operation, the Transportation Partners Program has enrolled more
than 100 organizations.
By late 1997, EPA had cooperative agreements with seven
non-governmental  organizations  to provide  technical
assistance and guidance  to  partner communities.
These  were:  the  Association  for Commuter
Transportation (ACT); the Center for Clean Air
Policy; the Local Government Commission's
Center for  Livable Communities; Public
Technology,  Inc.;  Renew America;  the
Surface Transportation Policy Project; and
the  International   Council   for  Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). ICLEI  in
1995   established  its   own   Sustainable
Transportation Program, with grants to local
governments for promoting alternatives  to
personal vehicle use. In 1996, it awarded seven
grants, ranging from $10,000 to  $16,000, to
communities around the country. The grants
strengthen the winners' commitment to alter-
native transportation, helping them to subsi-
dize carpools, shuttle buses and bicycle commuting,
as well as commuter education and public transit.
With its emphasis on local solutions and local availability of an extensive techni-
cal  support network, the Transportation Partners Program challenges  and
encourages communities to diversify their transportation options as they seek
continued growth and economic development. Two  communities  that have
taken that message to heart are profiled below: Chattanooga, Tennessee, a
Transportation Partners "Way-To-Go!" Award winner, and Portland, Oregon.
While these examples do not illustrate immediate savings, they clearly show how
$mart Transportation Investments pave the way for long-term economic bene-

              Electric shuttle bus reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality.
              Downtown parking lots relocated, freeing land for prospective $12 million development.
              Projected increase of $800,000 in city and county tax revenues.
              90 percent of initial capital costs funded by federal and state grants.
              Free shuttle service reduced car commuting.
              Shuttle costs paid from parking fees and lease of retail space at new parking facilities.
              EPA Transportation Partners Program "Way to Go!" award.
The Chattanooga Area Regional Transit Authority (CARTA) has revitalized the
local economy by reducing the number of parking lots in the city, where 65 per-
cent of the downtown land was once reserved for that use. As an alternative, the
city established peripheral "park and ride" facilities served by an efficient electric
shuttle bus connection to the downtown.

The shuttle project, winner of a Transportation Partners "Way to Go!" award in
1996, promises significant economic benefits to the community. Relocating
parking to the periphery of the city and freeing up valuable downtown land for
commercial redevelopment is expected to bring $12 million in new development
and generate $800,000 in new  city and county tax revenue. With 90 percent of
the initial capital costs for the parking facilities and the shuttle buses funded by
grants from the Federal  Transportation Administration and  the Tennessee
Department of Transportation, CARTA was able to offer the shuttle service free
of charge, thus  encouraging increased use of mass transit. Once the parking
facilities are complete, the system's operating costs of about $500,000 a year will
be covered by parking fees and the lease of retail space at parking facilities.

The project's  environmental benefits are already tangible. By  increasing the
availability and  convenience of public transit, the shuttle attracts one million
riders each year. The city's traffic congestion from automobiles and diesel-fueled
buses is reduced and air quality significantly improved. The introduction of
zero-emission electric shuttles has  decreased particulate  emissions by 600
pounds, carbon  monoxide emissions by 2,900 pounds, nitrogen oxide emissions
by 10,800 pounds, and carbon dioxide emissions by 3.5 million pounds a year.2'3

             Light rail lines serve as corridors of new development.
             Transit system is a magnet for over $1.3 billion in new development.
             Transit use increased 220 percent.
             Six-lane  downtown freeway replaced with a riverfront park.
             Eliminated the need for six parking structures.
             Voter approval of $600 million in bonds to fund system expansion.
             Community outreach and public involvement through "Transit Choices for Livability."
Tri-Met, the regional transit authority for Portland, Oregon and the surrounding
metropolitan  area, has taken an aggressive approach to Smart Public Transit
Investments with the development of its MAX light rail system. By working with
the area's local governments on plans for growth along the light rail corridors,
Tri-Met has encouraged transit-oriented rather than automobile-oriented com-
mercial and residential development. As a result, transit use has increased by 220
percent, and  no increase in road  capacity has  been necessary in downtown
Portland for the past 20 years, despite growth in population and employment.
The transit system also has enabled the city to replace a six-lane expressway with
a downtown riverfront park, eliminated the need for six large parking towers and
contributed to air quality improvements.  Public support for Tri-Met's transit
strategy has been strong; voters in 1990 and 1994 overwhelmingly approved gen-
eral obligation bond issues  totaling $600 million to expand the MAX system
from 15 to 58 miles. This strong support reflects the success of Tri-Met's outreach
and public involvement efforts (see Chapter 7).

Tri-Met's transit-oriented plans were governed by one principle: to build rail
lines in areas  that offer prime opportunities for  development, in the hope that
businesses will follow and locate where both employees and customers have easy
access via public transit. And indeed, the effect on the region's economy has been
spectacular. MAX lines have attracted more than $1.3 billion in  new develop-
ment over ten years, with prospects for $440 million more. The assessed value of
property in the vicinity of transit stations has increased two to seven times faster
than the county-wide rate, and two-thirds of local business owners report that
their proximity to MAX rail lines benefits business. For city and county govern-
ments, increased property values translate into  higher tax revenues, while for
local developers and  business owners access to light rail means lower parking
ratios, lower development costs and a location advantage over the competition. 4

Traditional commuting in many urban areas accounts for 20 to 25 percent of all
automobile trips. It adds  to the wear and  tear on roadway infrastructure and -

raises local governments' costs for road maintenance and expansion. Many com-
munities across the country encourage the use of alternative transportation for
commuting as a way of reducing the costs associated with traffic volume, air pol-
lution  and the need  for more roads and  parking  facilities. Successful  Trip
Reduction Programs (TRPs) often include incentives for ride sharing or the use
of public transit, parking restrictions for single-occupant vehicles and accom-
modations for bicycle commuters. Greater use of transit relieves congestion and
can also increase revenues for public transportation. The examples below illus-
trate a variety of approaches to successful local government TRPs that encourage
commuting alternatives among public sector employees.

   • Bellevue, Washington.  The City of Bellevue  provides a  variety of incen-
     tives to its 725  employees to discourage the use of single-occupant vehicles
     (SOVs) for commuting. SOV  commuters are charged $35 per month
     for parking. That accounts for $100,000 of the annual TRP budget
     of $125,000. Out of those funds, the city provides a $15 per month
     bonus to employees who walk,  bicycle, or carpool to work  at least
     80 percent of the time. Employees who take the bus at least 80
     percent of the time receive a monthly payment of $31.50, equal
     to the cost of a monthly transit pass. Employees using alterna-
     tive transportation at least 60 percent of the time can park for
     free on the days they drive. All city employees also have access to
     vanpools operated by the regional transit agency and partly sub-
     sidized by the city.
   • Los Angeles,  California. The  City  of Los Angeles,  with 55,000
     employees, has a Commuter Services Program that encourages ride shar-
     ing, public transit use, telecommuting, and bicycling. One  of the city's most
     effective and popular options  is its Alternative  Work Schedule program,
     allowing workers to choose from three flexible schedules that permit them
     to work fewer days while still putting in the required 80 hours in each two-
     week period. The Commuter  Services Office  has estimated that the  pro-
     gram has resulted in an annual reduction of more than 1.2 million vehicle
     miles traveled.
   • Chula Vista, California. The City of Chula Vista emphasizes telecommut-
     ing in its Trip Reduction Program. The city has established two neighbor-
     hood telecenters to serve the entire community, allowing  both private and
     public employees to work from remote locations. Workers  who live near the
     centers are encouraged to  bicycle or walk, and the city operates an electric
     shuttle service for those who live further away. City officials  estimate that
     the telecenters eliminate 5,320 automobile trips annually, reducing VMT by
     more than 1,500 miles per month.
   • Boulder, Colorado. Through  its "GO  Boulder" campaign, Boulder  pro-
     vides its employees with  "Eco Pass" photo identification cards for the
     Regional Transportation District (RTD), allowing them to ride all its buses
     free of charge. To encourage private employers' participation in the Eco
     Pass program, the city subsidizes 25 percent of their pass  costs for the first
     year and offers free Eco Passes  to all private sector employees in the down-

     town area, an initiative it funds through a special tax on downtown busi-
     nesses. "GO Boulder" also offers free training for Employee Transportation
     Coordinators, its designated representatives at  local businesses who pro-
     mote alternative transportation options among coworkers. Almost  one-
     third  of Boulder's  labor  force  works at companies with  Employee
     Transportation  Coordinators.  The city's efforts  produced a 14 percent
     increase in rides on RTD buses between 1992 and 1993.
  • San Francisco-San  Mateo, California. The  San Francisco-San Mateo
     videoconferencing/trip reduction program helps the city and county crim-
     inal justice staff do their work with less travel. It employs videoconferenc-
     ing technology to reduce the number of 40-mile round trips made by the
     staffers to meet with their clients at the county's two prisons. A 1996 "Way
     to Go!" award winner in EPA's Transportation Partners Program, the pro-
     gram is expected to eliminate 15,000 round trips in its first year of opera-
     tion, reducing automobile travel by 600,000 miles.
  • Santa Monica, California. As part of its Sustainable City Project, the City
     of Santa Monica has  taken an  aggressive approach to its  Commute
     Reduction Program.  The city pays its employees a minimum of $1 per day
     for each day they do not drive to work alone, reimburses employees for bus
     fares, offers a carpool matching service, provides  its fleet vehicles for car-
     pooling of at least three employees and arranges preferential parking for
     carpool riders. The city also has instituted a pilot telecommuting program.
     As a result, the average number of riders per vehicle at the city's four largest
     employment sites increased from 1.13 in 1990 to 1.68 in 1995, which is sig-
     nificantly higher than the Southern California regional average of 1.28. The
     program has reduced the annual vehicle miles traveled by city employees by
     1.25 million, eliminating approximately 1,600 tons of auto exhaust emis-

A variety of federal programs provide funds for local  government transporta-
tion-related investments. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (ISTEA) established several sources of funding for public transit projects
and commuting  alternatives. Through the  Congestion  Mitigation  and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Federal Highway Administration
funds projects that  improve air quality.  In addition, the Federal Transit
Administration, through its Surface Transportation  Project (STP),
finances several alternative transportation initiatives, ranging from
mass transit improvements to telecommuting.  Under  both
CMAQ and STP, local governments may apply federal funds pre-
viously reserved for highway projects to public transit develop-

Fleet costs represent a significant expense for many local governments. Public
works trucks, police cars, buses and passenger vehicles used for city and county
business must all be refueled, maintained, insured and eventually replaced. Local
governments can often lower their fleet costs by reducing the number of vehicle
miles traveled on city and county business, eliminating unnecessary vehicles or
purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. For example, the  City and County of
Denver have enacted a "Green Fleets Executive Order" designed to reduce both
costs and air pollution. In 1994, by removing 47 nonessential vehicles from the
fleet, the city and county saved $52,000 in operations  and maintenance costs.
Under the Executive Order, the city and county are also downsizing vehicles to
smaller, more fuel-efficient models.

Depending on the price and availability of fuels, local governments may also be
able to reduce  fleet costs  through the purchase of Alternative  Fuel Vehicles
(AFV). Under the Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA) and the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (EPAct), local governments in certain areas will eventually be required to
buy vehicles powered by alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
propane or electricity. Although purchase prices are generally higher for AFVs
than for conventional vehicles, federal and state grants and loans are available to
offset these higher costs. Thus, local governments may quickly achieve savings
on both fuel  and maintenance costs. At present, both  CNG and propane cost
considerably less than gasoline or diesel fuels in many areas of the country, and
CNG, electric and propane-powered  vehicle maintenance costs are also lower
than those for conventional vehicles.  As a result, local governments are begin-
ning to report cost saving success stories about their use of AFVs.

  • Jefferson,  Wisconsin. Jefferson's entire police  fleet  of twelve dedicated
     AFVs and five dual-fuel vehicles has been running on propane since the
     1979 oil crisis.  Each car is kept in service for two years, and fuel and main-
     tenance cost savings over that time more than offset the cost of conversion.
     In addition, the cars fetch 15 to  20 percent more at auction than conven-
     tional vehicles.
  • Portland,  Oregon. In response to  rising gasoline and diesel prices, the
     Portland School District began converting its school bus fleet to propane
     in 1983. The district estimates that current fuel savings on its fleet of 350
     propane-run buses amount to $156,000 a year.
  • Evansville, Indiana. In  1986, the  Evansville-Vanderburgh  School
     Corporation invested $250,000 in converting school  buses to CNG. This
     capital outlay was paid back in one year by fuel cost savings. Current CNG
     fuel cost savings are approximately $0.60 per gallon compared to gasoline.
  • Long Beach, California. The City of Long Beach estimates that with  its
     current  cost savings  of $0.30 per gallon for CNG,  the  city could save
     $175,000 annually by switching from gasoline to  CNG fuel for its entire
     100-vehicle police fleet.

A number of federal funding mechanisms and federally supported partnerships
are available to assist local governments in the purchase of AFVs. Under a $90
million EPAct program, DOE funds projects in communities with populations of
at  least 100,000 to demonstrate the feasibility of alternative fuel use in urban
buses. The program also  gives financial assistance to local school districts for
AFV purchases and conversions. Through its Clean Cities program, DOE offers
funding for AFVs and the development of related refueling infrastructure, and
provides technical assistance for fleet managers and mechanics. Under ISTEA,
Federal Highway Administration CMAQ grants are available for public fleet con-
versions to AFVs.5 In addition, as part of its Climate Change Action Plan, EPA,
in partnership with Public Technology, Inc.'s Urban Consortium, funds and sup-
ports ICLEI's Green Fleets project, an international  initiative to reduce green-
house gas emissions. Eight U.S. cities and counties are currently participating in
Green Fleets.6

Many states, utility companies and private businesses also supply funds for local
government AFV programs. More than 25 states offer some form of subsidies,
rebates, loans or other incentives for AFV purchases or vehicle conversions. Ten
of these — Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas,
Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin — have grants or low interest loan pro-
grams specifically to assist local governments and school districts. Utility com-
panies in 29 states offer their customers cash rebates, reduced  rates for gas or
electricity, or other financial incentives for the use of AFVs.7 California commu-
nities may also be eligible to receive funds from local air quality districts under
the state's  Transportation Fund for Clean  Air. The Bay Area  Air  Quality
Management District, for example, collects about $17 million annually through
a surcharge on vehicle registration fee, to fund public demonstration projects for
clean fuel buses and AFVs.8 Similarly, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District  has awarded two grants totaling over  one million dollars to  the Los
Angeles Department of Airports to offset the cost of purchasing liquefied natur-
al gas (LNG) shuttle buses for the Los Angeles International Airport.9
  EPAct $90 million
  community assistance
  EPAct $25 million
  loan program
  ISTEA grant program
  ICLEI Green Fleets
  financial support
  State rebates, grants,
  loans and incentives
  Utility customer
  rebates, discounts
  and incentives

             GETTING STARTED
  Local governments can take several steps to evaluate the suitability of vari-
  ous Smart Transportation Investments for their communities.
  • Assign a committee or task force to assess community transit weaknesses
    and needs, and to determine which weaknesses create a barrier to eco-
    nomic development. Meetings with neighborhood groups and local busi-
    nesses are  an  effective  means to identify transit priorities and foster
    support for Smart Transportation Investments that may require capital
  • Engage local businesses  in a dialogue  about employees' commuting pat-
    terns and possible strategies to encourage alternative commuting.
  • Begin tracking mileage for fleet vehicles to identify low-use, possibly non-
    essential vehicles.
  • Investigate  the local availability of alternative fuels that offer potential
    cost savings over conventional fuels. Local gas or electric utilities
    may offer subsidies to cover the cost of AFV purchases or        •mm
    conversions. Also research the availability of state and fed-
    eral grants and loans to  purchase AFVs.

                                EPA TRANSPORTATION PARTNERS
 EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
 401 M Street, SW
 Washington, DC
 Contact: Paula Van Lare,
 Transportation Partners Coordinator
 Phone: (202) 260-3729
EPA Transportation Partners Hotline
Phone: (202) 260-6830
Internet site: http://www.epa/gov/tp/
 Public Technology, Inc.
 Contact: Robert Hicks,
 Business Director, Transportation Programs
 Phone: (202) 626-2400
 International Council for Local Environmental
 Initiatives (ICLEI) World Secretariat
 City Hall, East Tower, 8th Floor
 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2
 Phone: (416) 392-1462
 Fax: (416) 392-1478
 Internet Site: http://www.iclei.org
ICLEI's members comprise more than 175 local gov-
ernments of different sizes from around the world,
including approximately 20 from the United States.
ICLEI coordinates a variety of programs and offers
publications promoting energy efficient buildings,
land use planning, transportation and sustainable
development planning.
                                    PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS
 Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
 U.S. Department of Transportation
 Office of Transit Administration and Safety
 400 7th Street, SW, Room 6102
 Washington, DC  20590
 Internet Site: http://www.fta.dot.gov/
The FTA distributes ISTEA funds for public transit
construction through the Surface Transportation
 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of
 Oregon (Tri-Met)
 4012 SE 17th Avenue
 Portland, Oregon 97202
 Contact: Steve Johnson,
 Public Information Officer
 Phone: (503) 238-5854
Tri-Met is the transportation authority for the
Portland metropolitan area, and can provide infor-
mation on Portland's experience with its innovative
light rail system.

 American Public Transit Association (APIA)
 201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400
 Washington, DC 20005
 Phone: (202) 898-4000
 Internet site: http://www.apta.com
APTA maintains a 10,000 volume library on urban
transportation and publishes the APTA Directory,
Passenger Transport: The Weekly Newspaper of the
Transit Industry, and Transit Fact Book. APTA also
holds annual conferences and triennial international
                                   COMMUTING ALTERNATIVES
 National Growth Management Leadership Project
 300 Willamette Building
 534 SW Third Avenue
 Portland, OR 97204
 Phone: (503)223-4396
The project conducts national land use and trans-
portation research to demonstrate how changes to
land use can increase the economic feasibility of
alternatives to automobiles.
 Community Transportation Association of America
 1341 G Street, NW, Suite 600
 Washington, DC 20005
 Phone: (202) 628-1480
 Internet site: http/Avww.ctaa.org
The Community Transportation Association is a
coalition of organizations working to improve
mobility and access to services for the elderly and
 Surface Transportation Policy Project
 1100 17th Street, NW
 Washington, DC 20036
 Phone: (202) 466-2636
 Internet site: http://www.transact.org/stpp.htm
The Surface Transportation Policy Project is a non-
profit coalition of groups promoting transportation
policies that conserve energy, protect the environ-
ment, and make communities more livable. Its
Internet site includes a listing of publications on
transportation policy, land use, and community
 International City/County Management Association
 777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 500
 Washington, DC 20002-4201
 Phone: (202) 289-4262
 Fax: (202) 962-3500
 Internet Site: http://www.icma.org
ICMA is a professional and educational association
for more than 8,000 local government administrators
worldwide. ICMA provides training programs, tech-
nical assistance, data services and publications to
improve the quality of local government manage-
ment and administration.
                                   ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
 Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC)
 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
 1617 Cole Boulevard
 Golden, CO 80401-3393
 Phone: (800) 423-1DOE
 Internet: http://www.afdc.doe.gov

  Clean Cities Program
  U.S. Department of Energy
  1000 Independence Avenue, SW
  Washington, DC 20585
  Contact: Jeff Hardy, Co-Director
  Phone: (202) 586-1885
  National Clean Cities Hotline
  P.O. Box 12316
  Arlington, VA 22209
  Phone: (800) 224-8437
  Office of Heavy Vehicle Transportation
  U.S. Department of Energy
  1000 Independence Avenue, SW
  Washington, DC 20585
  Contact: Richard Wares
  Phone: (202) 586-8031
  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
  U.S. Department of Transportation
  400 7th Street, SW
  Washington, DC 20590
  Phone: (202) 366-0660
  Internet site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
The FHWA distributes ISTEA funds for projects that
improve air quality, including public fleet conver-
sions to alternative fuels, through the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
1. The Results Center, Division of IRT Environment, Inc. California Energy Commission. Energy Partnership Program. The Results
  Center Profile #64. 1993.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator. "Chattanooga Electric Bus Program," in EPA's Transportation
  Partners Presents the Way to Go! Awards. September 10, 1996; p. 8.
3. U.S. Department of Energy. Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development, Cities and Counties Success Stories.
  "Chattanooga/Hamilton County, Tennessee", available on the world-wide web at
4. Tri-Met Strategic Planning Department. Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light Rail and Growth Management in Portland. September 1996.
5. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Cities and Counties Resource Guide. December 1994.
6. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. "Green Fleets Project Description." Available on the Internet through ICLEI's
  world-wide web page at http://www.iclei.org. See also, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "EPA's State and Local Outreach
  Program." Available on the Internet through EPA's Enviro$ense page at http://es.inel.gov.
7. U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Cities Program. Clean Cities Guide to Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives and Laws - 1st Edition.
  Available in summary form on the Internet through the Clean Cities Program world-wide web site at http://www.ccities.doe.gov.
8. California Energy Commission. "Laws, Regulations, and Requirements Affecting Alternative Fuel Vehicles." Available on the Internet
  through the Commission's world-wide web site at http://www.energy.ca.gov.
9. U.S. Department of Energy, Clean Cities Program. "Clean Cities Profile: Los Angeles Clean Cities Program." Available on the Internet
  through the Clean Cities Program world-wide web site at http://www.ccities.doe.gov.

                      SMART DEVELOPMENT
                      INVESTMENTS: BUILDING
                      CODES AND  ZONING
^ •  ^^  evelopment can be a community asset or liability, depending on
•  m   •  where it occurs and how buildings are designed and constructed.
   •    m  New development often requires new infrastructure. The public
 ^^^^^   must pay for new water and sewer lines, expanded wastewater treat-
  ment capacity or extension of transit systems. Local governments may also incur
  additional operation and maintenance costs for the growing solid waste dispos-
  al, wastewater treatment, public transportation and police and fire protection
  needs of new development. Sprawl development that fails to  utilize existing
  infrastructure to its full potential may also impose indirect costs on the commu-
  nity in the form of increased traffic congestion, diminished open space and exac-
  erbated environmental problems such as flooding, loss of wildlife habitat or
  water and air pollution.
  Local governments annually spend an average of 13 percent of their budgets on
  the public infrastructure associated with development - on roads, water supply,
  sewer lines and public transit. By adopting policies and practices that utilize
  existing infrastructure for new development, local governments can minimize
  their capital costs for public service expansion. At the same time, concentrating
  new development around existing streets and  transit corridors can  restrain
  urban and suburban sprawl, preserving open space and agricultural land. One
  recent study in California, for example, concluded that current patterns of low-
  density sprawl development could result in the loss of one million acres of farm-
  land and $72 billion in agricultural sales from the state's  Central Valley by the
  year 2040.
  In general, the public costs of new development can be classified as either "build-
  ing  dependent" (associated with the design and construction techniques
  employed in individual buildings) or "location dependent" (associated with the
  location of new development in the context of existing infrastructure and ser-
  vices). Building dependent costs derive from several factors that local govern-
  ments can usually influence  through building codes, including water
  consumption, energy efficiency and landscape design. Location dependent costs
  involve factors usually controlled by local governments through zoning ordi-
  nances, including development density and zoning classifications.
Water supply systems
Sewer and waste-
water treatment
Public transit
Road construction
and maintenance

Tools that local governments can use within their building codes and building
permits to encourage Smart Development include:
   • specifications for low-flow plumbing fixtures,
   • minimum standards for energy efficient designs, building materials and
     HVAC systems,
   • site design requirements to utilize xeriscaping techniques  and minimize
     storm-water runoff, and
   • incentives such  as reduced fees for permits and plan reviews, or an expe-
     dited review schedule for building designs that meet certain criteria.

Austin, Texas's Energy Star and Green Builder Programs,  and Santa Barbara,
California's Green Stamp Program, described below, provide examples of suc-
cessful building code and permit incentive programs. Areas facing more severe
pressures on public infrastructure may wish to rely on even more restrictive mea-
sures. The City of Santa Monica, California, for example, requires developers of
large projects to construct on-site wastewater treatment plants to eliminate addi-
tional flows to the city's sewers.
              New homes rated for energy efficiency (one to three stars).
              Municipal utility's power reserve expanded at a fraction of the cost of new plant
              Standards for water conservation and eco-friendly building materials.
              Special recognition for transit-oriented or pedestrian-oriented development.
In 1986, the Austin City Council ordered the municipal electric utility to hold
down rates by finding alternatives to the construction of a new power plant. In
response, the city created its innovative Energy Star Rating Program. To promote
energy efficiency in  new  residential construction, the program rates home
designs on a scale of one to three stars, taking into account the efficiency of the
air conditioning and heating system and the home's insulation, site orientation
and other factors. Builders and home buyers are targeted for education and out-
reach to tout the benefits of energy efficiency. Builders also receive public recog-
nition for their participation in the program and get assistance in publicizing and
marketing the energy efficiency of their homes. Most local builders participate in
the program, with the result that 90 percent of new homes in the Austin area are
rated. The city estimates that the Energy Star Program has expanded the munic-
ipal utility's electrical reserve capacity at approximately one quarter of the cost of
increasing power  supply through construction of a new pulverized coal power

In 1990, Austin received a $75,000 grant from the Urban Consortium Energy
Task Force to expand  the Energy  Star Rating Program into a "Sustainable
Systems Rating Program" for residential design and construction. Dubbed the
"Green Builder Program," this wider rating system includes criteria for water
conservation, solid waste reduction and the use of "eco-friendly" building mate-
rials. Employing a four-star rating  scale, the program combines prescriptive
requirements with flexible options for meeting its criteria. Special recognition is
given to builders who utilize existing public infrastructure, enhance bicycle and
pedestrian transit, locate homes within a ten minute walk to public transporta-
tion, a grocery store and a park, and spare ecologically sensitive areas crucial to
the maintenance of water quality or wildlife habitat. Green Builder certificates
for remodeling are awarded to builders who comply with the rating guidelines
in at least  75 percent  of the renovation. Like Austin's original Energy Star
Program, the Green Builder Program includes education and outreach for both
builders and home buyers, and assists participating builders in marketing.

The Green Builder Program has been internationally recognized as one of only
twelve winners worldwide of the United Nations Local Government Initiatives
Honours Programme  at the 1992 United Nations Earth  Summit in Rio  de
Janeiro. It has also received national honors, including awards from Demand
Side Management, Public Technology Inc., and Renew America. Equally impor-
tant for the city is the fact that the program has achieved its objectives of saving
energy and promoting sustainable growth. Its $270,000 annual budget has been
offset by saved capital and avoided operating costs for Austin's municipal elec-
tric utility. In addition, the program has spurred creation of new businesses such
as rainwater "harvesting" services that  benefit from its rainwater collection and
reuse criteria. 1'2>3'4>5
              Building plans reviewed by a committee of 18 builders (IBRC).
              Green Stamps awarded to designs that exceed energy efficiency standards by 15 to
              25 percent.
              Expedited review and 50 percent fee reduction for plans with Green Stamp.
              Projected program expansion to water conservation and use of building materials.
              Projected model "eco-building" to demonstrate Green practices and technologies.
Recognizing that California's existing energy efficiency standards do not achieve
the full potential for energy efficiency in building design and construction, Santa
Barbara has introduced its Green Stamp Program to encourage developers to
surpass the state's standards. To administer the program, the county appointed
18 local building professionals to a team named the Innovative Building Review
Committee. The committee meets twice a month to advise developers on ener-
gy efficient designs. It also works with the county to provide builders with cur-

rent information on energy efficient equipment and financing opportunities.
To  encourage energy efficient development, the committee awards a Green
Stamp to residential building plans that exceed the state's energy efficiency stan-
dards by 15 percent, and to commercial, industrial or governmental building
plans that exceed state standards by 25 percent. As an incentive for builders and
designers, plans with a Green Stamp are reviewed  by the county's Building
Inspector's Office within ten days instead of the normal four to eight weeks. In
addition, the county's plan review fee is reduced by 50 percent, saving the appli-
cants between $40 and $200 on each plan. The expedited review also saves inter-
est on loans and allows developers to  start and complete construction sooner.
That gives them a competitive advantage in leasing and selling their buildings.

The Innovative Building Review Committee is making the Green Stamp require-
ments more stringent and broadening them to include criteria for designs in
such areas as water use and building materials. The county is developing further
standards for an expanded program with multiple energy efficiency target levels,
using the current standards  as a Green Stamp "baseline." The more stringent
standards will require greater energy efficiency and better water conservation, as
well as the use of eco-friendly building materials. In return, Green Stamp will
provide additional incentives for compliance. The county also plans to build a
model "eco-building" to display recommended practices and technologies and to
acquaint developers with the costs, performance and payback periods of the fea-
tures the building incorporates.6

The public costs classified as "location dependent" are those service costs that are
influenced by development  patterns and  land use. They can be minimized
through zoning strategies that encourage $mart Development in existing infra-
structure service areas. Suggested components  of such strategies are presented
below. Specific zoning tools that can be used to  implement each component are
indicated in parentheses and discussed in the following section.
  • Promote higher density development. (Rezoning, downzoning, transfer-
     able development rights, sliding development fees). The provision of pub-
     lic services is more cost-effective when development densities (i.e., the
     number of people per unit area) are higher, because the same infrastructure
     or services reach more people.
  • Concentrate development near public transit corridors. (Rezoning, slid-
     ing development fees, tax credits). Concentrating development near public
     transit enhances residents' mobility and increases customer and employee
     access to businesses without adding to traffic congestion and air pollution
     caused by automobiles. It also increases public transit use, thereby aug-
     menting local government revenue.
  • Encourage mixed-use zones.  (Rezoning, transferable development rights,
     tax credits).  Areas  with mixed  residential, commercial and civic  uses
     enhance residents' quality of life by putting a range of services within their
     reach. By reducing automobile use and making options such as walking and

     bicycling more viable, mixed-use development brings down traffic conges-
     tion and limits road construction and maintenance costs.
  • Conserve open space.  (Downzoning,  transferable development rights).
     According to the National Park Service, the vegetation in parks and green-
     ways can help control water, air and noise  pollution. It also  reduces
     stormwater runoff, moderates ambient temperature, lowers heating and
     cooling costs, and often entices people to walk or bicycle rather than drive
     cars. The National  Park Service  reports that open space is viewed as an
     important factor in local quality of life, which improves a community's
     ability to retain and attract residents and businesses.7
  • Avoid ecologically or geologically sensitive areas. (Downzoning, trans-
     ferable development rights). Wetlands and wildlife habitat are often dam-
     aged  or destroyed  by  development. This  can  result  in  flooding,
     contamination of nearby surface waters and a  decline in wildlife  popula-
     tions. Construction on steep  slopes can increase erosion  and sediment
     loads in water bodies. All such impacts can hurt areas where the economy
     depends on recreation, tourism and natural resources.

To implement the strategies outlined above, use these tools:
  • Downzone (i.e., rezone for lower development densities) some boundary
     and outlying areas to discourage  development.
  • Transferable development rights. Let property owners and developers
     transfer  rights from downzoned areas to areas targeted for development.
     This helps conserve open space  and environmentally sensitive areas, and
     can encourage development near existing infrastructure.
  • Rezone areas near transit corridors. Allow for higher densities or mixed
     uses consistent with pedestrian-oriented and transit-oriented design.
  • Allow tax credits  for development  in designated enterprise zones near
     existing  infrastructure.
  • Impose sliding development fees. Charge developers with the  costs of
     extending infrastructure to remote sites, to encourage the use of sites served
     by existing infrastructure.

The case studies of Lancaster, California, and Montgomery County, Maryland,
illustrate the use of these tools.

             City charges developers a fee calculated to cover the public costs of new development.
             Fee covers the infrastructure capital costs and projected impact on operating costs.
             Developers have an incentive to build in areas with existing infrastructure.
Lancaster, located approximately  70 miles north of downtown Los Angeles,
underwent tremendous growth in the 1980's and faced substantial pressure for
development on the city's outskirts, where no public infrastructure or services
existed. To address the public cost implications of increased development pres-
sure, the city adopted its General Plan for future development. To implement the
plan, in 1993 the city created the Urban Structure Program.
Under the Urban Structure Program, the city defrays its cost of expanded public
services by charging developers the full public cost of their projects. Based on
project-specific information supplied by the developer, the city uses a computer
model to calculate  the added public service and infrastructure costs of each
development, and to determine the appropriate development fee. The fee, paid
by the developer, covers one-time capital costs  for development-related infra-
structure (e.g., drainage and flood control systems) and facilities (e.g., adminis-
trative buildings), as well as  the projected net  negative fiscal impact of each
development on ongoing municipal operations over a 20 year period. The pro-
gram holds down local government costs by transferring the financial responsi-
bility for new infrastructure  from the public to the private sector. At the same
time, it provides developers with economic incentives to build in areas with suf-
ficient existing infrastructure, thereby minimizing urban sprawl and preserving
open space in outlying areas.8
             Under "five acre zoning," county lost 1,300 acres of agricultural land annually.
             40,000 acres downzoned to 25 acre zoning to discourage sprawl.
             No extension of water and sewer lines into downzoned areas.
             Downzoned landowners compensated with transferable development rights.
Southern Montgomery County forms part of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area, while its northern and western reaches are primarily agricultural. During the
1970s, county zoning codes allowed one house per five acres on the outskirts of
the growing metropolitan area, and the county was losing approximately 1,300
acres of farmland annually to suburban sprawl.  The county also faced a sizable
financial burden to provide the necessary public infrastructure and facilities for
new, sparsely  developed residential neighborhoods. In an effort to discourage

continued sprawl and preserve agricultural land, the county downzoned an area
of 40,000 acres. The new zoning codes allowed only one house for every 25 acres.
As further constraints, the county declared that roads could not be widened nor
sewer and water lines extended in the "protected" areas.

Farmers in Montgomery County objected to the downzoning. They claimed that
lost development potential would hurt them financially by ending the econom-
ic opportunity of selling land to home builders and by lowering property values.
In response, the  county devised  a system of transferable development rights
(TDRs) that would compensate farmers for the lost value without increasing the
county's financial burden. Landowners in the downzoned area received TDRs
equivalent to their  lost development potential, which they could then sell to
developers on the open real estate market. This in turn, allowed developers to
exceed  the  permitted development densities in designated "receiving" urban
areas of the county. For example, a landowner with a 25 acre plot could have
built five houses  under the old zoning code but only one under the new. He
would receive four TDRs that he could sell to a developer interested in exceed-
ing the specified zoning density within a receiving area elsewhere in the county.
This system allowed Montgomery County to protect farmland and manage the
region's pattern of development during a period of continued growth.


The programs outlined below provide  assistance to local governments for the
development and implementation of Smart Development policies and tools.

The Smart Growth  Network ($GN) is a coalition of stakeholders in the
development process, including government officials, developers, lending
institutions, and environmentalists. Coordinated through the Urban and    & \/r \ -nT  /"< r» /^•w/T' ti
Economic Development Division of EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and    $ M A R1  GROWiH
Evaluation,  the SGN's  mission  is to  foster national, regional, and local    NETWORK
partnerships that promote  environmentally, economically, and socially
beneficial development practices. The Smart Growth Network supports changes
in development patterns by providing members with educational and technical
assistance materials  including:
  • model zoning  ordinances and codes,
  • information on financing brownfields redevelopment,
  • an eco-industrial park planning model, and
  • data on the impacts of sprawl.

Through its Internet site, http://www.smartgrowth.org, the  $GN also offers
access to presentation materials, planning tools, on-line forums, and literature
explaining and supporting Smart Growth concepts.

Established in 1995 as part of the National Performance Review's Reinventing
Environmental Regulation initiative, the Sustainable Development Challenge
Grant (SDCG) Program promotes the vision and goals of the President's Council
on Sustainable Development. The SDCG program awards competitive grants to
local governments, community groups, non-profit organizations, and universi-
ties to support community-based projects that advance environmentally and
economically sustainable  development. The program also fosters community
partnerships to leverage additional public and private sector investments in sus-
tainable development activities. Recently funded projects include:
  • Preserving sustainability in Central Virginia. This project brings togeth-
     er six local governments in the Charlottesville, Virginia area, that are com-
     mitted to working with the  private sector to better plan and manage the
     region's growth. The coalition is preparing a State of the Region report out-
     lining the area's most urgent development challenges and opportunities.
     The coalition is  also drafting agreements on action plans to implement its
     vision of a sustainable future.
  • Marketing the  economic benefits  of sustainable development in the
     Rappahannock  River watershed.  Five  local  governments  in  the
     Rappahannock River watershed have joined with private developers and
     conservation groups to evaluate alternative development practices. Their
     goal is to identify and implement practices that reduce the ecological effects
     of development and encourage more efficient land use.
  • Sustainable  neighborhood design for the desert  southwest.  Arizona
     State University's College of Architecture and Environmental Design  is
     working with the governments of Phoenix and Scottsdale to explore plan-
     ning options for two new neighborhood developments covering a total of
     300 acres. The project will culminate in sustainable development guidelines
     and model neighborhood designs that can be shared with other southwest-
     ern desert communities.

Through  the Livable Communities Initiative, the Department  of Trans-
portation's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding and technical
assistance  for public transit projects that enhance sustainable development. In
particular, it supports projects that link transit planning and  community plan-
ning, involve residents and community organizations in the planning and design
process, and reduce dependence on automobiles through such means as mixed-
use development and pedestrian-oriented design. Projects eligible for funding
include design, construction or renovation of transit stations and park-and-ride
facilities, and transit pass programs and marketing.

             GETTING STARTED

  • The key requirement in a strategy for Smart Development Investments is
     to identify the most urgent development pressures and priorities in your
     community. One way to start defining those priorities is to review the
     recent growth history of your community and its effects on public expen-
     diture allocations.
  • Changes in local development policies and practices can affect the char-
     acter of an entire community and influence housing markets. Therefore,
     it is important to seek the support and input of local residents and devel-
     opers in designing development incentives or changes to building and
     zoning codes.
  • Meet with developers and  local home builders to  discuss goals for com-
     munity development, prospective changes in zoning and building codes,
     proposals specifying energy or water conservation techniques and possi-
     ble development incentives. Developers  and home builders may have
     insights into the feasibility and potential success of specific options.
  • Hold public meetings to discuss specific development issues
     faced by the community. Solicit residents' input on issues
       ,      .   .      ,   .             .          .         .^A^L^^^^f^^ /
     such as mixed  use development, density,  pedestrian-     «»:
     and transit-oriented design, transit needs and neigh-    t^
     borhood planning.                                  flC

American Farmland Trust
1920 N Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 659-5170
Fax:(202) 659-8339
Internet Site: http://www.farmland.org
                                                  American Farmland Trust has produced several stud-
                                                  ies regarding the public costs of different land uses,
                                                  including Density-Related Public Costs.
American Planning Association
122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 431-9100
Internet Site: http://www.planning.org
                                                  The American Planning Association's (APA) 16 divi-
                                                  sions include City Planning and Management;
                                                  Environment, Natural Resources, and Energy; and
                                                  Transportation Planning. APA operates the Planners
                                                  Book Service, which serves as a clearinghouse for
                                                  publications and other resources on many topics,
                                                  including land use planning, open space conserva-
                                                  tion and energy planning.
 International City/County Management Association
 777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 500
 Washington, DC 20002-4201
 Phone: (202) 289-4262
 Fax: (202) 962-3500
 Internet Site: http://www.icma.org
                                                 ICMA is a professional and educational association
                                                 for more than 8,000 local government administrators
                                                 worldwide. ICMA provides training programs, tech-
                                                 nical assistance, data services and publications to
                                                 improve the quality of local government manage-
                                                 ment and administration.
 Local Government Commission (LGC) — Center for
 Livable Communities
 1414 K Street, Suite 250
 Sacramento, CA 95814
 Phone: (916) 448-1198; (800) 290-8202
 Fax: (916) 448-8246
 Internet Site: http://www.lgc.org/clc
                                                 The LGC's Center for Livable Communities helps
                                                 local governments and community leaders develop
                                                 land use and transportation programs to support
                                                 more livable and resource efficient land use patterns.
                                                 The center offers workshops, conferences, publica-
                                                 tions, a newsletter (Livable Places Update) and a
                                                 resource library.
 The Trust for Public Land (TPL)
 116 New Montgomery, Fourth Floor
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 Phone: (415) 495-4014; (800) 714-LAND
 Fax: (415) 495-4103
 Internet Site: http://www.igc.apc.org/tpl
                                                 TPL is a non-profit organization that works in part-
                                                 nership with government, business and community
                                                 groups to conserve natural areas and open space by
                                                 acquiring property, holding it for local governments
                                                 until public funds are available, and selling the land
                                                 to public agencies at or below market value. TPL also
                                                 publishes Greensense, a free newsletter about financ-
                                                 ing land conservation.

 U.S. Green Building Council
 90 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1001
 San Francisco, CA 94105
 Phone: (415) 543-3001
 Fax: (415) 957-5890
 Internet Site: http://www.usgbc.org
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) devel-
oped a voluntary national green building rating sys-
tem for commercial buildings that includes criteria
for building materials, solid waste management, and
energy and water use. The USGBC offers resources
and educational and training programs on green
building practices. In addition, the Council offers the
Sustainable Building Technical Manual and a quar-
terly newsletter entitled, Green Building Report: An
Update from the U.S. Green Building Council.
                           U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 Smart Growth Network
 Urban and Economic Development Division
 Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2127)
 401 M Street, SW
 Washington, DC 20460
 Phone: (202) 260-2750
 Fax: (202) 260-0174
 Internet Site: http://www.smartgrowth.org
EPA coordinates the Smart Growth Network, com-
prised of private sector, public sector and NGO part-
ners. The network seeks to create and promote
development practices that are economically, envi-
ronmentally and socially beneficial. The network has
an Internet site that provides extensive information
and resources concerning building practices and
managing development and growth.
 Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program
 Office of Air and Radiation
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MC-6101)
 401 M Street, SW
 Washington, DC 20460
 Contact: Pamela Hurt
 Phone: (202) 260-2441
 Internet Site: http://www.epa.gov/docs/
EPA's Sustainable Development Challenge Grants are
awarded on a competitive basis to provide seed fund-
ing for projects developed by local governments and
other local organizations. EPA awarded $524,000 to
ten projects during the program's pilot phase in the
1996 fiscal year.

                               U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
 Building Energy Standards Program
 Pacific Northwest Laboratory
 PO Box 999 MSIN K5-08
 Richland, WA 99352
 Phone: (800) 270-2633
Funded by DOE, this program encourages an
exchange among building industry professionals and
organizations, state and local code officials, and
researchers to facilitate the development and adop-
tion of building energy efficiency standards.
 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
 Clearinghouse (EREC)
 PO Box 3048
 Phone: (800) 363-3723
 Fax: (703) 893-0400
 E-mail: die.erec@nciinc.com
 Internet Site: http://www.eren.doe.gov/
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Clearinghouse contains over 500 documents in 26
subject directories. Hard copies of these and other
documents can be ordered from the EREC office.
EREC energy experts answer specific questions
about energy efficiency and renewable energy by fax
at the number provided above or by e-mail.
 Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development
 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
 U.S. Department of Energy
 Denver Regional Support Office
 1617 Cole Boulevard
 Golden, CO 80401
 Phone: (800) 363-3732
 Fax: (303) 275-4830
 Internet Site: http://www.sustainable.doe.gov
DOE's Center of Excellence for Sustainable
Development provides information on sustainable
communities, energy efficiency, land use planning
and management, transportation, green building
and related topics.
                             U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
 Livable Communities Initiative
 Office of Planning
 Federal Transit Administration
 U.S. Department of Transportation
 400 7th Street, SW
 Washington, DC 20590
 Phone: (202) 366-2360
 Internet Site: http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/
The Livable Communities Initiative provides guid-
ance, technical assistance, and funding to state and
local agencies for several types of planning activities,
including developing innovative land use and zon-
ing practices

                                   U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
 Recreation Resources Assistance Division
 Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program
 PO Box 37127
 Washington, DC 20013
 Phone: (202) 343-3780
 Internet site: http://www.nps.gov/rtca/
The Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance
Program provides assistance to states, local govern-
ments, and citizen groups working to protect river,
trail, and greenway resources. The Program pro-
duced a free resource book entitled. Economic
Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway
Corridors, which describes potential impacts of
open space conservation on property values, local
spending, tourism, business development and public
                                      LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
 City of Portland Energy Office
 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1170
 Portland, OR 97212-3711
 Phone:(503) 823-7222
 Fax: (503) 823-5370
 E-mail: pdxenergy@ci.portland.or.us
 Internet Site:
Portland, Oregon's energy office manages a variety
of programs to reduce energy use in the public and
private sectors.
 City of San Jose
 Environmental Services Department
 777 N. First St., Suite 450
 San Jose, CA 95112
 Phone: (408) 277-5533
 Fax: (408) 277-3606
San Jose's IDEAS (Innovative Design and Energy
Analysis Service) program promotes energy efficien-
cy in commercial and industrial buildings and offers
a guide to energy efficient design, lighting, heating,
ventilating and air conditioning for use by develop-
ers. IDEAS uses computer software to determine the
most appropriate technologies for a building based
on its size, location and purpose.
 City of Lancaster, California
 Community Development Department
 Contact: Dave Ledbetter
 Phone: (805) 723-6100
Lancaster's Urban Structure Program developed a
model to calculate the costs and revenues to the
local government of new developments, and the
appropriate development fees to charge builders.
The Community Development Department sells the
Urban Structure Program Documentation Report,
which provides information about the Program,
including the specific calculations used in the

 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
 401 B Street, Ste 800
 San Diego, CA 92101
 Phone: (619)  595-5300
 Fax: (619) 595-5305
 E-mail: webmaster@sandag.cog.ca.us
 Internet Site: http://www.sandag.cog.ca.us
SANDAG, an association of 18 city and county gov-
ernments in the San Diego metropolitan area, serves
as the Regional Planning and Growth Management
Board, the Regional Transportation Commission,
and the Congestion Management Agency.
SANDAG's activities include developing Geographic
Information  System (GIS) databases and analyzing
planning policies for sensitive land; developing bicy-
cle and pedestrian facilities; implementing a road-
way congestion pricing pilot program; and planning
for regional growth and  environmental manage-
ment. SANDAG offers numerous publications con-
cerning its plans for energy use, habitat
conservation, open space, growth management and
land use
 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of
 Oregon (Tri-Met)
 4012SE 17th Avenue
 Portland, Oregon 97202
 Contact: Steve Johnson,
 Public Information Officer
 Phone: (503) 238-5854
Tri-Met is the transportation authority for the
Portland metropolitan area. It has worked with
other agencies to couple land use and transportation
management in the region by limiting parking in
the downtown area; providing incentives for car-
pooling; replacing a segment of a downtown free-
way with an urban park; expanding the existing
public transportation system; building a new light
rail system; and changing zoning codes and offering
incentives for high residential densities near transit
corridors and for new development within existing
1.International Council for Local Government Initiatives, Project Summary Series, "Austin, USA — Housing Construction," Project
   Summary #49, Internet Site, http://www.cities21.com/leicomm/lei-049.htm (accessed 3/3/97).
2.U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse,
   "Build Up Energy Savings with Residential Standards," Internet Site,
3.City of Austin, Green Builder Program, Explanation of Green Building Star Rating Levels. April 1996.
4.U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development.
   Renew America, Success Stories, "City of Austin Green Builder Program."
S.Doxsey, W. Laurence (Coordinator, Green Builder Program, City of Austin Planning, Environmental and Conservation Services
   Department). The City of Austin Green Builder Program.
6.Urban Consortium Energy Task Force, 1998 Request for Proposals, "Competitive Advantages of Energy Efficiency: Santa Barbara
7.U.S. National Park Service, Rivers Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and
   Greenway Corridors. 1995.
S.Dave Ledbetter, City of Lancaster, Personal Communication with Aaron Martin, Industrial Economics, Inc., March 26,1997.

                       COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
                       GAINING  SUPPORT FOR
                       SMART INVESTMENTS
 f im   Jm^any Smart Investments highlighted in this guide require the active
 ^ /•  /U  involvement and support of local residents and community leaders.
   I ^U  •   Some may require voters to  support policy changes or authorize
^^r   r  ~^L  bond measures to finance initial costs. Others may succeed only if
    residents or local business people are won over to making changes in their
    lifestyles, habits or market preferences. Expanded and improved transit systems,
    for example, are of little value if residents and local business employees do not
    use them. Conserving municipal water supplies to save operating costs for water
    treatment and distribution systems ultimately depends on the willingness and
    ability of residents, businesses, and industries to reduce their water consumption.
    In addition, some services, such as solid waste disposal, may be perceived in the
    community as "free," making it difficult for residents to understand the need for
    "new" pricing systems or changes in the nature and level of service. Community
    outreach and education efforts that ensure support for changes in the ways local
    governments provide basic services are thus a critical component of any Smart
    Investment plan.


    Effective community outreach strategies generally draw on some combination of
    four basic tools: education, motivation, facilitation and direct implementation.
      • Education tools inform the public about programs and include bill inserts,
        mass mailings, videos, media campaigns, telephone hotlines, Internet sites
        and other ways of raising public awareness.
      • Motivation tools employ incentives and techniques to raise the level of
        community participation.  Motivation tools include  discounted transit
        passes, free showers and bicycle lockers in downtown buildings to promote
        bicycle commuting, business challenges to increase recycling rates, com-
        munity events, and billboards tallying cumulative energy savings or waste
        reductions. Economic incentives, such as returning energy cost savings to
        the responsible departments, can be very effective motivational tools.
      • Facilitation tools disseminate technical information and other resources to
        assist the community in carrying out  programs. Facilitation tools could
        include a wide range of materials — everything from manuals and software
        for calculating energy savings, waste minimization training workshops and
        water conservation audits, to directories of local recyclers and maps of

     bicycle commuting routes. The Global Action Plan (GAP) is gaining sup-
     port in many communities as a grassroots facilitation tool (see sidebar).
     Implementation strategies are hands-on programs that utilize local gov-
     ernment resources to make new practices a reality. They include direct
     installation of low-flow plumbing fixtures by local government crews, con-
     struction of telecommuting centers and implementation of curbside recy-
     cling programs.

City and county managers should draw on all of the tools described above in
developing community outreach strategies for making $mart Investments. The
appropriate strategy and combination of tools for ensuring maximum effective-
ness of a particular investment will depend on the nature and objective of the
investment as well as on the character and interests of the targeted groups.

The development of an outreach strategy that will effectively change the behav-
ior of the targeted groups entails the following steps.
  1. Identify the audience. The groups involved in change may be local govern-
     ment departments, local businesses and/or citizens. Identifying the groups
     critical to ensuring success will provide the basis for the outreach strategy.
  2. Identify the factors  that will make change attractive to different groups.
     Understanding how different groups perceive the change and its benefits
     for them will help determine the message necessary to gain their support.
  3. Evaluate any actual or perceived barriers to change. Perceived barriers can
     often be overcome with information and education tools, while actual bar-
     riers  may require local government involvement in the form of facilitation
     and implementation.
  4. Determine the type of information and assistance critical to bringing about
     the change, based on the understanding of the factors and barriers identi-
     fied in the previous steps.
  5. Identify the best tools for motivating change among each  of the interest
Many local government programs profiled in this guide have successfully devel-
oped outreach strategies that employ a wide variety of outreach tools to gain
community support for Smart Investments. Highlighted below are the outreach
tools that have made four such programs especially successful.
         THE GLOBAL
         ACTION PLAN:
The Global Action Plan
(GAP) is an innovative
facilitation tool for
building grassroots
support and
• Household EcoTeams
  of friends, family
  members, neighbors,
  or co-workers
  undertake behavior
  changes that foster
  sustainable lifestyles.
• The Household
  EcoTeam Workbook
  provides detailed
  guidance for a six-
  step plan  of
  environmental action:
  • reduce garbage;
  • improve home water
  •improve home
    energy efficiency;
  • be an eco-wise
  • empower others.
GO Boulder is a comprehensive program to promote various forms of alterna-
tive commuting in Boulder, Colorado, including bicycling, public transit and car-

pooling. Its success results from extensive use of education, motivation and facil-
itation tools. Go Boulder can be reached at (303) 413-7304, or on the Internet at

   • Telephone hotline for information on transportation alternatives.
   • Internet site providing information on GO Boulder activities.

   • Bike Week. This community event includes bike races and tours, moun-
     tain biking, bike  to work day, bike safety clinics and a business chal-
   • ECO Pass allows employers to offer discounted annual bus passes to
   • ECO Pass holders are guaranteed a free ride home by taxi if they
     have to work late unexpectedly or have an emergency.

   • Bicycle safety tips available by calling the GO Boulder hot-
   • Bike and bus maps.
   • Boulder Ride Arrangers. This is a free computerized ser-
     vice that matches compatible commuters.
   • Information for businesses about flex time, compressed work schedules,
     variable work hours and telecommuting.
   • Transportation planning services for local  businesses. On request, GO
     Boulder will develop  and recommend a plan for more efficient and eco-
     nomical employee transportation alternatives.
   • Employee Transportation Coordinator training. GO Boulder trains repre-
     sentatives of local businesses to provide in-house support and information
     on commuting alternatives. Coordinators hold monthly breakfast meet-
     ings to share ideas.
Tri-Met's aggressive plan to develop light rail and other public transit systems
that support community growth in Portland, Oregon includes significant out-
reach and public  involvement efforts drawing on  a  full range of education,
motivation, facilitation and implementation tools. Information on the Transit
Choices program is available at Tri-Met's Internet site at http://www.tri-met.org.

   • Telephone lines for information on employer commuting programs, hand-
     icapped access and park and ride services.
   • Internet site includes schedule and route information.

  • Free parking at nearly 60 park and ride lots.
  • Bicycle racks on Tri-Met buses let cyclists with permits ($5) use public tran-
  • Reduced downtown parking rates for carpoolers.
  • Reduced transit fares for seniors and disabled passengers.

  • On-site transportation promotions for local businesses and training for
     company representatives on the "how-to" of using Tri-Met and carpooling.
  • "Do-it-yourself" guide for planning and implementing alternative employ-
     ee commuting programs.
  • Transit Choices for Livability — a series of community workshops held in
     Portland's fastest growing suburbs to identify neighborhood transit needs
     and solicit residents' input in the design and location of new bus and light
     rail routes.

  • Door-to-door ride service for disabled customers unable to use regular
     public transit.
  • The 750 ideas generated in the Transit Choices for Livability workshops are
     the basis for pilot projects, including new bus routes, more frequent service
     and bus stop  upgrades  for  the communities of Beaverton, Gresham,
     Hillsboro and Oregon City.

Santa Monica's Bay Saver program promotes the use of low-flow plumbing fix-
tures and other water conservation measures, using education, motivation, facil-
itation and implementation tools. More information on the Bay Saver Program
may be obtained by contacting Dean Kubani in the City of Santa Monica
Environmental Programs Division, at  (310)  458-2227, or  by accessing the
Division's Internet site at http://pen.ci.santa-monica.ca.us/environment.

  • Water bill inserts promoting conservation.
  • Displays at plumbing stores and home improvement centers.
  • Media  campaign; newspaper,  radio and TV public service ads and
  • Information packets distributed on  request.
  • Water conservation educational programs for local schools.

   • Demonstration  of sustainable  gardens at City Hall and the Civic

   • On-site residential, commercial, and industrial water use surveys to identi-
     fy conservation opportunities.
   • Annual sustainable landscape workshops for residents and landscape pro-

   • 1,000 ultra low-flow toilets distributed free of charge to property owners at
     a special "kick-off" ceremony.
   • City-funded water efficiency revolving loan fund provides  interest-free
     loans to institutional, commercial and residential water customers to pay
     for plumbing fixture retrofits, irrigation system upgrades and other con-
     servation measures.

Austin's Green Builder Program has received awards and widespread recognition
for its accomplishments in promoting energy conservation, water conservation
and other sustainable practices in residential construction. The program's success
is due in part to extensive community outreach efforts utilizing education, moti-
vation and facilitation  tools. Information on the Green Builder Program, as well
as links to the city's Green Builder News and a variety of articles on green
building  practices,  can be  found  on  the  program's  Internet  site   at

   • Information for prospective buyers on the value and availability of green
   • Customer service telephone number.
   • Newsletter, fact sheets and brochures.
   • Informational newspaper advertisements.

   • Partnerships with building associations, environmental organizations, busi-
     nesses, the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce and other organizations.

   • Technical guidance and marketing assistance  for building professionals
     using and promoting green building practices.
   • Program provides buyer referrals and a directory of participating building
   • Detailed technical guide to green building practices.
                               U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1998 619-316/90705