LUnited States
Environmental Protection
Agency
*+ •-. rrv' *_ i ^«
reen City Partnerships
^^^P A GUIDE FQfcSUO
M^_' ^k^ ^^^^
ENVIRO
\
USTAIHAKIUTY ANI> BEST PRACTICE'
' -
. > > I.
-------
EPA/625/C-06/005
NOVEMBER 2006
Green City Partnerships
A GUIDE FOR
SUCCESSFUL ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS
SUSTAINABILITY AND BEST PRACTICES
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research laboratory
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its
Office of Research and Development funded and managed
the research described here under Contract 68-C-02-067,
Work Assignment 3-84, Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC). It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative review and has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air,
and water resources. Under a mandate of national environ-
mental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human ac-
tivities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program
is providing data and technical support for solving environ-
mental problems today and building a science knowledge
base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent
or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation of tech-
nological and management approaches for preventing and
reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health
and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research
program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for pre-
vention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and sub-
surface resources; protection of water quality in public wa-
ter systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments
and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pol-
lution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates
with both public and private sector partners to foster tech-
nologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions
to environmental problems by: developing and promoting
technologies that protect and improve the environment; ad-
vancing scientific and engineering information to support
regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical
support and information transfer to ensure implementation
of environmental regulations and strategies at the national,
state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Lab-
oratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is published
and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Devel-
opment to assist the user community and to link research-
ers with their clients.
Sally C. Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
-------
iv GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It has taken tremendous effort from many caring and
dedicated people to birth the Partnership into reality, and
secondly to labor it into this format—so that what has been
accomplished in Louisville and Lexington Kentucky can in-
form the efforts of others who are working for change.
In an era of partnerships, few have been formed that in-
volve such ambitious goals for huge public institutions. The
potential rewards are in proportion.
To develop and implement the goals of the two existing
Partnerships, over two hundred busy professionals volun-
teered their time and expertise. They all deserve thanks, as
they are the engines and engineers of the desired change.
I will with regret name only a few of them as I thank the
contributors to this guide.
From the Louisville Partnership for a Green City:
Thanks first go to Emma Lou George of the Technol-
ogy Transfer Division, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United
States Environmental Protection Agency for her unwavering
recognition of the value of the Partnership model and sup-
port for the creation of this guide. Her contributions to this
project are only one example of her lifelong commitment to
pollution prevention and fostering improvement in environ-
mental practices.
Thank you to the Steering Committee of the Louisville
Partnership. Thank you to Russell Barnett, and especially
to the Kentucky Institute for the Environment and Sustain-
able Development, for initial project support and the fund-
ing which permitted the development and implementation of
the Partnership in Louisville. The funding was made pos-
sible in part by a collaborative effort by the Kentucky Uni-
versity Partnership for Environmental Education, the Ken-
tucky Environmental Education Council, and Murray State
University. Thank you to Dr. David Wicks, Casslyn Harris,
and Dr. Allan Dittmer—the core of the leadership for the
Louisville Partnership. Their reviews and contributions to
this text were essential for its development. Thank you also
to Bonnie Biemer, an original steering committee member
from Louisville Metro Government.
For early support and ongoing advocacy, thank you to
Joan Rhiem, Rudolph Davidson, Dr. Nancy Martin, Mike
Mulheim, and Jacque Austin.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Thank you to Jerry E. Abramson, Mayor Louisville-Jef-
ferson County Metro Government, Dr. Stephen Daesch-
ner, Superintendent Jefferson County Public Schools, and
James Ramsey, president University of Louisville, for lead-
ership and recognition of the value of Partnering.
From the Bluegrass Partnership for a Green Commu-
nity:
Thank you to Ben Crutcher, John Davies, Cindy De-
itz, Jane Eller, Greg Guess, Carol Hanley, Anna Goodman
Hoover, Charlie Milward, Frederick Nelson, Larry Porter,
Maxine Rudder, Amy Sohner, Shane Tedder, Tom Webb, Sue
Weant, Bob Wiseman, and Kandris Wunderlich—the mem-
bers of the Bluegrass Partnership for a Green Community
Steering Committee.
Carol Hanley, with the University of Kentucky Tracy
Farmer Center for the Environment, and Anna Hoover de-
serve special thanks for organizing and assistance with
communications, and close review of the Lexington materi-
als.
Thank you to Teresa Isaac, Mayor Lexington-Fayette Ur-
ban County Government, Stu Silberman, Fayette County
Schools Superintendent, and Lee Todd, University of Ken-
tucky President, for leadership in recognizing the value of
this project for the Bluegrass.
Thank you to my team of writers, editors and co-facilita-
tors: Rosane Kruzich, Noel Rueff, Marcelle Gianelloni, Mar-
cia Boone, Angie Reed Garner and Steven Gardiner. The im-
ages in the cover art are courtesy of the Greater Louisville
Convention 85 Visitors Bureau (www.gotolouisville.com).
Last of all, thank you to Lisa Kulujian and Joni Hosford
of SAIC for managing me and this project most profession-
ally with a minimum of hassle.
Gordon Garner
Consultant
Louisville, Kentucky
-------
vi GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
ABSTRACT
Cities with a green reputation are successful in
promoting economic growth, cultural vibrancy, job
creation and quality of life. Parents see such cities as
desirable places to raise their children; businesses see
them as a place where they will be able to attract and
retain a highly-skilled work force. Rather than gutted
downtowns and endlessly sprawling suburbs, such
cities—places like Seattle, Washington; Austin, Texas
and Portland, Oregon—conjure up images of bustling
shopping districts, public green spaces, and oppor-
tunities for neighborly interaction and healthy living.
This guide explores how public institutions, working
together, can contribute to making and keeping their
communities green.
The argument for the creation of public-sector green
partnerships is straightforward.
• Local governments and public institutions such
as universities and public school systems are often the
largest employers and the largest consumers of energy
and resources in any given community.
• They can and often do set the standards for devel-
opment that influence both public and private sector
activity.
• Given the scale of such institutions and the pro-
portional impacts they have in their communities,
incremental improvements in staff and student envi-
ronmental education, energy consumption, and waste
management practices can have real benefits for the
quality of life in those communities.
• Green practices make good sense financially, as
they save taxpayer dollars and stretch institutional
budgets.
• Public institutions are well-positioned to lead by
example, demonstrating what is possible, implement-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
ing new eco-friendly technologies and undertaking
public-education campaigns that fall within their
mandate of serving the wider public good.
By partnering—pooling expertise, imagination and
purchasing power—such institutions can achieve
economies of scale, benefit from each other's experi-
ences, and provide learning and research opportuni-
ties for the whole community.
This how-to guide emerges from the experience of
reviewing various green partnership models in places
around the country and more particularly from the
creation of new partnerships in Kentucky's two larg-
est urban areas, Louisville and Lexington. This guide
describes in a detailed, practical way how public in-
stitutions can partner with one another to implement
green practices. Through intensive review of the green
partnership process in both Louisville and Lexington,
it shows what can be accomplished, outlines success-
ful partnering structures, and points out potential
problems and how to overcome them.
-------
VIM GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
CONTENTS
1 - Introduction to Green Partnerships 1
Green Manhattan 2
Why Partnerships 2
Why Go Green? 4
Green City Successes 5
Economic Benefits 5
Green Cities Create Jobs 5
Green Cites Are Healthier Places to Live 6
Green Universities and Colleges 7
Green Cities Are Smarter 7
Testimonials 9
2 - Case Studies in Green Partnerships 10
Philadelphia Green 10
Green Seattle Partnership 12
Milwaukee Green Team 13
Chicago Solar Energy Partnership 16
3 - The Partnership for a Green City &
The Bluegrass Partnership for a Green
Community 18
Origins of the Louisville Partnership 18
History and Context of the Green City Partnership
Model 18
Louisville, Kentucky: At a Glance 19
Lexington, Kentucky: At a Glance 20
Goals and Assessment 22
Importance of Environmental Education 26
Environmental Education 26
Importance of Environmental Management 28
Importance of Public Health 30
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Children's Environmental Health 30
Benefits of Collaboration 30
Accomplishments to Date 31
4 - The Birthing Process: How to Begin a
Successful Partnering Project 36
Key Elements in Establishing a Partnership 36
Leadership Interviews—What Was Learned 38
Common Themes from Facilitated Sessions 40
Foundations for a Successful Partnership 41
Barriers to Collaborations 42
Developing Green Principles: How to Do It 43
5 - How to Manage a Green Partnership 44
Management Structure 44
Environmentalists at the Table 44
A Good Management Plan 45
Roles and Structures: Who and How 47
Identifying Project Participants: How to Do It 47
Executive Leadership 49
A Full-Time Director 49
Accountability 49
Short-term Administrative Benefits from Project
Participation 50
Sharing Expertise is Good for all Partners 50
Evaluating and Troubleshooting 51
The Survey 51
Communication 53
Appendix A - Bibliography 58
Appendix B - Louisville Partnership for a
Green City: Statement of Environmental
Principles 59
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Contents
Continued
Appendix C - Louisville Survey 62
Appendix D - Lexington Survey 67
Appendix E - Protocols of the United
Nations Urban Environmental
Accords 71
Appendix F - Louisville Project
Summaries 76
Appendix G - Lexington Project
Summaries 98
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Table 1 Approximate Combined Resources of
Louisville Partners 19
Table 2 Approximate Combined Resources of
Lexington Partners 20
Table 3 Louisville Sample Survey Results 23
Table 4 Lexington Sample Survey Results 25
Table 5 Some Elements of a Good Management
Plan 46
Table 6 Louisville Partnership Initial Priority
Projects 77
Table 7 Relationship of Principles to Outcomes,
Projects and Measures 88 - 95
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Photo: Louisville Project Leadership 8
Photo: Lexington Project Leadership 9
Photo: Philadelphia Skyline 10
Photo: Seattle Skyline 12
Photo: Milwaukee Skyline 15
Photo: Chicago Skyline 16
Photo: Louisville Skyline 21
Photo: Urban Lexington 22
9 Photo: Recycled Plastic 32
10 Photo: Environmental Education 33
11 Chart: Green City Project Sample
Organizational Chart 57
12 Chart: Pyramid Model of Principles
and Outcomes 87
-------
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
1
INTRODUCTION
TO
GREEN
PARTNERSHIPS
Cities across the country and around the world have
been working for decades to restore waterways and
wetlands, develop public green spaces, promote re-
cycling and energy efficient construction, reduce air pollu-
tion and otherwise become both greener and more livable.
Again and again public institutions—local and regional
governments, universities, and public school systems—have
played a key role in these efforts. Increasingly, these efforts
are formalized in various ways and they can become ma-
jor themes for energizing city management, with an empha-
sis on environmental performance measurement and eco-
friendly economic development.
Public entities operate for the benefit of the public, and
this includes the obvious benefits that accrue from green
policies. City governments and major public institutions are
often among the largest employers and the largest consum-
ers in a given community, so incremental changes in energy
consumption or waste production within such agencies can
strongly impact the quality of life in the communities in
which they are located. They are also major land owners,
responsible for the management and care of a significant
portion of the community's natural resources. Many prac-
tices that are environmentally sound also make good sense
financially, saving taxpayer dollars and stretching or pro-
tecting institutional budgets against rising energy costs.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
GREEN
MANHATTAN
David Owen's masterful
essay, "Green Manhattan:
Why New York is the Green-
est City in the U.S.," first
published in the New Yorker
(October 18, 2004) argues
that most Americans are
strongly conditioned to miss
the forest of environmental
reality for the trees of eco-
logical stereotypes. "When
most Americans think about
environmentalism, they pic-
ture wild, unspoiled land-
scapes—the earth before it
was transmogrified by human
habitation." That is, they
think of redwoods and spot-
ted owls, Pacific salmon and
snow-capped mountains, and
not skyscrapers and crowded
streets.
Urbanity by contrast is
characterized by gloomy
fatalism and hackneyed refer-
ences to the toxic artificiality
of the urban environment.
But in environmental terms,
cities are a wonderfully ef-
ficient way for people to live.
They conserve vast amounts
of fuel and electricity com-
pared to superficially greener
(rural and sparse) modes
of living. There is nothing
intrinsically anti-environ-
mental about big cities. They
pose environmental chal-
lenges, but they also have
advantages and possibilities
for reduced negative impacts.
Greener living is possible in
city, town and country alike.
Recognizing the many advantages of green practices,
public institutions across the United States have begun
to implement environmentally sound policies. They do so
sometimes aggressively, sometimes fighting established or-
ganizational cultures every step of the way, but to tremen-
dous public benefit. Nonetheless the implementation of en-
vironmentally friendly policies and practices in any given
urban area for the most part remains piecemeal, a jigsaw
puzzle of efforts adopted separately by each local govern-
ment, public entity or institution.
"WHY
The creation of green partnerships between key public
sector institutions is one way to create more support, find
more resources and strengthen resolve for achieving sus-
tainability. Such partnerships open up avenues for green
practices that no public entity acting alone can access. The
will and leadership needed to imagine and enact the next
generation of environmentally friendly policies is of neces-
sity grounded in normalizing green practices today and ed-
ucating our public institutions, elementary, secondary and
university students, and the public at large about the im-
portance of such policies and practices.
Each public entity, from city bureau to local government,
school, or university has its own unique opportunities and
challenges. The particular environmental concerns of, say,
Beloit, Wisconsin—a small Midwest manufacturing town—
are liable to be quite different from those of Astoria, Oregon
which is a West Coast town dependent on tourism. A ma-
jor metropolitan area like Atlanta or Chicago with mixed
economies and large public sectors has particular issues
and possibilities unto itself. Green partnerships, such as
this guide describes, offer an alternative to one-size-fits-few
problem solving, which is too often cued to least common
denominator thinking. A partnership structure allows pub-
lic entities to share expertise, ideas and purchasing power
with a tight and informed focus upon specific interrelated
local concerns. Each partner can bring its particular set of
strengths to the table, and benefit from the capacities of the
others.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Environmental partnerships go back (at least) to the
first Earth Day in 1970 when a variety of private and public
organizations came together to promote conservation and
sustainable living. Such short term, event-focused part-
nerships serve good purposes, but they do not support the
sustained process needed to move local governments and
public entities for long term results.
Unlike the kinds of coalitions and alliances that spring
up between business, government and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) to address specific, near-term envi-
ronmental problems, or to set voluntary standards or pro-
vide volunteer clean-up labor, public sector partnerships
have the potential to make green practices of all kinds a
normal, institutionalized part of operations.
This report is a practical guide to imagining and creat-
ing sustainable green partnerships between public sector
institutions. The structure presented can accommodate the
participation of NGOs and private sector interests, but such
typical green projects are already documented elsewhere.
The premise of this report is that formal partnerships be-
tween major public organizations/institutions can be a sig-
nificant source of environmental leadership and a force for
positive change. Partnering organizations can also act as
role models and catalysts for environmentally conscious
policy and practice. If the only changes are those within the
partnering organizations, such changes still have consider-
able positive impact because of the scale of the resources
used by the organizations. When any city becomes greener,
everyone benefits.
Because the barriers to creating the types of green part-
nerships advocated herein are not small—grounded as they
may be in territorially, bureaucratic inertia, and the inward
focus of most institutional cultures—this guide identifies
both the likely roadblocks and strategies for moving over,
around and through them. Differences in organizational
culture can be a strength of partnership—if the partners
take the time to understand and learn from their differ-
ences. Drawing on detailed case studies of pioneering part-
nership projects in Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky, and
the experiences of other public sector efforts with environ-
mental partnering, this guide is also intended as a docu-
ment of record. It serves to indicate that the sorts of green
partnerships described in these pages are more than wish-
ful thinking—they can be realized because, to one degree or
another, they already have been.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
"WHY Go
Green cities are attractive, healthy, prosperous places to
live. A green city protects its economy and the health of its
residents, and provides for a high quality of life. The educa-
tion and health of children—the future of the city—is par-
ticularly important. The linkage between all these diverse
concerns is the environment.
This guide is a tested blueprint for a city to identify en-
vironmental priorities and develop creative strategies to
make positive change. While many cities have developed
green projects and invited participation by various public
and private entities, progress can too easily stall once the
easy changes are made. The Green Partners project offers
some flexible but powerful structures for motivating and as-
sisting very large scale public entities in making positive
change not as a one-time effort, but on an ongoing basis.
Collaborations between key local governmental entities
can contribute significantly to the success of a city. A com-
mon vision of a greener, more sustainable city can motivate
a variety of improvements to current practices—with dis-
cernible improvements in such diverse areas as academic
achievement, reductions in environmental pollutants, and
budgetary savings from energy conservation and compre-
hensive waste reduction strategies.
The participation of regional universities in Green City
efforts is crucial for the expertise they can provide. While
the Green Cities movement has developed a considerable
literature with many valuable concepts and suggestions, it
is community-specific data that motivates change. The in-
volvement of university-based researchers in describing and
evaluating the locally relevant economic and health impacts
of environmental conditions provides a level of public cred-
ibility not otherwise available. These experts can be easily
accessible resources for local partnership teams.
The collaborative model makes it possible for a commu-
nity to take its efforts to the next level—beyond what any
one of the partners could accomplish individually. This must
be the focal point of any green city partnership. Even while
the partnering institutions continue their own independent
initiatives, partner approved projects and programs should
be emphasized for maximum results.
One example of collaboration in action is the public
health problem of asthma. Research efforts originating in
a local or regional college or university can provide a more
finely detailed picture of air quality issues. Students can be
involved in this research, and thereby build important skills
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
and the familiarity with environmental issues that prepares
them to be good citizens. Schools and public health depart-
ments can help families to identify students suffering from
asthma, and guide families to information and services
about how to help asthmatic students in the home. Public
support can be developed for large-scale environmental air
quality initiatives. State of the art fleet management tech-
niques and public use of mass transit can have nearly im-
mediate positive impacts on air quality, as well as setting
an example by doing and demonstrating.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
A partnership including such organizations as a local
college or university, the public school system, and local
government has the potential for broad scale local impact,
because of the sheer size of the resources involved. Such
partners control and influence land, buildings, and large
fleets of vehicles. They deal directly with the public, their
own personnel, students, and all the parents and families
of students. They consume considerable amounts of ener-
gy and water, and they generate a proportionate amount
of waste. So improving practices even via the most obvious
measures, for instance by the combined purchasing of recy-
cled and green products, can make for considerable savings
due to economies of scale. State-of-the-art green building
technologies, and fleet management for fuel efficiency, alone
can result in a 5 to 10 percent savings for low cost, quick
payback investments.
GREEN OITIES
CREATE «JOBS
The Milwaukee Green Team is responsible for much of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin's considerable success in developing
itself as an attractive home for energy technology compa-
nies attuned to increasing market demand for renewable
energies. Additionally, Milwaukee boasts regional expertise
in energy controls, small engine design, and building tech-
nologies. This is a strong base for green jobs, jobs with syn-
ergistic effects for Milwaukee's educational system. Strong
technical educational opportunities at all levels, from weld-
ing apprenticeships to engineering degree programs, help
the city to retain young people. A commitment to pulling up
even the lowest-achieving students flourishes in locales with
vocational opportunities for such students; an educated and
able work force attracts employers. A healthy environment
GREEN SUCCESS
Green cities are success-
ful and prosperous. Studies
have shown that cities that
advocate for best environ-
mental performance and
have a reputation for ac-
complishing best practices
in environmental steward-
ship are cities with diverse
and growing populations and
healthier economies. These
cities are more attractive to
young people and entrepre-
neurs. Among the greenest of
cities is Minneapolis, Min-
nesota. Minneapolis is green
in its governmental practices,
planning and zoning, and in
supporting and encouraging
citizen advocacy and partici-
pation in environmental deci-
sion-making. Other green cit-
ies of note include Portland,
Oregon; Boulder, Colorado;
Seattle Washington; and
Austin, Texas—all successful,
prosperous and growing, with
reputations that emphasize
environmental values and
practices.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
minimizes lost productivity and absenteeism—good public
health has a significant economic impact. A commitment
to the environment links the many factors that combine to
help a city flourish. (For a complete description of the Mil-
waukee project see the Milwaukee Green Team's home page.
(www.citv.milwaukee.gov/display/router.asp?docid=13213).
It should also be remembered that while many business-
es factor environmental quality into their calculations when
locating a new outlet, factory, office or headquarters, many
others depend directly or indirectly on careful stewardship
of environmental resources. Some examples, gleaned from
a report titled EPA 230-B-96-003 Community-Based Envi-
ronmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting Ecosys-
tems and Communities (United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, 1997, p. 2-3), include:
Real estate agents
Local industries with environmental discharges
Developers and builders
Utility companies
Fishing, hunting and nature guides
Horseback riding stables
Resorts, local hotels, bed and breakfasts
Commercial fishing or other industries dependent
on renewable resources
Landscape businesses
Businesses that require clean water for manufacturing
GREEN CITIES ARE
HEALTHIER PLACES TO LIVE
Quality of life has a lot to do with the availability of green
spaces and water for active outdoor recreation, with low ex-
posures to environmental contaminants in the air, soil and
water. Pollutants play a role in medical conditions as di-
verse as pediatric and adult asthma, cancers, birth defects
and learning disorders. Green city institutions can part-
ner to address public health issues more effectively and can
rapidly improve practices that have direct health impacts.
Moreover, public institutions are well-placed to spread the
word about the health dangers of environmental degrada-
tion and lead the way in eradicating such threats both in
the micro-environment of the work place and in the larger
community.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
GREEN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES
There is a growing recognition that world-class cities host excellent research uni-
versities. America's aspirant cities should take note that most of the highest ranking
public research institutions are also some of the greenest in the country. Many large
universities and smaller private liberal arts colleges use their emphasis on a green
campus and sustainability to recruit and retain students.
D The University of California has a formidable green reputation grounded in
more than its raucous history of student activism. In 2004 Berkeley established the
Green Building Research Center (GBRC) "to advance and promote sustainable build-
ing design and operation on the UC Berkeley campus." GBRC goals include helping
the university with design research, course development and energy monitoring.
D The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is also notably green. U of M maintains
a School of Natural Resources and Environment that not only does cutting edge envi-
ronmental research, but also promotes sustainable practices on campus—the renova-
tion of its Samuel T. Dana Building, for example, received a Gold LEED rating from
the U.S. Green Building Council. The University as a whole was the recipient of the
National Recycling Coalition's 2001 Outstanding School Program award.
D The University of Wisconsin-Madison is known for its commitment to green
practices and to environmental education. This commitment has paid big dividends to
the university in an era of budget tightening: UW-Madison received not one, but two of
the NSF's prized Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships (IGERT)
program grants in 2006. The grants, each worth over $3 million, go to the Nelson In-
stitute for Environmental Studies and to the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
to foster graduate study in global sustainability, development, and the environment.
D Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, has embraced campus sustainability with
impressive commitment and has recently evolved the strategy to include off campus
partners and projects to improve the community.
GREEIST CITIES
ARE;
Environmental education means addressing interre-
lationships between the natural and human-made world,
on a level both abstract and also personal and familiar to
the student. It is simultaneously intensely theoretical, in-
terdisciplinary and experience-based; both classroom and
hands-on. Several national research initiatives (Closing the
Achievement Gap: Using the Environment as an Integrating
Context, 2000) indicate this kind of broad yet integrated
learning experience improves standardized test scores and
prepares young people for the responsibilities of citizen-
ship — responsibilities which increasingly require an under-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
standing of the many public issues affecting health and the
environment. Curricula linking the environment to math/
science and most any other area of study are easily accom-
plished and can result in improved student interest and
academic performance.
Figure 1 — Left-to-right:
Jerry E. Abramson, Mayor
Louisville-Jefferson County
Metro Government, Stephen
Daeschner, Superintendent
Jefferson County Public
Schools, James Ramsey,
President University of
Louisville.
Photo: Louisville
Partnership for a Green City.
TESTIMONIALS
What follows are quotations from the various organiza-
tion leaders of the institutions involved with forming Green
City partnerships in Louisville and Lexington, Kentucky.
"We need everyone's full cooperation and support to cre-
ate a greener environment and an ethic that will attract
diverse populations and businesses and that will make our
young people want to raise their families here, making Lou-
isville a place where we all can work together and enjoy a
better life." (Louisville Metro Mayor Jerry Abramson, The
Partnership Project: The Partnership for a Green City, 2004,
p. ii).
"At the University of Louisville we
talk a lot about partnerships. What
we're trying to do in developing our
partnerships is prove at a time of
tough resources, scarce resources
that one plus one can equal three.
So developing partnerships is part
of our strategic initiative." (Dr. Jim
Ramsey, U of L President).
"We've approved an MOA to al-
low our organizations to purchase
paper and eventually other prod-
ucts, such as cleaning products.
The bid will be taken in a week and
a half. It will cover over one half million reams of recycled
white paper copy."
"People from all our shops come together, work together.
The purchasing initiative is one example of that. It's an im-
portant thing not just in terms of financial savings, but in
terms of the environmental impact. For us the great benefit
is coming together with JCPS and Metro Government and
find out what they're doing and take their ideas back to the
University of Louisville and see how they can help us." (Dr.
Stephen Daeschner, JCPS Superintendent)
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
"A green city will be a place where young people choose
to make their homes and raise their families, and a de-
sirable location for companies that use quality of life as a
yardstick when they decide where to set up their headquar-
ters. The Partnership for a Green City allows us to share
our expertise, resources, assets and collective 'weight' as
we strive to create a greener, more sustainable community."
(Partnership for a Green City, One-Year Report).
"U of L's residence hall recycling program, which began
one year ago, is another good example of how 'going green'
can pay off. Today, each ton of material we are recycling
from our dorms is saving us in disposal costs." (U of L Presi-
dent James Ramsey).
"This exciting project provides us with a unique oppor-
tunity to conserve our resources, protect the environment,
and minimize waste and pollution. Potential partnership
benefits include environmental management cost savings
for partners, more resources for joint research, sustain-
ability-related business development
opportunities, increased expertise for
academic instruction and improved
environmental education possibilities
for children and the broader commu-
nity. " (Lexington Mayor Teresa Isaac)
"Through this partnership, we can
impact students at all levels, through
both curriculum and extracurricular
activities, while tackling environmen-
tal issues that affect the entire region."
(UK President Lee T. Todd Jr.)
"Together, we can present a strong,
united front to sustain and improve
the quality of life for all Bluegrass resi-
dents." (Fayette County Schools Superintendent Stu Silberman)
Figure 2 — Left-to-right:
Lexington-Fayette Mayor
Teresa Isaac, Fayette County
Schools Superintendent Stu
Silberman, and University
of Kentucky President Lee
Todd sign the Bluegrass
Partnership for a Green
Community Proclamation.
Photo: Bluegrass
Partnership for a Green
Community.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
2
CASE STUDIES
IN URBAN GREEN
PARTNERSHIPS
Figure 3 — Philadelphia
Skyline. Photo: Adobe Stock
Photos
Cities across the country have used environmental
partnerships to leverage green outcomes for many
years. Below is a review of some of the most dynam-
ic, each using a slightly different model and each quite dif-
ferent from the comprehensive public sector environmental
partnerships described in later sections of this guide. There
is something to be learned from each of these excellent, en-
vironmental projects.
At the heart of the Pennsyl-
vania Horticultural Society's
30 year old urban greening
program, Philadelphia Green,
is a commitment to creating
a greener, more livable urban
environment through strategic
partnerships. It is grounded in
a citywide network of strategic
partnerships with community
groups, government agencies,
and non-profit organizations.
"Working together toward a
common purpose, each partner
brings something unique and
critical to the table. Through
these alliances, Philadelphia
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Green and its partners increase their capacity to tackle
complex problems in creative ways, accomplishing far more
than any one organization could achieve alone" (Pennsyl-
vania Horticultural Society, "Collaborations: The Power of
Partnership," Urban Impact, March 2002—available at www.
pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org. Note that subsequent
quotations about Philadelphia Green reference this article).
Parks Revitalization. Collaborating with both Philadel-
phia's Department of Recreation and groups of citizen vol-
unteers, Philadelphia Green has dramatically improved the
quality of neighborhood parks in the city. With the three-
way partnership as its strategic cornerstone, this project
has grown from a modest initiative to improve three parks
in 1993 to one that serves over 40.
"Each collaborator makes an essential contribution.
Philadelphia Green helps residents to organize as volunteer
'Friends' organizations that in turn serve as park stewards.
It provides training and technical support to both city staff
and volunteers and works to obtain additional resources.
The city has installed new playgrounds, renovated crum-
bling park maintenance sheds, and supplies seasonal main-
tenance workers. Friends groups schedule regular clean up
days, hold various events, and raise funds on their own.
Staff from Philadelphia Green and the Department of Rec-
reation meet regularly with each other and with the com-
munity to plan new projects, problem solve, monitor ongo-
ing maintenance, and share information."
Successful partnership, notes Philadelphia Green as-
sociate director Joan Reilly, is grounded in a shared vi-
sion—but that vision does not come about by accident. "We
worked hard to forge bonds not only with the Department
of Recreation's top leadership, but also with key staff mem-
bers at every level, while also building a bridge between the
city and community volunteers. That way, the partnership
doesn't end if there is a change of personnel in any one or-
ganization."
Common Ground. Recognizing that the most basic re-
quirement for successful partnerships is a shared commit-
ment on goals, Philadelphia Green has worked to educate
its partners about the value of integrating an open-space
vision into their urban development plans. For example,
in the 1990s, PG worked extensively with traditional com-
munity development corporations (CDCs) to help them re-
imagine the urban environment as one that includes not
only "built" spaces, but a green infrastructure of parks, tree
and ground cover, and open spaces as well.
Key Lesson: Successful
partnerships have a shared
vision.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Figure 4— Seattle skyline.
Photo: Adobe Stock Photos
PARTNERSHIP
Nationally known for its environmental leadership—e.g.
in the Mayor Greg Nickel's "Kyoto Challenge," calling on U.S.
municipalities to voluntarily meet Kyoto standards for re-
duction of greenhouse gases—the Green Seattle Partner-
ship is a good example of a public / non-profit partnership,
in this case between the City of Seattle and the Cascade
Land Conservancy.
The purpose of the Green Seattle Partnership is to pro-
mote the health and vigor of Seattle's substantial urban
forest. The partnership fosters a vision in which the Em-
erald City's parks and forests are seen as Seattle's "green
infrastructure"—a living support for clean air, water run-off
management, environmental education and quality of life.
In order to restore and sustain Seattle's forests, the City
and Cascade Land Conservancy entered into a 20-year
agreement to increase the overall canopy, reduce the num-
ber of invasive tree and ground cover species, and provide
resources for forest management. Out of the memorandum
of agreement signed by the partners came a 20-year stra-
tegic plan to implement the goals of the partnership (Green
Seattle Partnership, 20 Year Strategic Plan, City of Seattle
and Cascade Land Conservancy, 2005).
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Structure of the Partnership. The Green Seattle Part-
nership is governed by a nine-member Executive Council
that includes representatives from the Cascade Land Con-
servancy, the City of Seattle, and volunteer civic leaders.
This council meets quarterly and is responsible for strategic
planning and fund-raising leadership.
Management is provided by a Management Team and
various subcommittees. The Management Team meets
monthly to ensure implementation and supervise staff.
This team is made up of representatives from three Seattle
agencies heavily vested in the project — Parks and Recre-
ation, Sustainability and Environment and Seattle Public
Utilities — as well as representatives from the Cascade Land
Conservancy. The Management Team and its subcommit-
tees develop budgets and annual work plans and has pri-
mary responsibility for implementation of the Partnership's
strategic plan.
Administrative support for the project comes primarily
from the Cascade Land Conservancy with support from city
agencies for recordkeeping. Field implementation is by a
combination of community volunteers, nonprofit organiza-
tions and paid work crews.
Key Lesson: Annual
partnership work plans yield
more consistent results.
MILWAUKEE GREEN
Created in April 2005 under the auspices of the offices
of Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee, Wisconsin's Green Team
is a working group of dozens of Milwaukeeans drawn from
government, business and citizen- activist backgrounds.
Recognizing that no American city can afford to treat green
policy as an exotic luxury, Mayor Barrett tasked the Team
with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations
for the greening of Milwaukee.
"The basic insight and strategy," notes the Green Team's
initial report, "recognizes the interdependence of Milwau-
kee's economy and environment. By applying solutions that
respect and enhance this relationship, the city can save
taxpayer money, help foster a thriving community and en-
joy a dynamic economy" (Milwaukee Green Team's Report
to Mayor Tom Barrett, October 2005, p.7).
Structure. The Milwaukee Green Team was called to-
gether under the leadership of the mayor's office, using the
voluntary public commission model, with representatives
from both the public and private sector.
A steering committee was established to provide strate-
gic planning for the group and to coordinate three working
groups. These groups include:
-------
14
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
GREEN TEAM
ACTION
RECOMMENDATION
Issue an Executive Order
from. Mayor Barrett to reduce
contributions to the sewer
system from city property
by 15% using downspout
disconnection, rain barrels,
bioswales, green roofs, etc. by
2012.
Explanation. Mayor Bar-
rett can demonstrate the
City's commitment to the
on-site management of storm
water by providing leadership
through a call to increase the
use of storm water best man-
agement practices (BMPs)
such as rain barrels, rain
gardens, bioswales and green
roofs. City projects need to be
showcased that achieve on-
site storm water management
to demonstrate their feasibili-
ty for the private sector. Such
showcases include:
D Green city parking lots
that use storm water BMPs
D Lloyd Street School
bioretention demonstration
project with school storm
water curriculum
D Green roof Highland
Gardens public housing facil-
ity
Accountability: Mayor's
Office
Recommended Time line:
2005-2012
(Adapted from the Mil-
waukee Green Team's Report
to Mayor Tom Barrett, Octo-
ber 2005, p. 10.)
D The City Team, which was responsible for examining
ways in which city government could improve green prac-
tices in its own operations.
D The Interface Team, which was tasked with recom-
mending ways in which the city could encourage environ-
mentally friendly practices in the private sector through
education and incentives.
D The Private Team, which was asked to recommend
ways in which private industry can become involved in en-
vironmental stewardship that make good economic sense.
Priorities. Mayor Barrett rank-ordered three areas for
the Team to work on: storm water reduction and manage-
ment, smart energy, and green economics. In response the
Green Team produced a report that included dozens of sug-
gestions, including both "quick win" solutions that could
be implemented in the short term at little or no cost and
mid- and long-range strategies for environmental steward-
ship and green development.
A strength of the Green Team report is that each recom-
mendation includes both an action summary and detailed
explanation—along with naming the party or agency ac-
countable, and a time line for implementation. (For an ex-
ample of the Team's storm water management recommen-
dations see the box at the left.)
All of the Green Team's recommendations are presented
in a simple, goal-oriented format that highlights the ben-
efits of green practices and notes the ways in which green
practices are often by any measures the best practices. This
report points out built-in synergies and opportunities for
inter-agency partnership. For example, showcasing green
storm water management at city owned parking lots and
green roofs used in the construction of public housing dem-
onstrates the practicality of on-site storm water manage-
ment for the private sector. It also indicates the importance
of a working alliance between various agencies, including
the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District, responsible
for managing storm water, and the various departments of
city government responsible for constructing, contracting
and maintaining public facilities. Likewise the Lloyd Street
School bioretention project at once acts as a model for emu-
lation and a source for school-based environmental edu-
cation, indicating the importance of involving educational
institutions, at all levels, in green partnerships.
General Recommendations. Besides the specific rec-
ommendations of the Green Team in the three key areas,
the Team also recommended the following (adapted from
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Milwaukee Green Team's Report to Mayor Tom Barrett, Oc-
tober 2005, p.5):
D Green Message Marketing: "Without an overarching
message to the public, the Green Team initiatives will lack
civic meaning, have less support and not generate the rec-
ognition Milwaukee deserves."
D Office of Sustainability in City Government: "This
office is critical to coordinate the implementation of poli-
cy initiatives, conduct green marketing, foster an on-going
network of environmental professionals that can act as a
resource for the city and help transform city culture to one
that embraces environmental strategies as a key to our fu-
ture well-being. The Office will be self-funded by leverag-
ing grants, private sector
support and cost savings
from green initiatives to
demonstrate that green
programs are an invest-
ment that improves the
City's bottom line."
The recommendations
of the Green Team, gener-
al and specific, indicate a
high level of awareness of
the importance of making
a green practices a normal
part of doing the public's
business. "The goal of this
self-conscious and strate-
gic approach is to elevate
Green to the same level of
importance in City of Mil-
waukee action and plan-
ning as other traditional,
core municipal values—
public money manage-
ment, neighborhood im-
provement, employer success, family satisfaction and civil
liberties preservation" (Milwaukee Green Team's Report to
Mayor Tom Barrett, October 2005, p.7).
Key Lesson: Teams, not
committees: Committees have
meetings, teams get things
done.
Figure 5 — Milwaukee
Skyline. Photo: Getty Images
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Figure 6 — Solar Powered
Chicago: Solar energy pro-
duced in photovoltaic cells
during the day helps to power
Chicago's world class skyline
at night.
Photo: Getty Images
CHICAGO SOLAR ENERGY
PARTNERSHIP (OSP)
The Chicago Solar Energy Partnership is a consortium
of public and private organizations organized under the
auspices of the Illinois Solar Energy Association (ISEA), to
promote solar energy in Chicago. CSP operates by leverag-
ing "the collective expertise of members and affiliate orga-
nizations which include: municipal governments, electric
utilities, organized labor, solar manufacturers, solar ser-
vice providers, the financial community and educational
institutions as well as aligned professional and advocacy
organizations" (http://www.chicagosolarpartnership.org).
Partnering to Save. Growing out of a multimillion dol-
lar 1999 contract between the City of Chicago and Common-
wealth Edison to develop solar capacity, CSP now involves
active collaboration with state government, the Chicago De-
partment of Environment, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and the Chicago Public Schools. Since
its inception, the Partnership has installed over 750 kW of
photovoltaic solar equipment, largely on the roofs of public
buildings such as museums and schools. Installations in-
clude 100-kW solar arrays on the roofs of both the Chicago
Art Institute and the Field Museum, as well as smaller units
on the roofs of public schools and other buildings. Even
the smallest of these arrays produce significant electrical
savings for their host institutions, on the order of 12,000
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
kWh annually. The estimated electrical savings for the eight
schools where this equipment was installed over its effective
lifetime are at least $150,000 (Gabriela Martin, "Renewable
Energy Gets the 'Green' Light in Chicago," IEEE Power &
Energy Magazine, November/December 2003.)
Economic Benefits. Besides pioneering renewable en-
ergy use in the city and producing photovoltaic electricity,
the Chicago Solar Energy Partnership has also resulted in
the creation of a Chicago unit of Spire Corporation, one of
the leading suppliers of solar energy generating equipment.
Environmental Education. One of the key goals of the
Chicago SEP is to create the largest school-based solar gen-
erating system in the country. These "solar schools" have in
turn developed a curriculum that integrates renewable en-
ergy education directly into the math and science classes.
(For more information on this award-winning curriculum,
visit www.chicagosolarpartnership.org).
The Bigger Picture. The CSP is also integrated into both
the United States Department of Energy's initiative to add
another million roof-top solar arrays by 2010 and broader
efforts to promote renewable energy of all types. In 2001 the
City of Chicago entered into a partnership with the Chica-
go Transit Authority, the Park district and dozens of metro
area municipalities to purchase increasing percentages of
power certified as green by the Environmental Resource
Trust (ERT). In the first five years of operation this effort
resulted in the saving of over 115,000,000 kWh of electri-
cal power and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 45,530
tons (Apollo Alliance, High Performance Cities: A Guide to
Energy-Saving Policies for Urban Areas, Apollo Alliance and
ICLEI Local Governments of Sustainability, 2005, p.l).
Key Lesson: Use of new
technology can energize part-
ners, save money and broad-
en participation.
-------
18
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
3
ORIGINS OF
LOUISVILLE
PARTNERSHIP
The Partnership for a
Green City began with the
University of Louisville and
Jefferson County Public
Schools working together to
strengthen environmental
education, supported by a
grant from, the Center for
Environmental Education.
The Louisville Metro Govern-
ment—the merged city/coun-
ty regional government—was
then invited to join the effort
and an initial focus on en-
vironmental education and
public health was widened to
include the greening of the
institutions themselves.
The collaborative dia-
log and exploratory process
among the representatives
from the three institutions
resulted in an ongoing project
named the Louisville Partner-
ship for a Green City. What
has emerged from the conver-
sations between these three
organizations is a vision for a
greener Louisville, a working
structure with partner teams
and a set of goal-oriented
projects.
PARTNERSHIP
FOR A GREEN CITY
&
BLUEGRASS
PARTNERSHIP FOR A
GREEN COMMUNITY
y^ s the wide range of successful environmental col-
A^k laborations featured in Chapter 2 suggests, there is
A. ^no one right way to build a functioning green part-
nership. In this section, however, the focus will be on a
particular style of partnership: a broad-based, permanent
partnership between public institutions designed from the
ground up, and supported from the top down, to promote
green policy and green practice as a way of life within the
partner institutions and beyond. The foundation of such
partnerships is based on the conviction that partnering on
green practices can yield better results and contribute to
the economic and cultural health of a city, improving the
ability of the public entities to meet their mandates, and
helping to ensure the sustainable prosperity and quality of
life of its citizens.
Both of the projects featured in this chapter—Louisville's
Partnership for a Green City and Lexington's Bluegrass Part-
nership for a Green Community—are based in Kentucky.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
The Louisville partnership emerged first, in 2003, and is
therefore further along than the project in Lexington. Of-
ficially unrelated to each other, the Lexington partnership
nonetheless took Louisville as a model to iterate, learn from
and adapt to its own circumstances and needs. Each of the
projects has its own strengths, along with attendant chal-
lenges, and metropolitan regions interested in starting their
own green partnerships can learn from both.
Louisville's Partnership for a Green City was initiated
in 2003 by the Kentucky Institute for the Environment and
Sustainable Development at the University of Louisville.
The University conducted a series of facilitated meetings
between three of the metro region's most prominent public
institutions: Louisville Metro Government (Metro), the Uni-
versity of Louisville (U of L), and Jefferson County Public
Schools (JCPS). These meetings, motivated by a common
understanding that Louisville faces significant cultural,
economic and environmental challenges in the coming de-
cades, took as their point of departure the premise that
through collaboration the participating institutions will be
better positioned to meet these challenges.
TABLE 1 - APPROXIMATE COMBINED RE-
SOURCES OF LOUISVILLE PARTNERS
Employees:
Land (Acres):
Buildings:
Students:
Vehicles:
Energy Expenditures:
25,900
25,000
500
120,000
7,000
$33 million (annu
As identified in a recent Brookings Institute study (Be-
yond Merger: A Competitive Vision for the Regional City of
Louisville, Center on Urban Metropolitan Policy, 2002), the
two major challenges facing the city are a workforce lacking
in both skills and size, and a fragmented and decentralized
growth pattern that undermines opportunity and threatens
quality of life. The partners recognized that a key ingredient
in the recipe for meeting both of these challenges is a green
vision that includes an emphasis on environmental educa-
LOUISVILLE,
KENTUCKY:
AT A GLANCE
According to the most re-
cent available population es-
timates, Louisville (including
the merged Jefferson County
metropolitan region) is the
twenty-sixth largest city in
the United States (www. info-
please, com).
Located on the banks of
the Ohio River, it has tra-
ditionally been a center for
shipping and distribution.
Louisville has had a merged
city-county metro government
since 2003.
Basic Statistics:
Louisville/ Jefferson
County Population:
699,827
Land area:
385 sq mi.
City-owned parks:
122 (14,000+ acres)
Per capita personal income:
$32,485
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
LEXINGTON,
KENTUCKY:
AT A GLANCE.
Lexington-Fayette County
is the sixty-fourth most popu-
lous city in the United States
(www.census.gov). Located in
the central "Bluegrass" region
of Kentucky, Lexington is
home to the state's land grant
institution of higher educa-
tion, the University of Ken-
tucky. The city and county
governments have been
merged since 1973.
Basic Statistics:
Lexington-Fayette County:
260,512
Land area:
284.5 sqmi.
City-owned parks:
101 (4,000+ acres)
Per capita personal income:
$29,549
tion, energy efficiency, waste-reduction, pollution control
and the creation of a green infrastructure.
The Lexington-based Bluegrass Partnership for a Green
Community was founded in the second half of 2005. While
aware of the Louisville project—and intent on learning from
that example—Lexington was also determined from the be-
ginning to go its own way. The initial call for the Bluegrass
Partnership came from the Tracy Farmer Center for the En-
vironment and the Sustainability Task Force at the Univer-
sity of Kentucky.
As in Louisville, the University of Kentucky issued invi-
tations and was joined by representatives from the merged
city-county government (Lexington-Fayette Urban Coun-
ty) and the public school system (Fayette County Public
Schools). Recognizing that the benefits of partnering can
extend beyond the urban boundary, the Lexington partners
decided to be as inclusive as possible and work to create a
unified environmental vision for the entire Lexington/Blue-
grass region of Kentucky. Thus, unlike Louisville, the Lex-
ington partners involved additional organizations from the
onset, most visibly Bluegrass Pride, the Kentucky Division
of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, and the Ken-
tucky Environmental Education Council. The Bluegrass
Community and Technical College, part of the University of
Kentucky when the project started, is now independent and
is considered one of the project's original partners. Formal
partnering agreements are proposed for each additional
'ABLE 2 - APPROXIMATE COMBINED
RESOURCES OF LEXINCTON
PARTNERS
Employees:
Land (Acres):
Buildings:
Students:
Vehicles:
Energy Expenditures:
(annual)
18,350
6,800
601
58,180
2,773
$40,000,000
In both urban areas—Lexington and Louisville—there
was a recognition among the partnering organizations that
the significant environmental challenges facing the respec-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
tive regions could best be met by working together. But the
same factors that make partnerships work so potentially
powerful—the size of combined labor force, purchasing
power, and community impact—also make such collabora-
tions a challenge.
In the case of the Louisville project, the partnering in-
stitutions employ 5 percent of the labor force in the metro
area, teach more than 75 percent of its students, own 10
percent of the land, and use a proportional amount of en-
ergy and other consumables.
The numbers for Lexington, though slightly smaller in
absolute terms, amount to an even larger proportional share
of key factors. The Partners have a labor force accounting
for as much as 12 percent of those employed in Fayette
County, 90 percent
of the students, and
own 3.7 percent of
the land, exclud-
ing road and utility
right of ways.
Thus the collec-
tive environmental
footprint of each of the partnerships is significant enough
that change within the organizations, particularly coordi-
nated change, has the potential to make a real difference.
Prior to the origin of these projects, there were already
many important environmental efforts underway in the two
cities. Even the best of projects, however, suffer from an im-
pairment of effectiveness caused by the lack of established
venues for communication and cooperation. To an extent,
the better the project, the more is lost to the larger commu-
nity when institutions fail to share expertise and coordinate
efforts. Thus this factor—the added benefit that comes from
coordinated efforts and active cooperation among institu-
tional partners—in itself goes a long way to justify the effort
required to make green partnerships a reality.
Additionally, neither partnership developed in a vacu-
um. Even as principal institutions negotiated and imagined
the scope of Louisville's Partnership for a Green City, the
National Science Foundation (NSF) was creating a new En-
vironmental Research and Education section and is pub-
lishing its much-anticipated assessment of human-envi-
ronmental interaction (Pathways to the Future: Complex
Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life and Soci-
ety in the 21st Century, 2005). During this same period the
Figure 7 — Louisville sky-
line. Photo: Courtesy of www.
gotolouisville.com.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Figure 8 — Lexington,
Kentucky. Photo: Courtesy
of Lexington-Fayette County
government .
National Environmental Education and Training Founda-
tion (NEETF) released an important ten-year assessment
of environmental literacy (www.neetf.org). and the California
High Performance Schools (CHPS) released a national study
of issues related to environmental education (www.chps.net).
Concurrent with these efforts, the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) launched a major initiative to ameliorate and
eliminate environmental threats to children's health. Thus
both the Partnership for a Green City and the Bluegrass
Partnership for a Green Community were not only in a posi-
tion to take advantage of insights
gleaned from all of these studies,
but to promote themselves as a
crucial factor in the health, well-
being and quality of life of their
respective communities.
As the partnerships evolved,
it quickly became clear that en-
vironmental education, sustain-
ability and quality of life could not
be considered separate issues.
The Partners began to see the
possibilities that arose from con-
sidering the powerful ways these
entities could be linked—and by
linking them each of the partici-
pating organizations could better meet their core mandates
to educate students and protect public health. Such oppor-
tunities arise when sound environmental practice is treat-
ed not as an institutional burden, but as a unifying theme
through which rock-bottom organizational goals such as
improving student achievement, reducing costs and creat-
ing performance accountability can be met and they can be
better met through inter-organizational collaboration.
GOA.LS ANT* ASSESSMENT
A shared vision for environmentally sustainable prac-
tices is key to mobilizing support both within and beyond
the various partner institutions. Both partnerships have
emphasized goal-setting and self-evaluation. Inter-institu-
tional teams, composed of those actually doing the work,
developed concrete goals and performance expectations.
The priorities, however, emerged from facilitated meetings
of the individual project participants. The Louisville group
initially identified three priority project areas:
1. holistic environmental education;
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
2. environmental research, particularly as it relates to
children's health; and
3. stewardship and expansion of a sustainable public
green infrastructure.
Within each of these three categories, participants
brainstormed potential projects which they prioritized and
selected a total of ten (see sidebar). A team was formed for
each of the different projects, and each team had represen-
tatives from each of the three partnering organizations.
The Louisville Partnership is composed solely of public
organizations. They decided not to include outside groups
for the first few years of the Partnership. This was done
in part to concentrate on changes within each of the three
partner institutions. Such changes, it was decided, would
be facilitated if accountability came primarily from peers in
the other public organizations. Inertia is difficult to coun-
ter, but it can be overcome when the changes are incremen-
tal in nature, supported by all levels of management, and
developed by employees or their peers. Peer pressure has
been instrumental in the adoption of new programs devel-
oped by the partnership.
TABLE 3 - LOUISVILLE PARTNERSHIP FOR
GREEN CITY SAMPLE SURVEY RESULTS
1. How successful has your project been to date?
Very successful - 20 percent
Meets expectations - 48 percent
Could be better - 20 percent
Not very successful at this point -12 percent
x Do you feel the Partnership Project is a priority for your
organization?
Yes, it is a high priority - 26 percent
Yes, it is a priority, but not the highest priority -56 per-
cent
No, project is not a priority - 18 percent
10. Do you think the project is being adequately communi-
cated with top management?
Yes - 32 percent
No - 17 percent
ion't know - 51 percent
Louisville Partnership
Priority Projects
1. Adoption of Environ-
mental Standards and Prin-
ciples
2. Create an Energy Use
Partnership
3. Community Recycling
4. Green Purchasing
5. Environmental Educa-
tion Collaboration
6. Outdoor Classrooms
7. Green Professional De-
velopment
8. Environmental Public
Health Registry
9. Asthma Monitoring and
Reduction
More specifics on how
the partnerships and the
teams were developed and
implemented can be found in
chapters 4 and 5.
The survey process es-
tablishes communication
between the participating
institutions and identifies
specific barriers.
For the complete set of
questions and results of the
Louisville survey, see Appen-
dix C.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
At a certain point, the leadership felt the need to assess
the partnership by a survey of participants designed to gage
green organizational awareness, project commitment and
progress. The anonymous 23 question survey, administered
by an outside consultant, was sent to 49 project partici-
pants. There were 39 responses. Key questions included as-
sessment of the project success to date, prospects for fu-
ture success, institutional priority of the green partnership,
team member understanding of the their respective proj-
ects within the partnership, and communication between
project teams, teams and management, and teams and in-
stitutional leadership. Some of the most important recom-
mendations that followed from the survey involved the im-
portance of communication, both laterally between project
teams and participating institutions working on related is-
sues, and vertically between project participation, manage-
ment and institutional leadership.
The Bluegrass Partnership in Lexington is still in the
process of setting its priorities, but is moving forward with
a general understanding that the Partnership's main goals
are:
1. To sustain and preserve regional quality of life;
2. To protect the environment and conserve resources;
and
3. To minimize waste and prevent pollution.
Though it began with the same core institutional part-
ners as the Louisville project, a key element of the Bluegrass
Partnership has been an eagerness to invite additional orga-
nizations, including local environmental advocacy groups,
to the table. Eight teams have been formed to identify, pri-
oritize and implement approved partnership projects and
programs. The eight teams are:
• Green Buildings
• Waste Minimization
• Green Purchasing
• Environmental Education
• Transportation
• Outreach and Communication
• Water and Storm Water
• Food, Lands, and Sustainability
Additional teams may be formed if approved by the proj-
ect steering committee.
In order to assess the interests and concerns of these
varying organizations, the Lexington group opted for a sim-
ple web-based survey as an initial evaluation instrument
(http://www.ukv.edu/sustainabilitv/greencities/).
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE 4 - LEXINCTON BLUEORASS
PARTNERSHIP FOR A GREEN COMMUNITY
SAMPLE SURVEY RESULTS
ch institution are you affiliated with?
University of Kentucky - 32.7%
Lexington Fayette Government - 21.2%
Fayette County Public Schools - 19.2%
Interested unaffiliated party - 23.1%
?. In terms of policy and practices, how green is the institutic
with which you are affiliated? (Sample Responses)
No apparent interest at all, either on individual or
organizational levels - 0%
Individual interest in green issues, but no
organizational interest - 7.7%
Slight organizational interest in green issues, but no
attempts to implement policy - 13.5%
Very green, with committees and/or individuals
responsible for design and implementation of
environmental practices - 7.7%
As green as possible in all areas - 1.9%
6. What is the most important thing the Bluegrass Partners}
can do to improve the quality of life and protect the environ-
ment in the Bluegrass? (Choose up to 3) (Sample Responses
Clean water -21.2%
Clean air- 15.4%
Energy conservation - 23.1%
Safe and waste conserving management of waste
products of all sorts - 17.3%
Land conservation and promotion of sustainable
development - 51.9%
environmental education of all ages - 21.2%
Environmental advocacy and leadership - 23.1%
Transportation solutions that reduce petrochemical
usage and pollution - 34.6%
Growth management, including effective partnering
among counties - 40.4%
Other - 9.5%
Survey Results
For complete results of
the Lexington survey, see Ap-
pendix D.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
ENERGY EDUCATION
According to the Kentucky
Energy Education Project:
• Public schools in the
U.S. spend in excess of $6
billion per year on utilities.
• Nationally, schools
spend $ 151 per year per
student on electricity, fossil
fuels, and water.
• In Kentucky, the 2004
average amount spent per
student was about $158.
• In California, public
schools where staff and stu-
dents have been trained to
conserve energy use about 30
- 40 KBT/sq ft., in Kentucky
the range is from 60 to nearly
100 KBTU/sqft.
This suggests that Ken-
tucky schools can save as
much as 25 percent of their
energy costs by training
teachers, students and staff
to conserve energy and pro-
viding incentives for them to
do so.
IMPORTANCE OK
ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION
Environmental education is a stated priority for both
Kentucky partnerships. Environmental learning, at its best,
layers the sciences, mathematics, history, language arts
and social studies with a hands-on, experiential approach
to study. By using the outdoors as the context for learning,
many different subjects become personally relevant to the
students and educators. Standardized test scores improve.
Young people are prepared for the responsibilities of citizen-
ship, which increasingly require an understanding of many
public issues affecting health and the environment.
One highly-valued result of environmental education for
students is environmental literacy, which consists of four
parts (North American Association for Environmental Ed-
ucation, Environmental Literacy in the United States: What
Should Be, What Is, Getting from Here to There, 1998):
1. Developing inquiry, investigative, and analysis skills;
2. Acquiring knowledge of environmental processes and
human systems;
3. Developing skills for understanding and addressing
environmental issues;
4. Practicing personal and civic responsibility for envi-
ronmental decisions.
Numerous projects and programs for environmental ed-
ucation and teacher development were in place before the
Partnership began. However, these opportunities have not
been systemic in nature and so reach only a fraction of the
student population. The Louisville partners understand the
potential future benefits of quality environmental educa-
tion for students and teachers. Already the partners have,
through collaboration, doubled the number of professional
development classes available in one year, relying heavily
on University of Louisville researchers and Metro Louisville
professionals to conduct the sessions. The Partnership cre-
ated a joint position between the University and JCPS in the
area of public health to improve services to school children
and provide new research opportunities. And the Partner-
ship is working to refocus Metro Louisville's environmental
educational programs to meet the school district's core con-
tent and sequence requirements.
Most Americans agree with the Louisville and Lexing-
ton partners about the importance of environmental edu-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
cation, recognizing the economic and quality of life conse-
quences of the environment. In fact a 2004 NEETF/Roper
poll revealed that 95 percent of Americans (and 96 percent
of parents) believe that environmental education should be
taught in the schools. Additionally, about 90 percent believe
that adult environmental education should be readily avail-
able in the workplace and the public sphere (Understanding
Environmental Literacy in America, NEETF, 2004).
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Environmental solutions are not only scientific—they
include historical, political, economic, and cultural per-
spectives. Thus, the environment is not only forests and
wetlands, but office buildings and highways.
• Environmental Education (EE) rests on a foundatior
of knowledge about both social and ecological systems.
• EE includes the affective domain—the attitudes,
values, and commitments necessary to build a sustainable
society—as well as the prejudices, habits and misunder-
standings that prevent it.
• EE incorporates a human component in exploring
ivironmental problems and their solutions.
The role of educators in addressing the affective domain
can be complex. Teachers should make it clear that differ-
ing personal values exist, that these values can color facts,
and that controversy is often motivated by differing value
systems.
EE includes opportunities to build skills that enhance
student problem-solving abilities in realms such as:
Communication: listening, public speaking, persua-
sive writing, and graphic design
• Investigation: survey design, library research, inter-
viewing, and data analysis
• Group process: leadership, decision making, and co-
operation
(Understanding Environmental Literacy in Americc
NEETF, 2004).
-------
28 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
IMPORTANCE OK
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Environmental management for the green city partner-
ships encompasses all of the activities, facilities and pro-
grams that relate to the properties and responsibilities of
the partners. It is keyed to a philosophy which seeks to
make sustainability as central to organizational mission as
education is to schools and universities and fiscal responsi-
bility and public safety are to municipalities, precisely be-
cause the health and quality of life of all citizens ultimately
depend on environmentally sound policies and practices. In
a short time, Louisville and Lexington have made excellent
progress toward creating a green infrastructure within the
partnering organizations. New projects have been started
dealing with recycling, energy use, and green buildings.
The list of future projects and possibilities is extensive and
mainly limited only by the ability of the partners to coordi-
nate and implement change while continuing to meet—and
exceed—their various organizational missions.
The easiest and lowest-cost environmental stewardship
practices, if implemented in Lexington and Louisville with
the same enthusiasm as in greener cities, could result in
10 percent or more energy reduction and significant sav-
ings for the budgets of the partners. These savings can be
achieved solely by individuals within the partner organiza-
tions changing the ways in which they use fuel and elec-
tricity. Applying state-of-the-art green building and fuel-ef-
ficient fleet technologies to the hundreds of buildings and
thousands of vehicles controlled by the partners in the two
cities could result in another 5 percent to 10 percent sav-
ings.
For example, in Lexington one team is devoted to storm
water issues. Working with all three partners, this team is
focused on how the partnership can improve storm water
runoff practices at the facilities of the three partners as well
as influence community awareness of runoff and what can
be done. An early project already in progress targets public
education and overlays a state-funded education program.
This is part of a more extensive team-led effort to use com-
munication/education to encourage green practices in the
partner organizations and beyond.
One of Louisville's most successful projects to date is
an energy audit program that targets institution-owned
buildings. The goal is to audit all 600 plus buildings us-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
ing trained and supervised student teams, thus integrating
environmental education and best practice green manage-
ment. After the first group of buildings was audited, the
partners recognized that many of the recommendations
had applicability to all of their facilities (use of energy ef-
ficient motors, for example). The result has been adaptation
of policies and retrofit initiatives that will be incorporated
into all three partner facilities management practices.
Other successful projects in Louisville include a joint
purchasing agreement between the partners for purchasing
recycled white paper and increased recycling at the Uni-
versity supported by an agreement with Louisville Metro
to pick up U of L recyclables. The agreement allows future
joint purchasing to be done in all areas without the need for
additional special agreements.
Sustainability of facilities is one of the biggest challenges
and most important long-range targets for partner projects
in both cities. Both Lexington and Louisville have aging
buildings with few or none of the green building enhance-
ments that LEED promotes. Environmental issues related
to legacy pollution including lead paint, asbestos and ineffi-
cient HVAC systems will continue to challenge managers for
many years. But both partnerships are identifying LEED
standards as a goal and identifying opportunities to begin
or accelerate the change process. Performance contracting
and advanced energy monitoring are just a few of the tools
being used or considered to set priorities and improve older
facilities.
Other significant efforts are looking at transportation,
fleet management, green campuses, outdoor classrooms,
waste avoidance, and responsible recycling of electronics.
The partnerships realize that public agencies must lead by
example to be successful in promoting green practices.
LEED
STANDARDS
LEED stands for Leader-
ship in Energy and Environ-
mental Design, a program
run by the U.S. Green Build-
ing Council which sets indus-
try standards for rating build-
ings for energy efficiency.
(For more information see
http: / / www. usgbc. org).
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
CHILDREN'S
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
According to a recent
report from the Kentucky
Environmental Quality Com-
mission: "Kentucky's children
face a myriad of environmen-
tal health hazards including
radon, solvents, asbestos,
mercury, arsenic, sulfur diox-
ide and ozone, to name a few.
They fall into categories such
as neurotoxins (certain pesti-
cides and solvents, mercury,
lead), endocrine disrupters
(PCBs, dioxin), carcinogens
(radiation, asbestos, arsenic,
dioxin) and respiratory ir-
ritants (sulfur dioxide, ozone).
Any child can be affected
by environmental hazards,
however, low-income families
are likely to be at greater risk
for environmental diseases.
For example, children from
low-income families are eight
times more likely to have high
lead blood levels than those
from higher income families.
These families are more likely
to live in substandard hous-
ing and in polluted commu-
nities, increasing their risk
of childhood lead poisoning,
asthma, cancer and other
diseases. In Kentucky, more
than one in five children lives
in a family with income below
the federal poverty line (Chil-
dren's Environmental Health
in Kentucky, 2000, p.3).
IMPORTANCE OK PUBLIC
Freedom from unnecessary exposure to environmental
pollutants is one of the most basic tenets in defining quality
of life. The impacts of exposure manifest themselves in terms
of restricted activity, increased susceptibility to disease, de-
creased cognitive capacity, birth defects, and premature
deaths. In addition to the direct impact on individual health
and well being, the public health costs for additional health
services, lost productivity, and absenteeism are a signifi-
cant and largely avoidable drain on the regional economy.
Like many cities, Louisville and Lexington are threat-
ened by a number of public health risks from a contami-
nated environment:
• According to the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District, the city does not meet national air- quality stan-
dards for ozone and fine particulates and the metropolitan
area has been identified as having some of the highest con-
centrations of airborne toxins in the United States.
• Lexington-Fayette County fails to meet the PM 2.5
standard for airborne particulates, according to the Ken-
tucky Division for Air Quality.
• According to the 2003 Waters Report issued by the Lou-
isville Metropolitan Sewer District, none of the city's major
streams and waterways, including the Ohio River, consis-
tently meets body-contact recreational standards.
• As detailed in Children's Environmental Health in Ken-
tucky, the Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission re-
ports both Jefferson and Fayette counties have experienced
high numbers of pediatric hospitalization for asthma.
• Contaminated and potentially contaminated lands ex-
ist through the Louisville metro area. According to the Lou-
isville Metro Brownfields Task Force, 25% of the downtown
area is classified as brownfields. Although Lexington has
fewer, it still has some significant brownfield sites.
• The Louisville Metro Department of Health reports el-
evated lead levels in 6 - 8 percent of the city's children, and
that childhood asthma rates have been rising.
BENEFITS OK
COLLABORATION
Participants in the two green partnership projects have
identified many benefits that their organizations could
achieve through collaboration:
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
• Improved education of students and community
• Economies of scale in coordinated purchasing, con-
tracting and environmental management
• Joint studies, research, academic studies
• Coordinated fund raising
• Shared expertise
• Capacity building in each of the three organizations
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
TO
What follows is a brief summary of some of the most sig-
nificant accomplishments of the two projects.
• Green Purchasing. In late 2005, Louisville Metro May-
or Jerry Abramson, the Superintendent of Jefferson County
Public Schools, Dr. Stephen Daeschner, and the President
of the University of Louisville, Dr. Jim Ramsey, gathered
to announce a memorandum of agreement by which the
partner institutions agreed to pool their purchasing power
to buy recycled paper. According to Mayor Abramson, "We
formed the partnership for a green city... to improve the
quality of life in this community, increase environmental
education in this community, conserve resources in this
community, and save taxpayers' dollars by combining our
purchasing power. We'll open bids next week to combine our
recycled copy paper contract. This could save the partners
up to $45 thousand just by increasing the use of recycled
paper" (http://php.louisville.edu/news/multiniedia/niultiniedia.
php?id=67).
• Waste Management. In its first year, with most proj-
ects still in their infancy, the U of L saved over $8,000 in
disposal costs through partnership efforts. Each partner
had separate waste disposal contracts with varying costs
per ton. The University was able to use Metro Louisville's
contract to reduce its costs, and by hauling waste to the
city's transfer station rather than to the landfill was able to
save additional transportation and labor costs. The JCPS
District plans to use the lower cost city contract as soon as
their current waste management contract expires.
• Energy Audits. An ambitious project for the Louisville
Partnership is to conduct environmental and energy audits
of all public buildings as a way to benchmark usage and
identify potential savings. Ten buildings have been audited
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
by trained student teams and audit report recommenda-
tions are in the implementation phase.
The audits recommended changes to more energy effi-
cient electric motors, lighting fixtures and bulbs, windows,
building insulation, and Energy Star appliances. JCPS is
entering into Energy Performance Contracts to implement
some of the audit recommendations. The University of Lou-
isville in response to the audits has changed its purchasing
requirements for all electric motors to improve its energy ef-
ficiency and has begun installing more energy efficient T-8
lighting fixtures.
Figure 9 — Plas-
tic recycled through
the Lexington Recy-
cling Center. Ap-
proximately 15,622
tons of material was
recycled in 2005.
This saved over
$340,000 in land-
fill tipping fees
and generated over
$866,000 in rev-
enues from sale of
these materials.
The Bluegrass
Partnership will
build on successful
existing programs to
broaden the scope
and reach of recy-
cling programs.
Photo: Bluegrass
Partnership for a Green Com-
munity.
• Expanding Education. Through partnership efforts,
public school teachers in the region have increased oppor-
tunities to learn the most effective environmental educa-
tion techniques. In addition, outdoor classrooms have been
established at six local schools. A K-12 Environmental Ed-
ucation curriculum was developed and linked to required
educational outcomes and available resources. Outdoor
classrooms have been established at fifty-three schools.
The Lexington and Louisville Partnerships collaborated to
more than double the number of Professional Development
classes on environmental education offered to teachers in
the state.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
• Student Health. The Louisville partners have creat-
ed a joint position dedicated to the improvement of student
health in the Metro area, and are working to link university
research more directly to community health issues espe-
cially environmental health and green space fitness activi-
ties including walking and biking.
Energy Management. The Louisville partners worked
together to select and purchase an energy data manage-
ment system to track energy use and cost. Previous to this
project, collecting data on energy use proved to be insur-
mountable for the University and Metro Louisville. What
data was available was scattered and largely hidden. In
some cases, the use of Master Meters for multiple buildings
made energy costs for individual buildings unavailable.
JCPS had tracked its energy use for the past 20 years, but
its data system had limited capacity to conduct analysis.
Together the Partners purchased a utility data management
system, Energy Watchdog Pro, and worked with local utili-
ties to provide use and cost data electronically. Previously
each of the entities received monthly multiple paper bills
(over 600 a month for the 3 partners). The utility compa-
nies are now billing electronically under a pilot program
for the Partnership. The electronic billing saves accounting
and billing expenses for both the utility and the Partners
and allows use and cost data to be automatically uploaded
to the Energy Management data system.
Figure 10 — Environmen-
tal education in action.
Photo: Bluegrass Partner-
ship for a Green Community.
-------
34 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Solar Energy. The Partnership is working to install so-
lar energy systems. Under a US Department of Energy grant
to the University of Louisville, the Partners are installing
solar hot water systems and light harvesting systems into
several schools, PV powered street lights, and solar hot wa-
ter systems for swimming pools. The University is conduct-
ing research on each system to document performance and
cost/benefit analyses.
• Waterfront Cleanup. Working with the non-profit or-
ganization Living Lands and Waters, in March 2006 the
Partners helped to organize a month long cleanup of the
Ohio River along Louisville's waterfront. Over 250 volun-
teers helped to pull more than 20 tons of refuse from the
river.
"Living Lands and Waters provided us tools we have nev-
er been able to use before to remove some of this trash that
has been in the water for years," Louisville Metro Mayor
Jerry Abramson said. "Our community is now a cleaner and
greener place to live thanks to all the hard work of our vol-
unteers" (http://www.louisvilleky.gov/Mayor/News/2006/
Month-Long+River+Cleanup+Nets+18+Tons+of+Trash.htm).
• Online Survey. While still in the organizational and
goal-setting phase of its project, the Bluegrass Partnership
for a Green Community has completed an online survey of
participating organizations and interested parties and is
preparing to move forward with leadership meetings that
will review the survey results, set priorities and project
goals, (http://www.uky.edu/sustainability/greencities/)
• Community Gardens. The Lexington partners have
identified the renewal and expansion of the community gar-
dens as a priority project and have initiated the project as
part of the communities Food Lands program.
• Sustainability Task Force. The University of Ken-
tucky has created a task force to identify areas of possible
improvement and to create goals for the University in the
areas of Communications, Land-Use and Buildings, Busi-
ness Operations, and Transportation, especially at the city-
campus interface.
• Green Technology. Fayette Count Public Schools have
initiated several energy conservation measures, including:
the incorporation of daylighting design in the Athens-Chil-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
esburg school, geothermal-based HVAC in Vet's Park, Rosa
Parks, EJ Hayes 85 Athens-Chilesburg schools, and high-ef-
ficiency lighting in the new Bryan Station High School.
• Energy Savings. The Lexington-Fayette County Gov-
ernment has worked with the Kentucky Department of High-
ways to upgrade all the traffic signals in Fayette County to
the light emitting diode (LED) type. This has reduced elec-
tricity usage by approximately $10,000.00 per month. Since
these LED signals last significantly longer and are brighter,
this also reduces maintenance costs and enhances public
safety. This upgrade was accomplished through a perfor-
mance contract, meaning that the cost of the upgrade will
be paid for out of the energy savings. The Division of Traffic
Engineering and the Energy Management Team helped co-
ordinate this upgrade.
Louisville-Metro is currently conducting a pilot project,
testing solar-powered traffic lights, with research help from
the University of Louisville, that could eventually provide
significant energy savings to the city.
• Sustainable Education and Research. The Univer-
sity of Kentucky's Tracy Farmer Center for the Environment
acts as a comprehensive and interdisciplinary center that
focuses on sustainable solutions to environmental chal-
lenges through scientific, cultural, humanistic, legal, and
political research, education, and service.
In collaboration with the Office of the Provost, the Farm-
er Center has established an internship program which has
funded seven undergraduates and a student coordinator
for eight different projects, ranging from recyclable mugs to
campus loaner bikes to green roofs.
-------
36 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
4
CREATION
PROCESS:
How TO ESTABLISH A
SUCCESSFUL
PARTNERING PROJECT
This chapter outlines the process by which the part-
nerships were created and reviews the process at key
points in greater depth. A recommended approach is
presented for forming a successful partnership.
ELEMENTS
IN ESTABLISHING
A PARTNERSHIP
Project Buy-in From Leadership. Partnering of big in-
stitutions is unlikely to be successful without support from
executive leadership. The leadership needs to actively sup-
port the project, and the project participants need a clear
understanding of what their leaders expect from the part-
ner relationship.
Leadership interviews. As a way to get leadership sup-
port and understanding of the partnering project, a valu-
able step is to conduct leadership interviews. The results
of these interviews can be used to align expectations of the
leaders and project participants and to identify the criti-
cal needs of the partners that may be unique to their mis-
sion. A good example is the need to coordinate and align
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS 37
environmental education in classrooms facilitated by other
partners with curriculum and expected learning outcomes.
These interviews can reveal critical needs within the part-
nering organizations.
Selection of Participants. Each partnering organiza-
tion should be asked to identify key managers and other in-
dividuals who could effectively represent their organization.
Flexibility is important in that not all invited participants
will be able to attend initial orientation meetings. Those
invited to the organizational meeting should be allowed
to send representatives or substitutes. Potential partners
should decide at the outset if they want to invite representa-
tives from outside organizations, such as community or en-
vironmental groups, to attend the organizational meeting.
Organizational Meeting. Once leadership interviews
have been conducted and appropriate participants from
each organization have been invited, the partnering organi-
zations will need to hold an organizational meeting. Project
participants should get an overview of project goals and have
the opportunity to voice general expectations. Participants
should also identify "best practice" examples of successful
partnering in advance of the next phase of the project, the
facilitated focus meetings.
Facilitated Focus Meetings. The bulk of the nuts and
bolts work involved in identifying potential projects and col-
laborative opportunities should be done in a series of day-
long facilitated focus meetings. These meetings should be
centered on broad areas of environmental concern, e.g. en-
vironmental health, education, and management, that are
appropriate to the community. Overlap between the various
meetings will be common and facilitators should encourage
participants in each cluster to define their own approach
and integrate similar recommendations where appropriate.
Draft Report and Feedback. Following the cluster
meetings, the project facilitators should draft a report to
be distributed to all participants for review and feedback.
Since the participants establish the recommendations and
priorities, it is important that the report accurately reflect
the consensus of the participants.
Implementation Phase. In this phase, participants be-
gin to develop and implement the project goals and recom-
mendations that emerged from the facilitated cluster meet-
ings, working through project teams.
-------
38 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
LEADERSHIP INTERVIEWS—
"WHAT WAS LEARNED
Leadership interviews were conducted in both Lexing-
ton and Louisville. These interviews targeted the executive
leaders and key upper management personnel from each of
the participating organizations. The leaders answered ques-
tions concerning the environmental priorities of their orga-
nizations, their views on the possibilities for change, and
the ways in which they assessed community support for
change and partnering. The discussions covered the ways
in which education, quality of life, and economic develop-
ment are linked to the environment. Some of the key find-
ings from these interviews include the following:
D Support for Partnering. All leaders interviewed ex-
pressed strong support for partnering with the other orga-
nizations, consistent with the project goals. Many had ex-
amples of ongoing efforts intended to increase partnering
and communication. Most were very open about identifying
the current strengths and weaknesses in their organiza-
tion's approach to managing environmental issues.
D Strengths. The interviews revealed that all partner
organizations had examples of partnering, environmental
education and management that have been recognized at
the highest levels. Leaders showed positive support and en-
thusiasm for improvement. There was a general confidence
that the community would support changes, especially if
they were likely to result in better services, a cleaner en-
vironment, and improved educational outcomes. All the
leaders felt they had people within their organizations with
the talent and desire to do things better. Probably the most
significant shared value was a universal vision of a better
Louisville and a better Bluegrass Region.
Leaders of public entities faced with limited resources
have increasingly recognized the importance of partnering
in order to meet their mandates. In both Louisville and
Lexington, local school districts faced with meeting state
mandated testing and pressure to produce students with
skills to meet 21st century job markets were already part-
nering with the business community and universities to im-
prove educational programs. Public university presidents
are expected to document how their educational systems
are leveraged into improving the quality of life and econom-
ic growth and vitality of their service areas. And cities have
recognized that partnering with other public and private
entities is necessary to meet the mandated duties imposed
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS 39
on them. It is within this context of a growing need for part-
nering that a partnership for environmental sustainability
can be initiated and supported.
D Weaknesses. Leaders were asked about their organi-
zation's environmental practices and policies, as compared
to a theoretical green ideal. All interviewees were open and
reflective about how they assessed their organizations. Sim-
ilar results emerged from leaders in both cities:
1. None of the partners had an environmental position
at the cabinet or executive management level. All had dedi-
cated personnel at some level committed to environmental
programming and regulatory compliance, but in general
these efforts were not focused and were not integrated with
executive management. This is one of the recommendations
that has been implemented in other green cities.
2. None had a strategic organizational plan focused on
environmental issues.
3. None had a clearly articulated (written) set of envi-
ronmental principles and policies that could be shared with
employees and the public.
4. None had performance indicators and measures at a
level that would promote best environmental practices. This
emerged as the single area the leaders hoped most to impact
with the Partners Project.
5. There was no focal point for communication between
the partners, and there was no way to identify environmen-
tal issues common to each partner, or any discussion to
create a partnering office.
All of the partners were aware of activities going on with-
in their organizations to address some of these weaknesses,
but none had a current commitment to address all of them.
All of the interviewees expressed some interest and most
expressed strong interest in improvement.
D Green Assessment. The leadership interviews includ-
ed questions asking how "green" did they view their orga-
nizations to be, their city to be, and themselves personally.
The responses gave a good indication of the current situa-
tion and the potential for positive change.
On average and with a few notable exceptions, the lead-
ership among all partners viewed their current environmen-
tal practice as average or slightly below average. They also
agreed that this reflected the current community standard,
although Lexington respondents generally viewed their com-
munity as "greener" on a 1-10 scale. The leaders saw them-
selves as generally being "greener" than the organizations
they represented. None of them viewed this project and re-
-------
4O GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
lated efforts to make their organizations greener negatively.
A few people identified potential barriers and constraints,
but overall nothing was identified that would limit success
if the partners committed to change.
The general message emerging from the leadership in-
terviews for the project participants can be summarized as
follows:
• At best, we are average in our environmental perfor-
mance.
• We can do better and partnering is a way for us to do
better.
• We (the leaders) want our organizations to do better.
• We recognize that being green can help us to achieve
community goals relating to education, quality of life and
economic development.
COMMON THEMES FROM
THE FACILITATED SESSIONS
The partner group meetings in both locations were high
energy and the participants appreciated the challenge of
identifying possible projects. Central themes emerged from
both groups that were very similar:
1. Coordinated purchasing and contracting to obtain
economics of scale.
2. Collaborative efforts to educate students and the
community
3. Collaborative environmental management programs
to obtain economies of scale and to share expertise
4. Development of an annual environmental strategy
and budget
5. Development of performance indicators to promote
best environmental practices
6. Formal partnering structures and staff to facilitate
and coordinate collaborative projects
Louisville had more of a focus on research and the use
of university assets, reflecting the University's role in initi-
ating the partnership. Lexington had more focus on land
preservation and sustainability as those issues were reflect-
ed in the participant survey as most important by over half
the participants.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
FOUNDATIONS
SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP
Four recommendations were so important that they were
identified in some form within each group. These four rec-
ommendations are critical to successful implementation of
the project goals:
1. Interagency Coordinating Committee. A high-level
cross-functioning team of partner representatives can take
the Partner Project through the implementation phase,
champion projects and programs, and help secure permis-
sion and funding for recommended initiatives. All partner
organizations have huge responsibilities, are large and
complex, and ultimately are governed by elected officials
and legislative priorities. Commitment and communication
must be continually renewed. The leaders of each organiza-
tion, by creating and supporting a Partner Project oversight
committee, can do much to make possible the implementa-
tion of many of the green city initiatives described in this
guide.
2. Matching Peers. Critical to the success of a partner-
ship is to match peers in the partnering organizations to
act as catalysts for change. Public entities chronically are
understaffed, have limited resources, and too often do not
have the time to step back and assess their programs. They
also have broad, sweeping mandates to protect health, the
environment, improve the quality of life, promote economic
growth and sustainability, etc. Successfully pairing man-
agers and employees with similar responsibilities allows the
partnership to exchange and internalize new ideas, realize
economies of scale, and to promote internal changes within
the respective organizations. Each participant in working
with its peers in the partnership can take back to their
organization new approaches that allow them to meet with
mandates more efficiently and effectively. It is through this
that participants find value in the partnership. The value is
less when the working teams are composed of individuals
with diverse responsibilities that have been pulled together
to work on a goal or issue only remotely related to their job
responsibilities.
3. Commitment and Incentives. The success of efforts
to improve the environmental performance of the organiza-
tions will require both top-down commitment and bottom-
up participation. Interviews with key leaders from each of
the three organizations indicated that general support, at
the least, exists for improved environmental performance
-------
42
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
PREAMBLE TO THE
LOUISVILLE
PROJECT'S
STATEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PRINCIPLES
As stewards of Louisville
Metro and of all its resources,
we understand the interde-
pendence of humans with
the environment. We must
apply thoughtful and creative
planning to achieve a thriv-
ing economy built on the
principles of sustainability.
We must foster conserva-
tion, pollution prevention and
restoration of ecosystems
with both public policy and
personal behavior. We must
promote a common agenda
for Louisville as a green city,
preserve and enhance the
quality of life for our citizens
and future generations, and
widen recognition of the im-
portance of good stewardship
of the community's natural
resources. (See Appendix B
for the complete text of the
Partnership for a Green City
Statement of Environmental
Principles.)
within each organization. There must be specific support
and commitment from the upper management of each orga-
nization for improved collaboration. Even with upper lead-
ership support, the full benefits of partnering will not be
achieved without the broad support of the employees and
managers at all levels.
Even before this project began, each of the organizations
was already implementing innovative environmental pro-
grams—but these programs were isolated and incomplete.
The recycling program best exemplifies this. Such programs
existed in all agencies, but implementation did not extend to
giving feedback to students and employees on program ef-
fectiveness as measured in amounts recycled or the value of
recycling. The potential expansion of the programs to cover
additional recyclables was often ignored because it was no
one's responsibility to oversee efforts to minimize the waste
generated by the entire organization.
To obtain the support of employees, managers, students,
and the general public, the Partnership project is urging
each organization to
• Maintain continued awareness of environmental
programs.
• Provide incentives for full participation.
• Ensure accountability in implementing programs.
• Improve access to programs.
• Position for grants and other funding and
resources.
4. Partnership Principles. As a shared vision and un-
derstanding of what it means to be green is crucial to reach-
ing a meaningful partnering agreement, the partners should
seek to develop and internally distribute a set of principles
affirming the shared agreement. These principles then act
as a guide for the partnering process, affirming the com-
mitment of the public entities to sustainability.
TO
COLLABORATIONS
Project participants identified barriers and constraints
to additional collaborations. Major barriers identified in-
clude:
• Lack of a formal partnering agreement with a leader
ship structure
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
43
• Limits that make even internal coordination efforts
difficult
• Turf protection behavior that is common to all large
organizations
• Sheer size of the organizations
• No budget identified for collaborative projects
• Cultural limitations and conflicting organizational
priorities
• No clearly defined environmental outcomes
Although not particularly emphasized as an issue in
the facilitated team sessions communication issues have
emerged as the biggest challenge and key to successful
partnerships.
DEVELOPING GREEN
PRINCIPLES:
How TO Do IT
A set of guiding environ-
mental principles is an enor-
mous asset to a partnering
effort; such a set of principles
can guide and inspire and are
enormously clarifying for the
partnering institutions and
the general public.
It is important that these
environmental principles not
simply be cut and pasted
from other partnering efforts.
In one of the case studies, in
Louisville, the principles were
painstakingly developed via a
facilitated consensus building
process. The group worked
word by word, beginning from
a very rough draft provided
by an outside facilitator.
The special group convened
for this purpose consisted
of among others a school
board member, a city council
person and several faculty
members from the partnering
university. After the group
reached consensus on the
principles, the document
was then formally approved
and endorsed by each of the
partnering organizations, and
widely disseminated via post-
ers and .pdfs available online
(http: / / www. j efferson. k 12.
kv.us/ Departments/ Environ-
mentalEd/ GreenCity/ green-
citvprinciples.html).
-------
44
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
5
How TO MANAGE
AND SUSTAIN A
GREEN PARTNERSHIP
What follows is a how-to guide for managing and
sustaining a green partnership once established,
drawing on lessons learned from Louisville and
Lexington and considering models provided by other green
partnership efforts.
STRUCTURE
As the kinds of collaborative projects described herein
evolve, so does their complexity. For all but the simplest of
projects, a structured approach to management and par-
ticularly communication becomes necessary. Formal com-
munication structures protect the projects when informal
communications break down, and allow disagreements to
be resolved. Project participants retain enthusiasm and
commitment because where there is clear direction and
resources for addressing the challenges, participants can
have justified confidence that their energies are invested to
good ends.
In the case studies previously presented, executive man-
agers in each of the partnering organizations correctly
emphasized the necessity of performance measurement
with demonstrable results. These things are possible only
through the development and implementation of a man-
agement plan. The partnerships involve large institutions
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
45
with different and sometimes conflicting policies and pro-
cedures. Even simple and obvious partnering projects need
to be thought out with care applied to the needs of each
institution.
Typical project participants are generally full-time em-
ployees of the partnering institutions. They all have jobs
and they are all busy. The projects may relate to their jobs
and often do, but not necessarily in any traditional way.
As a result, the job successes and rewards for the individ-
ual are not usually based on the success of the project.
In general the institutions themselves do not have rewards
and recognitions built in to how they conduct business and
compensate employees.
This latter fact can and in the best cases does change
over time as the green partnering efforts become thorough-
ly integrated into the different institutions. Partners can in-
clude project participation and success as part of how they
measure job success and rewards. This is likely to be a slow
process in most cases, and in the meantime participants
need other kinds of feedback to substitute for traditionally-
presented expectations and rewards. This feedback should
relate directly to their personal interest in and commitment
to furthering green practices.
In a real sense, most project participants are volunteers.
They have agreed to add the partnership project onto their
workload. With a project so reliant on volunteers, conven-
tional traditional management strategies are ineffective.
One obviously cannot order, command, demand, or cajole
with good results. Volunteer teaming requires respect, good
communication and agreement about the desired outcome.
A GOOD
PLAN FOR A
PARTNERING
In our two case studies, all of the partner project teams
were set up from the start to require participant involve-
ment from each of the partnering organizations. This is a
basic principle for the partnering effort, and a strong man-
agement plan will encourage and reward participation from
all partnering organizations. This strategy produces excit-
ing and unforeseen "cross-fertilizations". Interdisciplinary
teams can find solutions not available to groups of tightly-
clumped specialists.
Other elements of the management plan are included to
address the sometimes simple but profoundly frustrating
ENVIRONMENTAL-
ISTS AT THE TABLE
Environmentalists con-
tribute tremendous energy
and a sense of possibility.
They typically do not accept
"no" and they push for solu-
tions to problems that sea-
soned agency personnel may
no longer consider solvable.
On the down side, they may
not have a real sense for the
sometimes glacial pace of
organizational change in large
institutions.
There are few quick strat-
egies for drastic improvement
in large organizations—for
lasting change, people must
be educated and organi-
zational cultures patiently
shifted in positive directions.
Such are the magnitude of
the resources used by part-
nering agencies—local gov-
ernments, universities and
the like—that even small in-
crements of change can have
considerable environmental
impacts. If groups are invited
to participate that have active
issues with one of the par-
ticipants they should only be
invited if all partners are in
agreement. There is no place
in the partnering projects for
adversarial issues to be re-
solved and partnerships can
quickly dissolve over sidebar
disputes.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
limitations of governmental structures, the limitations that
might thwart participants attempting to do the right thing
quickly. Most participants in the pilot projects were familiar
with the bureaucratic and procedural requirements of large
institutions, the vagaries of grant funding, and governmen-
tal contracting inflexibility. The participants are mostly a
self-selected group committed to overcoming these obsta-
cles, and this commitment is a key to the success of the
partner projects. Management acts in support of the part-
nering professionals making this commitment.
The management plan must be vetted and modified
by the participants. Consensus is vital for all participants
to be committed to implementing the management plan.
The plan includes, ideally, a set of common environmental
principles to which all partners have agreed as well. This
stage of the plan development may be difficult to implement
and resource-intensive on the front end, but nothing is more
critical to project success. An early investment of effort here
makes for better outcomes and a better (more durable) rela-
tionship with project participants.
While a less meticulous process may produce a reason-
able set of environmental principles (many cities and orga-
nizations have developed similar documents), the value of
this process is that each of the participants go on to become
high-level advocates of principles that speak directly to lo-
cal concerns. The cross-fertilization inherent in the devel-
opment process means that the participants emerge with a
new level of understanding of the value of green practices
for all the partnering institutions and the city.
-E 5 - SOME ELEMENTS OF A GOOD
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Role definition of participants and leadership
Functions of committees and teams
Developing accountability and performance measui
Communications
Funding and support
Problem solving
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
47
ROLES AND STRUCTURES:
How
The following committees, roles and responsibilities are
suggested:
Steering Committee. To begin, a steering committee
forms, consisting of at least one designated lead representa-
tive from each of the partnering organizations. Additional
members may shortly be added, as agreed by all existing
members, and may include representatives from future sig-
nificant partners. The steering committee may begin with
funding of some sort to launch the collaboration, or not.
The steering committee may have the following respon-
sibilities:
1. Overall recruitment and coordination of the green
partnering project, project teams and participants.
2. Project communications as outlined in the Commu-
nications section of this plan. This includes tracking and
reporting progress of the project teams.
3. Assistance to project teams including assistance in
obtaining grant or other funding, securing leadership ap-
provals when needed, and finding student resources/par-
ticipants when appropriate.
4. Inviting and educating new partners or participants.
5. Conflict resolution.
An overriding and early responsibility of the steering
committee is to make sure that each project identifies its
goals and tasks, and develops a schedule for implementa-
tion. The steering committee should compile the projects
into one overall project plan and use that plan to communi-
cate the projects to all participants and beyond. The steer-
ing committee can identify useful linkages between teams
and projects. The steering committee can track progress to
ensure that plans are implemented in a timely manner, and
provide support to teams as necessary.
The steering committee, as the first committee formed,
may stay small and consist primarily of the original project
founders and organizers. In this case and possibly as the
best case scenario, the executive responsibilities within the
project should transfer as quickly as possible to a new com-
mittee — see below.
The steering committee recruits Project Participants
from the partnering organizations via a number of strate-
gies [see sidebar]. The participants have the responsibility
to develop projects and commit to their project team, with
a focus on consensus and group goals. They must develop
IDENTIFYING
PROJECT
PARTICIPANTS :
How TO Do IT
The primary strategy
for finding potential project
participants is brainstorming
from, the personal connec-
tions of the steering commit-
tee members, using what a
sociologist would refer to as
the "snowball technique". If
every person tapped for the
project thinks of, contacts
and invites even just one
other person to the project,
the number of recruits quick-
ly "snowballs", growing larger
as the project rolls along.
These potential members are
developed via participation in
one of a series of facilitated
sessions. These sessions
serve to explain the partner-
ing concepts, to gather more
information about established
area environmental programs
(these are valuable resources
and also sources for more
project participants) and to
allow participants to begin
to describe the projects they
would like to develop.
-------
48
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
project recommendations and find ways to make the proj-
ect recommendations work. The participants are both the
hands and the minds of the projects. They assemble around
particular problems or articulated needs in the community
and form project teams.
Project Teams are promptly tasked by the steering com-
mittee to make sure that each project has a clearly artic-
ulated goal statement and tasks, and time line for imple-
mentation. The Projects are then assembled, reviewed and
prioritized by the steering committee and the project par-
ticipants. Participants will usually generate more projects
than can be reasonably attempted in the early stages of a
partnership.
The project teams ultimately have the responsibility to
implement the approved projects.
It is suggested that the steering committee guide the
participants to select a limited number of priority proj-
ects—perhaps ten. It is easy for the teams to come up with
many potential projects. Too many projects can be a prob-
lem when the teams are in the early phases of learning to
implement projects via partnering. Participants may under-
estimate just how hard it is to change three institutions
simultaneously in a loosely coordinated fashion.
Executive Committee. The executive committee is
drawn from the project teams. It consists of the lead rep-
resentatives (or their designated representatives) from each
partnering organization who are serving on each of the se-
lected/prioritized project teams, one from each team—and
others that may be invited by consensus of the group, and/
or representatives of future significant partners. Additional
members should be added whenever the Partnership adds
new projects to the agenda.
The executive committee has these general responsibili-
ties: the communication of team activities, sharing strat-
egies for success, and overall guidance for project teams.
Specifics include:
1. Identification of new collaborative opportunities and
approval of new projects or activities under the Partnership
umbrella.
2. Conflict resolution and elimination of institutional
barriers to collaboration.
3. Policy guidance in concert with the steering commit-
tee.
4. Develop memorandums of agreement or a master
agreement as needed to implement the projects.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
This committee may include the formally-designated co-
ordinators between the participating agencies.
Together, the steering and the executive committees
should be ready to encourage and reinforce the role of par-
ticipants in all ways possible.
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP
The executive leadership in the partnering organizations
must assume the responsibility to support partnership proj-
ects, to communicate and celebrate success stories, support
organizational participation, appoint and support appropri-
ate representatives for the steering committee, executive
committee and project teams, and push for accountability
and results.
A. FULL-TIME DIRECTOR
Overall management of the Partnership is initially han-
dled through the collaborative efforts of individuals from
each of the partners, as described above. An initiative on
the scale of those in the two case studies cannot long sur-
vive if coordinated by people with other full-time job respon-
sibilities. The projects quickly grow in complexity-- and also
produce positive results which need to be shared with the
participants, the partnering organizations and the general
public. A dedicated staff person quickly becomes not only
a luxury but a necessity. Eventually it is recommended that
the partnerships explore establishing a full-time director for
the project. A stable funding source based on the demon-
strated tangible and intangible benefits of the project will be
needed to support this position. The source of the funding
has consequences for the organizational dynamics. Each
situation must be considered in its particulars.
ACCOUNTABILITY
A system of environmental accountability, measuring
the benefits of the Partnership, is an important step in the
development of the partnering effort. In the case studies to
date, the benefits most measured have been those of indi-
vidual projects, e.g., energy savings, reduced cost of waste
disposal, and lower white paper costs. These benefits are
tangible and quantifiable; dollars speak loudly.
The less tangible benefits, however, may prove to be the
greatest achievements of the Partnerships. Improved edu-
cational achievements, better management of natural re-
sources, and improved public health will have positive im-
-------
50
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
pacts, including financial ones, that are more difficult or
impossible to measure in six months or a year.
The follow-up, accountability, and feedback efforts de-
vised by the executive committee need to provide measures
of how the Partnership has improved environmental sus-
tainability through strategic planning, budgeting, manage-
ment and educational activities. The services of an indepen-
dent external contractor can be valuable in facilitating and
evaluating the work, results and sticking points of develop-
ing Partnerships.
SHORT-TERM
ADMINISTRATIVE
BENEFITS FROM
PROJECT PARTICIPATION
Partnering builds capacity in each organization. Job per-
formance improves, employee investment in the partnering
agency improves, and organizations gain in capacity. This
is primarily due to two factors. The project gives employees
an opportunity to step back and gain perspective on what
they do, and how they do it. They review previously-uncon-
sidered decision-making in terms of energy/resource effi-
ciency and environmental impacts. Secondly, participants
become more aware of expertise within their own and other
partnering organizations. (The Projects can also bring in
experts from the outside to provide information, and this
can have a galvanizing effect as well.)
SHARING EXPERTISE is
GOOD FOR ALL PARTNERS
In many if not most cases, other agencies are not aware
of local expertise and existing programs. In the case stud-
ies, improved energy management was the primary goal of
one team and many of the programs pursued by that group
had already been implemented by the public school system
for three decades. University personnel were practiced in the
purchase of environmentally-friendly products, and com-
bined purchasing of such projects for them was a very short
step, producing considerable savings. Local government
had waste management expertise that was not previously
available to the other Partners, primarily because they did
not know it existed. Some teaming efforts are simple and
become quite obvious in the context of partnering.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
EVALUATING
TROUBLESHOOTING
Each project team needs to be promptly tasked to artic-
ulate the goal of the project, the components of that project,
and a timetable for the accomplishment of the work. The
project teams ultimately have the responsibility to imple-
ment the approved projects, with initial organizational sup-
port from the steering committee while in the early forma-
tive stages and the executive committee as it develops and
becomes ready to assume project leadership.
Accountability and measurable results are expectations
of executive leadership, and project reporting and tracking
should involve finding the right measures and performance
indicators for each partner project.
The executive committee can track the progress made by
teams, and again (to review) has these support responsibili-
ties:
D Communication of team activities, sharing strategies
for success, and overall guidance for project teams.
D Identification of new collaborative opportunities and
approval of new projects or activities under the Partnership
umbrella.
D Conflict resolution and elimination of institutional
barriers to collaboration.
D Policy guidance in concert with the steering commit-
tee.
D Develop memorandums of agreement or a master
agreement as needed to implement the projects.
On the level of the projects, it is the team members, with
recourse to these kinds of supports from the executive com-
mittee, that encounter the problems or barriers for the proj-
ects and work to resolve them. But what keeps the overall
partnership on track?
THE SURVEY
Since the team members are the hands and minds of the
project, they are where problems can best be identified. The
steering or executive committee must task itself to survey
the participants to learn how the projects can be supported
for better results.
The surveys (and other valuation efforts) used in the
case studies make no attempt to criticize, assign blame, or
compare the activities of any one team with any other. The
focus is entirely upon eliciting suggestions as to how the
projects can be managed and supported for better results.
-------
52
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
In the Louisville case study, the return rate on the 2005
survey was over 80%, and the information was extraordi-
narily helpful. The insight gleaned from the survey about
how to make the partnership projects work better forms a
major part of this chapter.
First, the survey itself should address:
• The status of the project, as viewed by the partici-
pants—including the overall Partnership effort and its sense
of the potentials for future success. As the projects are in
part carried out by volunteer effort, by busy people who are
not necessarily rewarded or credited for completing project
responsibilities, it is vital to assess the participants' view of
the investments they are making in their projects.
• What the participants know about the developing
partner projects, don't know, and want to know. How well
are the issues and successes of the projects communicated,
with the participants and to others?
• The executive committee and an evaluation of ex-
ecutive committee support understood to be available and
received.
• Resources, available or needed, for project success.
Survey questions should always provide a range of pos-
sible answers as well as space for open-ended answers. So,
for example, with question 2 below, possible check-the-box
answers might include Yes, it is a high priority, It is a prior-
ity, but not the highest priority, and No, it is not a priority.
The following are some sample questions for the survey:
1. How green is your organization? What green prac-
tices are in place, and which are flagging or lacking?
2. Is the Green Partnership a priority for your organiza-
tion?
3. How would you rate your understanding of the goals
of your project?
4. How well has your organizational leadership com-
municated its support for your project?
5. Do you think it is important to know what is happen-
ing with projects other than the ones with which you are
involved?
6. How well do you think your project is being commu-
nicated to media and the general public?
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS 53
Experience suggests that blocked communication—both
vertical and horizontal—often emerges as the number one
obstacle to participant empowerment and project goals.
Therefore designing a survey instrument that will assess
perceptions in this area, as well as elicit suggestions for
possible solutions, is essential. (See appendices C and D
for surveys in use.)
COMMUNICATION
Developing an effective communications strategy is a
primary responsibility of the steering committee, with help
from the executive committee and executive leadership--
because the communications strategies need to be imple-
mented early as the partnership takes shape. The goals are
to communicate the successes of the project, to educate
policy makers on what it will take to become a green city,
and to locate or develop the infrastructure to communicate
internally and externally.
The key elements of the communications strategy are as
follows:
Communications with executive leadership. The ex-
ecutive committee should communicate with executive lead-
ership of the partnering organizations on a regular informal
basis. Formal communications should consist of:
a. Quarterly or semiannual written reports on project
progress, with a special focus on what might be communi-
cated to the public/media.
b. Notification of special accomplishments or proposed
new green partnership ventures, especially those possibly
worthy of a news conference or special event sponsored by
the executive leadership.
Communications with project participants. Ongoing
communication among, between and to the project par-
ticipants is vitally important to the success of every team
project. The steering committee, working with the executive
committee and others as needed, should do the following:
a. Develop, maintain and distribute a project partici-
pant list with contact information (phone/fax/mailing ad-
dress/email address) for all participants and other inter-
ested parties.
b. Maintain list serves (e-mail lists) for the project teams
as needed and facilitate the use of such lists by team mem-
bers, providing administrative support as necessary.
c. Prepare, along with the executive committee, the
progress reports and summaries described above as well as
-------
54
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
reports for distribution to the project participants and other
interested parties. Documents intended for the general pub-
lic should be geared to that audience.
d. Have an annual meeting with participants to cele-
brate successes.
Communications with employees, students, teachers
and faculty. This goal is so important as to merit status as
its own project recommendation—perhaps along the lines
of: develop and conduct regular green issues orientations
and professional development for employees.
This project team can consist of both human resourc-
es and communication specialists, along with those who
can develop the specific environmental content. This can be
handled as two working groups under the same umbrella,
although initially the groups should meet together to map
out strategy. They may decide that working as a unit is a
better choice. The use of existing organizational communi-
cations channels should be encouraged.
This effort is linked to the development of common en-
vironmental principles. (See appendix B for the principles
developed by the Louisville partnership.) This project can
perhaps be handled by the same team or an enlarged ver-
sion of the same team.
Communications with potential partners, funding
sources, and other organizations. The steering and ex-
ecutive committees should make special efforts to com-
municate about the partnership to these vital groups and
persons, through personal communications, invitations for
site visits, presentations at professional and NGO meetings,
and articles in appropriate publications. A list should be
developed by the steering and executive committees identi-
fying these people and groups, and who can take the lead in
communicating with them about the project. Different par-
ticipants at times will need to step back from partnership
duties and teams will need to be refreshed with new people
and new energy. A steady effort to attract new individuals
and organizations into the partnerships is crucial over the
long term.
Communications with the public. Communications
with the public about the project accomplishments should
almost always be accomplished by or with the specific ap-
proval of the executive leadership, and coordinated and ap-
proved by all partners before distribution. This will require
attention of the executive committee, and occasional lapses
are certain and unavoidable. If a partner organization acts
without notification, coordination and inclusion of the other
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
partners, the result can be conflicting messages and poten-
tial conflicts. The partners are ideally free to self-promote
the project in a general way. When special accomplishments
or new ventures are to be touted, it is important that this
take place in a coordinated way through appropriate media
relations channels. The executive committee should facili-
tate regular meetings between the communications staffs of
the three partners, and work with them to develop a media
strategy.
Beyond Communication. With good communications
strategies implemented early and often, other kinds of prob-
lems are less likely to occur. The following are some things
to anticipate which should be approached within the part-
ners structure.
Conflict Resolution. The steering and executive com-
mittees should try to anticipate and work to resolve po-
tential conflicts. Conflicts are most likely to occur around
differing perceptions of who is in the lead, who is commu-
nicating or ought to communicate what to whom, and who
is doing or not doing their portion of the project tasks. Em-
phasize a consensus approach to implementing these proj-
ects, as the key element of conflict resolution. The partners
project is substantively different from some other kinds of
undertakings. It requires trust, good communications and
agreement by all parties. Only decisions reflecting a full
consensus should be implemented. When any party tries
to move a project on the team level without consensus, the
efforts of all the other teams may be harmed and the good
faith working relationships between the organizations can
sustain real damage. Use of the consensus process with
support from the steering and executive committees can re-
solve conflicts and strengthen the partnerships.
Funding and Support. The steering and executive
committees should work aggressively to identify and pur-
sue funding opportunities for partnership projects. Many
funding organizations will be attracted to the partnering
concept, and this gives partner projects an edge in seeking
competitive funds. The partners should also identify "self
funded" projects that merit support because of the potential
savings and strategic importance.
Accountability and Measurable Results. Accountabil-
ity and measurable results are expectations of executive
leadership. Project reporting and tracking should empha-
size finding the right measures and performance indicators
for each partner project. This is often more difficult than
it seems. Make this an agenda item at every steering and
-------
56
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
executive committee meeting. Much of the work of finding
those right measures and performance indicators is the re-
sponsibility of the related teams, but the steering and ex-
ecutive committees should strongly encourage and support
teams to track and communicate results.
Other Special Challenges. Periodically the steering
and executive committees should review how students are
involved in the projects. Are environmental education pri-
orities fully recognized and implemented? There are many
barriers and limitations to overcome to develop environ-
mental education opportunities and provide them not just
for a few students or a few schools. The goal is to to involve
all students and all schools. Environmental education too
often tends to depend on the presence or absence of indi-
vidual highly-motivated teachers. The benefits however are
too great to neglect some or any schools and students.
Similarly, it can be difficult to translate projects into
funded research when research is identified as a project
need and/or opportunity. A research working group may be
required to advance the research component of the partner-
ship project. Given the timetables and other vicissitudes of
funded research, an aggressive early effort to identify and
involve researchers and research opportunities can result
in big payoffs for the projects.
On an ongoing basis, teams should drop non-participat-
ing team members, and bring in new members with fresh
energy, ideas and enthusiasm. Performance standards help
teams reach goals. Establish and communicate clear and
reasonable expectations. Volunteers benefit particularly
from this sort of management support, as traditional per-
formance measures and rewards may be lacking. The vol-
unteers in the Louisville and Lexington projects have been
motivated, insightful professionals with genuine interest in
seeing their organizations improve and their communities
benefit.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
ORIGINATE
Interagency Coordinating Committee
Sity University Schools
PLAN
Cluster Groups
Management
IMPLEMENT
Project Committees
ENABLE
Project Facilitator / Manager
Permanent
Manager
CONTINUING
Wider Management
Involvement
Public Education and
Involvement of NGOs
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Figure 11 — Green City
Project Sample Organization-
al Chart.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
APPENDIX A — RESOURCES
Bluegrass Partnership for a Green Community.
www.uky.edu/sustainability/greencities/index.htm
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Beyond Merger:
A Competitive Vision for the Regional City of Louisville,
(Brookings Institute), 2002.
Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource
Book for Protecting Ecosystems, United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Document No. 230B96003,
1997.
Green Seattle Partnership, 20 Year Strategic Plan, City of
Seattle and Cascade Land Conservancy, 2005.
www.ci.seattle.wa.us/environment
Milwaukee Green Team, The Milwaukee Green Team's Re-
port to Mayor Tom Barrett, City of Milwaukee, WI, 2005.
www.ci.mil.wi.us/displav/router.asp?docid=13213
Partnership for a Green City, The Partnership Project, Uni-
versity of Louisville, Jefferson County Public Schools,
Louisville Metro Government, 2004.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
APPENDIX B — LOUISVILLE
PARTNERSHIP FOR A GREEN
OITY STATEMENT OK
ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
PARTNERSHIP FOR A GREEN CITY
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
PREAMBLE:
As stewards of Louisville Metro and of all its resources,
we understand the interdependence of humans with the en-
vironment. We must apply thoughtful and creative planning
to achieve a thriving economy built on the principles of sus-
tainability. We must foster conservation, pollution preven-
tion and restoration of ecosystems with both public policy
and personal behavior. We must promote a common agen-
da for Louisville as a green city, preserve and enhance the
quality of life for our citizens and future generations, and
widen recognition of the importance of good stewardship of
the community's natural resources.
LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT
AND MEASURES
We will implement these Principles by demonstrating
community leadership, collaborative planning and by adopt-
ing best environmental practices. We will establish goals,
objectives, and indicators; conduct an annual self-evalua-
tion of our progress; and jointly issue a public report.
SUSTAINABLE USE AND
PROTECTION OK NATURAL
RESOURCES
We value and conserve natural resources and will seek
to preserve and make sustainable use of our air, water, soils
and forests. We will protect and conserve non-renewable nat-
ural resources through efficient use, careful planning and
collaborative land management programs. We will reduce
use of substances that may cause environmental damage to
the air, water, earth or its inhabitants. We will safeguard all
-------
6O GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
habitats affected by our facilities and operations, especially
the public lands we manage, while promoting biological di-
versity. We will conserve open spaces through comprehen-
sive planning.
AND "WATER
MANAGEMENT
We will promote natural areas for biological diversity,
protect areas along streams and water bodies, and plant
with native species. We will enhance, enlarge and protect
our urban forests. We will practice responsible water use.
REDUCTION AND DISPOSAL
OK "WASTES
We will combine resources to reduce or eliminate wastes
through source reduction, reuse and recycling for our own
facilities and operations and for the Metro area in general.
We will handle and dispose all waste using safe and respon-
sible methods.
EN E ROY
We will conserve energy and improve the energy efficien-
cy of our buildings, vehicles, and equipment and the goods
and services we use. We will use environmentally safe and
sustainable energy sources, while achieving savings. We
will increase our use of energy from renewable sources.
TRANSPORTATION
We will build and redevelop our community to minimize
transportation demands, while providing pedestrian and
bicycle-friendly pathways and an effective public transit
system. We will work to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the
community while implementing the vision of our organiza-
tions using energy efficient vehicles.
PURCHASING PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES
We will pool our knowledge and resources to jointly pur-
chase green products and services. We will work with our
suppliers to adopt sustainable approaches and solutions. We
will partner to create a stronger market for environmentally
friendly and regionally produced products and services.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
DESIGN AND
MANAGEMENT OP
BUILT
We will design, build, restore and manage our facilities
and neighborhoods in ways that promote and protect health
and safety. We will use school campuses, Partner buildings
and lands as settings for learning.
PUBLIC
We will monitor our policies and practices to assess and
reduce public health risk. When potential risks are identi-
fied, we will identify and implement solutions.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Through environmental education we are committed to
developing and supporting environmentally literate citizens.
We will involve colleagues, students and citizens in demon-
strating the ability to implement these principles.
-------
62 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
APPENDIX O —
LOUISVILLE SURVEY
(N=39)
1. How successful has your project been to date?
Very successful - 20%
Meets expectations - 48%
Could be better - 20%
Not very successful at this point - 12%
2. Do you feel that your Project Team has the po-
tential to be successful in the future?
Yes - This project can have a major impact. - 50%
Yes - This project can provide something good. -
41%
No - This project is not likely to be successful. - 0%
No - This project has no chance for success. - 0%
I am not sure yet if this project will be successful.
-9%
3. Does Your Project Team have a good sense of
what they are trying to do with the project?
Yes - 62%
No - 25%
Could be better - 13%
4. Do you feel that your Project Team needs more
direction?
No, we are doing okay - 77%
Other, no one big thing about direction - 23%
5. Do you feel the Partnership Project is a priority
for your organization?
Yes, it is a high priority - 26%
Yes, it is a priority but not the highest priority - 56%
No, project is not a priority - 18%
6. Do you feel like you know what is going on with
your project?
Yes, I am well informed - 46%
Yes, I think I know what is going on - 37%
I am not sure - 6%
I definitely don't know what is going on - 11%
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
7. Do you know what is going on with the other proj-
ect teams and the overall Partners Project?
Yes, I am well informed - 8%
Yes, I think I know what is going on - 24%
I am not sure - 42%
I definitely don't know what is going on - 26%
8. Do you want to know what other Project Teams
are doing?
Yes - I want to see or access on-line detailed project re-
ports - 6%
Yes - Brief summaries ok for me - 77%
No - 17%
9. Do you think the project is being adequately com-
municated with your managers?
Yes - 48%
No - 20%
I don't know - 32%
10. Do you think the project is being adequately com-
municated with top management?
Yes - 32%
No - 17%
I don't know - 51%
11. Do you think the project is being adequately com-
municated with other employees you work with?
Yes - 32%
No - 29%
I don't know - 39%
12. Do you think the project is being adequately
communicated with all the employees in your organiza-
tion?
Yes - 20%
No - 40%
I don't know - 40%
13. Do you think the project is being adequately com-
municated with news/media and the general public?
Yes - 18%
No - 48%
I don't know - 34%
-------
64 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
14. Do you have recommendations about how the
project can be more effectively communicated? (Mul-
tiple recommendations possible, summary below)
Monthly or quarterly reports on progress of all projects
- 66%
Use of existing organizational communications channels
- 60%
A dedicated website - 52%
More and frequent press releases about projects and
progress - 28%
Better communication about the Partners Project em-
ployees and students - 57%
Periodic meetings with upper management - 23%
Periodic email updates - 63%
15. Has your project team encountered problems or
obstacles that have limited progress in achieving proj-
ect goals?
No - 80%
Yes - 20%
- difficulty coordinating meeting times
- I did not know I was to be a committee leader
- need for administrative staff and help with goal set-
ting
Project goals have not been communicated.
Time
- We could use more resources of time and people
16. Can you and/or your project team resolve the
problem or obstacle or is assistance needed?
We can resolve problems - 85%
Yes - 15%
- JCPS and Metro participate on the committee - need
U of L participation Two of the three organizations partici-
pate—need the third partner
Need direction from project leaders
Need to know the project's expected outcomes.
Organizational support
17. Has the Partners Steering Committee provided
appropriate support?
Yes - 64%
No - 15%
I don't know who or what the Partners Project Steering
Team is. - 21%
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
18. How can the Project Steering Committee bet-
ter support the work of your team and its project to
achieve a more successful end result? (Multiple answers
possible)
Improve reporting and communications - 69%
Provide help/facilitation to the project teams to develop
a plan - 28%
Find some $$ to help implement the projects - 42%
Get better buy in from my organization - 23%
Get better buy in from the other organizations in the
partnership - 20%
No additional help needed/current help is good - 19%
19. Does your project team and supporting organiza-
tions have sufficient resources to do the project?
Yes, no question about it - 9%
Yes, but only if it is made a higher priority - 18%
Maybe, can't tell yet - 67%
No, adequate resources do not exist to do the projects
-6%
20. If adequate resources do not exist, what specifi-
cally is needed for your project to be successful? (Mul-
tiple answers possible)
$$ - 43%
More people - 17%
Better support from Management - 20%
Professional guidance/support to make the team more
effective - 20%
Don't know the project goals, so do not know if resources
have been adequate - 2%
Don't know yet - 2%
21. Do you think the Partnership should add more
projects now?
Yes, we are ready - 2%
No, we are not ready yet - 71%
I am not sure - 27%
22. Most participants expressed strong support for
the Partnership Project and the potential for the part-
nership approach to be successful. Do you think the
Partnership is working and moving Louisville greener?
Yes, its very successful and changing how we do busi-
ness - 18%
Yes, its successful but it can be much better - 29%
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Too early to tell if we are going to make the project a suc-
cess - 47%
No, it isn't working and needs help - 6%
No, its a disaster and waste of my time - 0%
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
APPENDIX "D — LEXINGTON
BLUEORASS PARTNERSHIP
FOR A GREEN COMMUNITY
ONLINE SURVEY
(http://www: uky.edu/sustainability/greencities/)
1. Which institution are you affiliated with?
University of Kentucky - 34%
Lexington Fayette Urban County Government - 22%
Fayette County Public Schools - 20%
I am an interested party unaffiliated with the above or-
ganizations - 20%
2. In terms of policy and practices, how green is the
institution with which you are affiliated?
No apparent interest at all, either on individual or orga-
nizational levels. - 0%
Individual interest in green issues, but no organizational
interest. - 6%
Slight organizational interest in green issues, but no at-
tempts to implement policy. - 14%
Below average, but interest is building. - 10%
Average, with some initiatives being planned. - 14%
Slightly above average, with some ongoing discussions
about improvements. - 12%
Well above average, with many practices (e.g. recycling,
purchasing) already in place. - 22%
Very green, with committees and/or individuals respon-
sible for design and implementation of environmental prac-
tices. - 8%
Exceptionally green, with support from all organization-
al levels for environmental policies and practices. - 2%
As green as possible in all areas.
3. In terms of environmental policies and practices,
how would you describe Lexington and the surrounding
counties?
No apparent interest at all in the community. - 2%
Individual interest in green issues, but no governmental
support. - 6%
Slight interest in green issues in government, but no at-
tempts to implement policy. - 6%
Below average, but interest is building. - 12%
-------
68 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Average, with some initiatives being planned. - 14%
Slightly above average, with some ongoing discussions
about improvements. - 20%
Well above average, with practices (e.g. recycling) already
in place. - 26%
Very green, with constant improvement in design and
implementation of environmental practices. - 8%
Exceptionally green, with support from government,
corporations, and nonprofits for environmental policies and
practices. - 0%
As green as possible in all areas. - 2%
4. How green do you feel you personally are?
Not at all interested in green issues. - 0%
Somewhat aware of green issues but unwilling to adapt
my lifestyle. - 0%
Slight interest in green issues, but not taking any steps
currently. - 0%
Below average, but my interest is building. - 2%
Average - I am keeping informed and trying to make
slow changes. - 14%
Slightly above average, with some attempts to conserve
energy and recycle. - 30%
Well above average and taking new steps whenever pos-
sible to improve the environment. - 24%
Very green - I carpool, encourage friends to be greener,
etc. - 10%
Exceptionally green both personally and professionally,
as I encourage both my friends and my organization to be-
come greener. - 10%
As green as possible in all areas. - 6%
5. Who do you know who should be involved in the
Green Community process?
Open-ended answers.
6. What is the most important thing the Bluegrass
Partnership can do to improve the quality of life and
protect the environment in the Bluegrass? (Choose up
to 3)
Clean water - 22%
Clean air - 16%
Energy conservation - 24%
Safe and waste conserving management of waste prod-
ucts of all sorts - 18%
Land conservation and promotion of sustainable devel-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
opment - 50%
Environmental education of all ages - 22%
Environmental advocacy and leadership - 24%
Transportation solutions that reduce petrochemical us-
age and pollution - 32%
Growth management, including effective partnering
among counties - 38%
Other: Comprehensive Sustainable Cities policy and pro-
gram - 2%
Other: Foster a conservation ethic in all areas - 2%
Other: Further promoting our excellent recycling pro-
gram in Fayette County - 2%
Other: Lobby LFUCG Council for continued funding of
the Purchase of Development Rights farmland preservation
program - 2%
Other: Recycling at Apartments - 2%
7. As a participant or interested party in the Blue-
grass Partnership, the one thing I would especially like
to see come out of the project is:
Open-ended answers - sample answers:
A greener plan for development in central Kentucky.
A true partnership working toward similar goals and ob-
jectives for a greener city.
A widespread metro light rail system. The answer to traf-
fic in Fayette County is access to coordinated public transit
system. Not a set of buses that all have to go through a hub
downtown to get anywhere.
Demonstrate to citizens and the business community
that going green is not only our moral obligation to the com-
munity and future generations, but that we will be rewarded
for our efforts with greater health, prosperity and satisfac-
tion in our work. There will be some winners and losers in
the short term but in the long run, everybody wins.
8. Do you think the draft Principles attached reflect
an important, timely, and workable agenda for the Blue-
grass Partnership and supporting organizations?
Yes - 68%
No - 6%
No opinion/Don't know - 20%
9. I will participate in the project:
Enthusiastically - I have attended one or more of the
day-long sessions and will participate in any follow-up ac-
tions necessary. - 32%
-------
7O GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Fully - although I was unable to participate in an all-day
session, I am.
very interested in the project and want to help implement
recommendations supported by the three partners. - 28%
Moderately - my schedule limits my ability to participate.
- 26%
Professionally - I will participate as a job duty only. -
10%
Not at all - I have no interest in the project. - 0%
10. My suggestions for making this a successful proj-
ect are:
Open-ended answers - sample answers:
• Continue down current path and keep looking for
hard working individuals to carry projects through.
• Don't committee it to death. Have the patience to deal
with the snail like pace of change in each org but the cour-
age to make the changes when the opportunity presents
itself.
• Get policy makers/supervisors who are not now
"green" involved or educated to the extent they see the tan-
gible benefits and support those who are trying to implement
green practices. For example, presentations to city council,
school board, etc. on monetary and health benefits.
• Get the community leaders to commit to urban plan-
ning and zoning precedents that will put the principles set
forth in the agenda. At this point similar groups have been
successful at getting the political parties to agree something
should be done, but fewer leaders are willing to put money
forward or to set policy that puts ideas into action.
• Get the word out in the Herald Leader, Chevy Chaser,
Southsider, Hamburg newspaper, KET, etc.
• I would seriously consider hiring a qualified environ-
mentalist to coordinate and devoted to forward thinking,
on target and keep all interested parties actively involved
in the project all year long, not just in the spring and sum-
mer.
• To be successful, participants need to conduct a
self-assessment to determine their current practices. They
should be provided with a list of guiding principles and best
practices to see how many they can reasonably implement
in their operations. Finally, a post assessment should be
conducted to see how many of the best practices were im-
plemented and continue to be utilized.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
APPENDIX E — PROTOCOLS
OK THE UNITED NATIONS
URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL
ACCORDS
Urban Environmental Accords
Signed on the Occasion of the United Nations Environ-
mental Program World Environment Day
June 5th, 2005 in San Francisco, California
RECOGNIZING for the first time in history, the majority
of the planet's population now lives in cities and that con-
tinued urbanization will result in one million people moving
to cities each week, thus creating a new set of environmen-
tal challenges and opportunities; and
BELIEVING that as Mayors of cities around the globe, we
have a unique opportunity to provide leadership to develop
truly sustainable urban centers based on culturally and
economically appropriate local actions; and
RECALLING that in 1945 the leaders of 50 nations gath-
ered in San Francisco to develop and sign the Charter of the
United Nations; and
ACKNOWLEDGING the importance of the obligations
and spirit of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Hu-
man Environment, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (UNCED),
the 1996 Istanbul Conference on Human Settlements, the
2000 Millennium Development Goals, and the 2002 Johan-
nesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, we
see the Urban Environmental Accords described below as
a synergistic extension of the efforts to advance sustain-
ability, foster vibrant economies, promote social equity, and
protect the planet's natural systems.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, today on World Envi-
ronment Day 2005 in San Francisco, we the signatory May-
ors have come together to write a new chapter in the history
of global cooperation. We commit to promote this collab-
orative platform and to build an ecologically sustainable,
economically dynamic, and socially equitable future for our
urban citizens; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we call to action our
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
fellow Mayors around the world to sign the Urban Environ-
mental Accords and collaborate with us to implement the
Accords; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that by signing these Ur-
ban Environmental Accords, we commit to encourage our
City governments to adopt these Accords and commit our
best efforts to achieve the Actions stated within. By imple-
menting the Urban Environmental Accords, we aim to real-
ize the right to a clean, healthy, and safe environmental for
all members of our society.
IMPLEMENTATION & RECOGNITION
THE 21 ACTIONS that comprise the Urban Environmen-
tal Accords are organized by urban themes. They are proven
first steps toward environmental sustainability. However, to
achieve long-term sustainability, cities will have to progres-
sively improve performance in all thematic areas.
Implementing the Urban Environmental Accords will
require an open, transparent, and participatory dialogue
between government, community groups, businesses, aca-
demic institutions, and other key partners. Accords imple-
mentation will benefit where decisions are made on the ba-
sis of a careful assessment of available alternatives using
the best available science.
The call to action set forth in the Accords will most often
result in cost savings as a result of diminished resource
consumption and improvements in the health and general
well-begin of city residents. Implementation of the Accords
can leverage each city's purchasing power to promote and
even require responsible environmental, labor and human
rights practices from vendors.
Between now and the World Environment Day 2012, cit-
ies shall work to implement as many of the 21 Actions as
possible. The ability of cities to enact local environmental
laws and policies differs greatly. However, the success of
the Accords will ultimately be judged on the basis of actions
taken. Therefore, the Accords can be implemented through
programs and activities even where cities lack the requisite
authority to adopt laws.
The goal is for cities to pick three actions to adopt each
year. In order to recognize the progress of cities to imple-
ment the accords, a City Green Start Program shall be cre-
ated.
At the end of the seven years a city that has implement-
ed:
19 - 21 Actions shall be recognized as a 4 Star City
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
15 - 18 Actions shall be recognized as a 3 Star City
12 - 14 Actions shall be recognized as a 2 Star City
8-11 Actions shall be recognized as a 1 Star City
Action 1 Adopt and implement a policy to increase the
use of renewable energy to meet ten percent of the city's
peak electric load within seven years.
Action 2 Adopt and implement a policy to reduce the
city's peak electric load by ten percent within seven years
through energy efficiency, shifting the timing of energy de-
mands, and conservation measures.
Action 3 Adopt a citywide green house gas reduction
plan that reduces the jurisdiction's emissions by twenty-five
percent by 2030, and which includes a system for account-
ing and auditing greenhouse gas emissions.
Action 4 Establish a policy to achieve zero waste to
landfills and incinerators by 2040.
Action 5 Adopt a citywide law that reduces the use of a
disposable, toxic, or non-renewable product category by at
least fifty percent in seven years.
Action 6 Implement "user-friendly" recycling and com-
posting programs, with the goal of reducing by twenty per-
cent per capita solid waste disposal to landfill and incinera-
tion in seven years.
Action 7 Adopt a policy that mandates a green building
rating system standard that applies to all new municipal
buildings.
Action 8 Adopt urban planning principles and practic-
es that advance higher density, mixed use, walkable, bike-
able and disabled-accessible neighborhoods which coordi-
nate land use and transportation with open space systems
for recreation and ecological restoration.
Action 9 Adopt a policy or implement a program that
creates environmentally beneficial jobs in slums and/or
low-income neighborhoods.
-------
74 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Action 10 Ensure that there is an accessible public park
or recreational open space within half-a-kilometer of every
city resident by 2015.
Action 11 Conduct an inventory of existing canopy cov-
erage in the city; and, then establish goal based on ecologi-
cal and community considerations to plant and maintain
canopy coverage in not less than fifty percent of all available
sidewalk planting sites.
Action 12 Pass legislation that protects critical habitat
corridors and other key habitat characteristics (e.g. water
features, food-bearing plants, shelter for wildlife, use of na-
tive species, etc.) from unsustainable development.
Action 13 Develop and implement a policy which ex-
pands affordable transportation coverage to within half-a-
kilometer of all city residents in ten years
Action 14 Pass a law or implement a program that elimi-
nates leaded gasoline (where it is still used); phases down
sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels, concurrent with
using advanced emission controls on all buses, taxis, and
public fleets to reduce particulate matter and smog-forming
emissions from those fleets by fifty percent in seven years.
Action 15 Implement a policy to reduce the percentage of
commute trips by single occupancy vehicles by ten percent
in seven years.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Action 16 Every year, identify one produce, chemical, or
compound that is used within the city that represents the
greatest risk to human health and adopt a law and provide
incentives to reduce or eliminate its use by the municipal
government.
Action 17 Promote the public health and environmental
benefits of supporting locally grown organic foods. Ensure
that twenty percent of all city facilities (including schools)
serve locally grown and organic food within seven years.
Action 18 Establish an Air Quality Index (AQI) to mea-
sure the level of air pollution and set the goal of reducing by
ten percent in seven years the number of days categorized
in the AQI range as "unhealthy" or "hazardous."
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Action 19 Develop policies to increase adequate access
to safe drinking water, aiming at access for all by 2015.
For cities with potable water consumption greater than 100
liters per capita per day, adopt and implement policies to
reduce consumption by ten percent by 2015.
Action 20 Protect the ecological integrity of the city's
primary drinking water sources (i.e. aquifers, rivers, lakes,
wetlands and associated ecosystems).
Action 21 Adopt municipal wastewater management
guidelines and reduce the volume of untreated wastewa-
ter discharges by ten percent in seven years through the
expanded use of recycled water and the implementation of
a sustainable urban watershed planning process that in-
cludes participants of all affected communities and is based
on sound economic, social, and environmental principles.
-------
76 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
APPENDIX F — LOUISVILLE
PARTNERSHIP FOR A GREEN
CITY, 2OOC3
SUMMARIES
In the summer of 2004, following a year of intensive de-
velopment, the Louisville Partnership identified and priori-
tized an initial set often priority projects. While a number of
smaller projects and short-term initiatives have been added
since that time, the focus of the Partners has remained on
these original ten projects. Some of these original projects,
particularly those centered on developing and adopting En-
vironmental Standards and Principles and the creation of
a project management structure (the Steering Committee
and the Interagency Coordinating Committee) have been
completed. Other projects have become ambitious long-term
efforts that will take years to complete, e.g. performing com-
prehensive energy audits on 500 buildings; the creation of
outdoor classrooms at all Jefferson County Public Schools
(JCPS) campuses; and the development of the registry for
environmental public health issues.
In the spring of 2006 the Steering Committee of the Lou-
isville Partnership began a series of discussions designed
to assess overall progress, consider new projects and revi-
talize slow-moving ones. The Partners also heard from the
executive leaders supporting the Partnership agenda. These
leaders indicated their willingness to help facilitate various
projects. The enthusiasm of leadership was in part fueled
by the fact that Louisville is beginning to see the benefits of
recognition as a green city and that the city's green reputa-
tion is emerging at the national level.
During the course of the spring meetings, the Steering
Committee decided to engage formally a wider range of par-
ticipants in the evaluation process. With assistance from
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Part-
nership held four day-long facilitated sessions in August
2006. These sessions focused on the original project goals,
critical reviews of projects, the identification of barriers and
constraints, and the consideration of potential new proj-
ects. A major theme of these sessions was the importance of
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
environmental performance standards which can be used
to measure the progress of Partner initiatives and how to
effectively report such progress. This appendix overviews
these efforts and provides the most up-to-date assessment
of the Louisville Partnership for a Green City and a review
of new project plans.
TABLK 6 - LOUISVILLE PARTNERSHIP INITIAL PRIORITY PROJECTS
Description
Interagency
Coordinating
Committee
Environmental
Standards and
Principles
Energy Use
Partnership
Community Recycling
Project
Buy Green/Centralize
Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing
Environmental
Education
Collaboration
Outdoor
Classrooms
Green Issues
Orientation and
Professional
Development
Registry for
Environmental Public
Health Issues
Asthma Project
A high-level, cross-functioning team of partner representative
can take the Partnership Project through the implementation
phase, champion projects and programs, and help secure
permission and funding for recommended initiatives.
Adopt mutually agreeable principles and standards.
Use proven strategies to reduce energy use and result in budget
savings and a larger level of environmental stewardship.
Combine partner resources and expertise and efforts to recycle,
reuse, and reduce waste.
Pool and jointly purchase green products and services cost-
effectively.
Develop a comprehensive, long-term focus for environmental
education both in the schools and in the community.
Every school should have access to an outdoor classroom.
Connect and implement partner resources to improve and
enhance professional development and training for teachers
informal educators; incorporate environmental priorities and
partnership goals into employee and student orientation; and
support employee exchanges and/or participation in educatic
Close information gaps that thwart effective public health
programs. Assess linkages among health and school attends
and academic performance.
A coordinated community attempt to address and manage
asthma will enhance quality of life and reduce hospital
admissions/emergency room visits, and missed school days.
-------
78 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
CURRENT STATUS
OK
The Partners have been successful in initiating and im-
plementing many of the ten projects originally identified and
prioritized, and they plan to revitalize projects that have
lagged through leadership prioritization and the provision
of administrative support. The goals and key accomplish-
ments of each of the project teams are listed below:
INTERAGENCY
COORDINATION
Goal(s). The creation of an interagency coordination team
responsible for integrating green efforts by each of the Part-
ners; the facilitation of effective inter- organizational coop-
eration and a shared environmental vision.
Accomplishments. Members of the Steering Team, repre-
senting each of the Partners and constituting the initial lead-
ership of the Partnership as a whole, successfully worked to
establish an interagency coordinating team responsible for
integrating efforts and improving collaboration.
STANDARDS AND PRINCIPLES
Goal(s). To develop written environmental principles and
standards to be used to guide policy, budget and program
decisions to incorporate environmentally sustainable ideals
in the partner entities.
Accomplishments. The team developed a set of Environ-
mental Principles (Appendix B) that were approved and ac-
cepted by all three Partners. These principles have been
widely published, both on the Partnership website, and
in poster form. They were re-articulated by fourth grade
students at JCPS, and then published as a poster in both
forms.
USE
Goal(s). To reduce energy use resulting in budget savings
and a higher level of environmental stewardship.
Accomplishments. The energy use team has initiated
several ambitious projects, including the following:
• Teams of students trained in conducting energy au-
dits of buildings have completed such audits on 10 Partner
buildings.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
• The energy use team has concluded that all 500+ build-
ings controlled by the Partners would benefit from energy
audits, and has begun to implement long-term plans to au-
dit these buildings.
• In order to better monitor energy use in the Partner
buildings, the Partners have purchased an energy manage-
ment data system.
• Working with both the Louisville Metro government
(Metro) and the University of Louisville (U of L), the team
initiated a feasibility test of solar-powered street lights, in-
stalling three such lights on Market Street, which will be
monitored by U of L faculty and students and then consid-
ered for wider adoption.
• An audit of soft drink machines at the U of L discovered
that each machine consumes upwards of $210 worth of elec-
tricity each year. As a pilot project the team installed energy
conservation equipment—motion detectors that cause the
machines to power down when not in use—on 34 machines,
with an expected annual savings of $3,000 to $4,000.
• Finally, the energy use team formed a new sub-team to
focus on conservation in the Partners' motor vehicle fleets.
WASTE
AND COMMUNITY-WIDE
RECYCLING
Goal(s). To enhance waste management systems includ-
ing increasing recycling and improving waste disposal ef-
ficiencies at the three institutions.
Accomplishments. The key accomplishments of this com-
munity-wide recycling effort include the following:
• The waste team facilitated the increased recycling ca-
pabilities at the University of Louisville dorms.
• Jefferson County Public Schools have conducted self
audits of their waste streams, using the information gar-
nered from these audits to increase recycling.
• The team helped to facilitate joint waste disposal, al-
lowing U of L to utilize Metro's lower-cost contract. In addi-
-------
8O GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
tion to a lower per ton cost for disposal, the University was
also able to save labor and transportation costs by hauling
solid waste to Metro's transfer station instead of the longer
trip to the landfill, for total savings of $12,000 annually, as
well as reduced equipment wear and air emissions. JCPS
plans to use the lower cost city contract as soon as its cur-
rent waste management contract expires.
BUY GREEN
Goal(s). To create the ability to pool and jointly purchase
green products and services cost-effectively.
Accomplishments. The key accomplishments in joint pur-
chasing to date include:
• The drafting, negotiation and authorization of a joint
purchasing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which in-
cludes all three Partners.
• Purchasing of recycled white copier paper under the
terms of the MOA, promising to save the Partners as much
as $45,000 per year in paper costs.
• The team is investigating the possibility of expanding
the MOA to include joint purchasing of environmentally
sound janitorial supplies.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
COLLABORATION
Goal(s). To develop a comprehensive, long-term focus for
environmental education, both in the schools and in the
community.
Accomplishments. The Environmental Education team
has been very active and has numerous accomplishments:
• The team significantly expanded professional develop-
ment opportunities for Louisville-area educators, organiz-
ing 85 three-hour and six-hour sessions on environmen-
tal education. They also conducted sessions on the use of
CityGREEN GIS software and week-long workshops on ur-
ban watershed issues and biodiversity.
• The team also produced a bibliography of children's
literature dealing with environmental issues, Wild About
Reading: An annotated guide to Children's Environmental
Literature.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
OUTDOOR CLASSROOMS
Goal(s). The team's efforts are designed to make outdoor
classrooms available within walking distance of every dis-
trict school.
Accomplishments. Thus far this team has met with con-
siderable success.
• With funding from the EPA and the Metropolitan Sewer
District, the team has helped to establish 7 outdoor class-
rooms and several more are planned.
• In conjunction with the development of new outdoor
classrooms, the team conducted a survey of district teach-
ers in order to identify outdoor environmental education
needs and published both a Environmental Education Cur-
riculum Guide for Outdoor Classrooms and a poster series
promoting the art and science of outdoor classrooms.
• JCPS Students have used CityGREEN GIS software to
collect data on 25 campuses, and subsequently produced
maps and analysis.
PUBLIC HEALTH REGISTRY
Goal(s). To create a public health registry and inventory
of existing data systems that track public health concerns.
Accomplishments. The health registry project is still in
the development phase, lagging from lack of administrative
support. It is one of the projects slated for additional admin-
istrative support and leadership emphasis in the coming
year.
ASTHMA
Goal(s). The asthma project seeks to create awareness of
asthma as an increasing health risk locally and nationally,
and as a leading cause of absenteeism.
Accomplishments. As with the public health registry, the
asthma project has lagged behind other projects in imple-
mentation and will require additional leadership and ad-
ministrative support to move forward effectively.
-------
82 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
IDENTIFICATION OK
OBSTACLES, BARRIERS AND
Initial assessment indicates that the Partnership for a
Green City has done a good job avoiding partnership -erod-
ing behaviors such as finger-pointing and blaming the other
Partners for either obstructing progress or trying to move
too fast. This did not happen by accident. The joint, facili-
tated sessions through which the Partnership was devel-
oped enabled the Partners to develop knowledge of and an
appreciation for the very different missions of the respective
organizations. Something that is easy to do for one or two
partners may violate a third partner's core mission, particu-
larly if it involves health information, education/curriculum
and children or confidential records. Given that many of
the priority projects are intended to change organizational
behavior, the Partners must continue to carefully identify
strategies and approaches that will be effective.
Several common themes emerged from the project par-
ticipants in the four day-long sessions. Rather than blame
each other for the slow progress of some efforts, partici-
pants identified and frankly discussed issues that arose
during the implementation phase of the various projects.
Most of the "blocking" problems were considered temporary
or avoidable or are still under discussion. The focus in the
sessions was primarily on ways that barriers could be sur-
mounted, especially where the support of high-level leader-
ship might make a difference.
Key obstacles, barriers and issues identified include:
1. "We are all busy." Virtually all of the Louisville Part-
nership participants, by design, are full-time employees of
the organizations they represent. All have jobs that may in-
clude some component of the Partnership project they are
working on, but this may be a very minor part of what they
do. The most successful project teams meet monthly, or try
to, and have staff support to send out notices, create agen-
das, take minutes and do basic follow-up on the issues iden-
tified. Projects lacking such support had more trouble with
arranging meetings and follow-through. Leadership em-
phasis on Partnership projects can affect how participants
perceive the projects and their role. Activities designed to
refocus the project participants are expected to renew and
energize the projects, especially with demonstrated leader-
ship support.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
2. Communications. Communication among the Partners
regarding project meetings and developments represents the
most serious obstacle faced by the Partners. Fortunately, it
is also quite possible to remedy. Communication is a major
challenge for the Steering Committee which has recognized
that managing successful projects is more demanding than
anticipated. Even though the Steering Committee meets
biweekly to discuss the Partnership and members attend
virtually all of the project team meetings, members of the
Steering Committee acknowledged that follow up and com-
munication to teams and participants is not as robust as it
could or should be. Minutes have only been kept and dis-
tributed on teams with staff support, such as Energy Use
Partnership, Buy Green and Environmental Health. Staff-
ing, funding and renewed commitment to reporting and
communication can have immediate results.
3. Lagging Team Members. Some teams include members
who both fail to attend meetings and whose contributions
to their projects are minimal. Since the partner initiatives
are voluntary, it is unlikely that non-participating members
can be made to participate and even if they are directed
to attend, they may contribute in a negative manner. The
challenge for the Steering Committee and team leaders is to
recruit team members who have energy and enthusiasm to
replace those who are not helping. Some teams may want to
keep "political" members who do not contribute, i.e. those
who by virtue of their position have critical decision mak-
ing authority or influence over partner projects, in general.
However, long term success depends on people who want to
make a difference and are willing to put in the time even
with all of their other job demands. Recognitions for ser-
vice—even as simple as a t-shirt or thank you letter to the
individual and his or her supervisor—should become stan-
dard.
4. Money, Resources and Budget Cycles. Funding was
an issue for a few projects, especially for the very ambi-
tious Environmental Health Registry, which will require
millions to do. Other projects are more dependent on funds
now available within the Partners and need simultaneous
approval for "shares" from each partner. This means that
requests need to be identified and synchronized with the
differing budget cycles of each of the three Partners. The
Steering Committee and team leaders need to identify this
budget cycle time frame, get project findings in early to the
key advocates, and be patient. Progress reports back to
funding advocates are essential.
-------
84 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
5. The MOA problem. The Partners have recognized the
need for lead implementers and transfer of funds between
each other for partner initiatives. The best success in this
area is the joint purchasing Memorandum of Agreement
that enables easy partnering on green purchasing priorities
(and anything else the three Partners want to buy together).
In all other areas the only way "sharing" can happen is
through a joint memorandum of agreement or memoran-
dum of understanding. These MOAs are tedious and time
consuming to negotiate. They can sometimes delay partner
efforts for months as three different law departments must
review and make adjustments in the draft agreements. An-
other difficulty relates to long institutional memories of pre-
projects between two of the Partners which went awry when
funds promised from one partner to the other did not ma-
terialize. New agreements are needed to make possible the
routine transfer of funds and other resources between the
Partners for the Partnership efforts.
6. Better External Communications/Website. The partici-
pants recognize that many of their accomplishments are
not known to others beyond the direct participants, and
that the community and leadership may suffer from this
lack of knowledge. The project website is static and not kept
current. Information about the Partnership does not read-
ily appear in internet searches. Details of Partnership ac-
tivities and progress and all reports, data, and documents
should be incorporated into the website, with links from
other partner websites easily found and featured. A number
of efforts are underway to address communications priori-
ties.
7. Access to Sensitive Information and Political/Socio-
Economic Issues. The environmental health initiatives face
huge barriers related to the conflict between information
privacy and access to the information essential for public
health research and public health benefits. The organiza-
tions struggle to overcome these barriers and protect pri-
vacy but allow access to information.
8. "Scaling Up" Issues. All project teams have challenges
in "scaling up" successful pilot projects, because of the sheer
size of the organizations and the degree of effort required to
make changes across the board. This is especially frustrat-
ing for the Environmental Education Team members, who
see educational interest and performance success taking
place in individual schools but cannot get environmental
education generally accepted other than by a small percent-
age of the total.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
9. Not Enough Planning/Lack of Formal Plans. All teams
were challenged to develop plans to implement the priority
projects. However, most planning was informal rather than
rigorous and formal. This is mainly a result of the shortage
of time and resources. However several teams, especially
the environmental education team, have made plan devel-
opment a priority for the near future.
Focus ON ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE
An early identified priority from the leadership interviews
was performance measurement and results. The leader-
ship within each institution emphasized that Partnership
projects and efforts must show results. Some projects have
easily identified measures of success. For instance, the en-
vironmental standards and principles project has been en-
tirely completed. Other project teams immediately uncov-
ered issues that made immediate and accurate measures a
problem. For example, the energy team found that building
energy use information was not uniformly available and ac-
cessible. For some of the Partners, a great deal of effort was
needed to develop baseline energy profiles.
The need to align the projects with the standards and
principles (which were developed and finished after the
projects were first identified) was also an issue. Without
care for this concern, an imbalance can appear among the
projects and priorities, which may lead to confusion and
incorrect perceptions about the direction and intent of the
overall Partnership. In addition, several types of perfor-
mance measures may need to be developed to communicate
the successes and changes which are accomplished within
the institutions. Overall measures, such as a reduction in
tons of waste, should be combined with process measures,
i.e. a communication plan has been put in place. The par-
ticipants must also pay closer attention to gathering simple
statistics, such as the number of participants attending a
forum or workshop.
The Steering Committee looked at what others are ac-
complishing elsewhere in the area of environmental perfor-
mance. Some noteworthy efforts examined include the fol-
lowing.
On a global level, the Environmental Sustainability Index
jointly produced by the Yale Center for Environmental Law
and Policy and the Columbia University Center for Inter-
-------
86 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
national Earth Science Information Network is noteworthy.
The 2005 version uses 21 categories of indicators to classify
and rank the performance of countries addressing environ-
mental issues and sustainability. A newer Pilot 2006 Envi-
ronmental Performance Index has just been released, which
uses 16 specific environmental policy targets.
http://beta.sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/epi/
A local government effort using an innovative approach
to environmental performance measures to drive achieve-
ment and improve outcomes is exhibited by King County,
Washington Department of Natural Resources and Parks.
http: //dnr. metrokc.gov/
The City of Santa Monica, California's Sustainable City
Progress Report translates eight categories of measures into
a report card format for its citizens and acknowledges gaps
and issues including lack of information to measure prog-
ress.
http://santa-monica.org/epd/scp/goals indicators.htm
At least two organizations are developing approaches to
measure and rank cities for green efforts and support for
sustainability. SustainLane 2006 City Rankings ranks the
top 50 cities by population using 15 easily understood cat-
egory rankings (http://sustainlane.com/article/895). Lou-
isville was ranked 35 of 50 in their first ranking of 50 cit-
ies. The Green Guide ranks 251 cities with population over
100,000, via a survey sent to cities, information from US
EPA, the Green Building Council, and other independent
sources. The top 25 are recognized and the top 10 are given
special recognition. The Green Guide also rates schools and
other initiatives.
http://thegreenguide.com/docprint.mhtml?i=113&s=top
IQcities
The Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council
and other non-governmental organizations are encouraging
good environmental performance by "green city" recogni-
tion.
After looking at these various models, the Louisville
Partners identified two approaches to measuring progress
that will overlap and support each other. One is to develop
outcomes and performance measures that align with the
standards and principles. The Steering Committee has de-
veloped a visual model for measuring the relationship of
goals, outcomes, etc. in the form of a pyramid (figure 12).
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Figure 12 — Relational
model of principles, out-
comes, programs/projects
and measures/indicators.
programs & projects
measures & indicators
The partners developed the pyramidal model in which
principles, the broad points of philosophical agreement are
links to outcomes, which are pursued through team-led pro-
grams and projects, which in turn are evaluated through a
variety of measures and indicators as a way to visualize the
these relationships. Possible outcomes, measures and indi-
cators identified in the focus sessions are listed in table 7.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE 7 - RELATIONSHIP OF
PRINCIPLES TO OUTCOMES, PROJECTS AND
MEASURES
Principle
Leadership Commitment and Measures
Outcomes
• Partnership has a sustainability strategic
plan and performance measures
• Partnership has full time staff committed
to partner projects
• Partnership sponsors annual roundtable
environmental education conference
• Leaders drive hybrid vehicles
Projects
• Full time staffing for partnership
• Global Warming Team
• Performance measure initiative
• Systematic
planning
Measures &
Indicators
• SustainLane measures and
indicators
• Green Guide measures and
indicators
Sustainable Use and Protection of Nature
Resources
• Land acquired or preserved for parks and
open space
• Native species used for partner
landscaping
• Public educated on use of land
• Leaders drive hybrid vehicles
Projects
Program developed under Green Issues
Orientation to promote land stewardship
and use/preservation of native plants
Measures &
Indicators
Persons exposed to program
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE 7 - RELATIONSHIP OF
PRINCIPLES TO OUTCOMES, PROJECTS AND
MEASURES (CONT.)
Principle
Outcomes
Projects
Measures &
idicators
Energy Use
• SOP's available and understood
• Fleet converted to alternate fuel/hybrids
over time and as options become available
• Comprehensive bike trails accessible in ;
areas of community
• Light rail system
• All public buildings audited and recom-
mendations implemented
• Non fossil fuels used when feasible and
cost effective
• Energy Team Projects (Building audits;
Energy monitoring/evaluation; lighting ini-
tiatives; solar demos)
• Policy that all electric appliances pur-
chased are Energy Star compliant
• Employees/teachers/students all have
utility use training
• KWH used per unit (bldg sq ft; per capita;
other)
• CCF used natural gas
• Gallons Water used
• # trained in utility use SOP's
• Reduced emissions and dependency on
foreign oil
• Biofuels used
• BTU's/GHG's saved
•Solar KWH or BTU's
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE 7 - RELATIONSHIP OF
PRINCIPLES TO OUTCOMES, PROJECTS AND
MEASURES (CONT.)
Principle
Land and Water Management
Outcomes
• City is clean, green, aesthetic and healthy
• Partners land features managed
biodiversity
• Partners have innovative storm water
management at their facilities
Projects
tba
Measures &
Indicators
tba
•
_
Principle
Outcomes
Reduction and Disposal of Waste
• Partners have comprehensive cooperative
recycling program
• Partners have maximized waste diversion
and reuse
• Ongoing training for recycling
Projects
• Community Wide Recycling and Waste
Reduction Team Projects (Joint bid for col-
lection services; )
• E-waste recycling
Measures &
Indicators
$$ saved by alternate approach
Recyclables tons or other measure
ciple
Purchasing Green Products and Services
Outcomes
• Partners have Environmentally Preferred
Products Purchasing Policy
• Partners purchase only Energy Star prod-
ucts when available
• Increased markets for recycled content
paper
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Measures &
Indicators
TABLE 7 - RELATIONSHIP OF
NCIPLES TO OUTCOMES, PROJECTS AND
MEASURES (CONT.)
• Green Purchasing Team- EPP policy to
developed
• Green Purchasing Team- Energy Star
Policy developed
• Myth vs Truth (ongoing effort)
iciple
Outcomes
Projects
• #'s EPP products purchased compared to
baseline
• Audit/review of Energy Star products
• Use of recycled content paper; trees saved;
carbon sequestration avoided
Transportation
• More than 14% of partners fleet is hybrid/
alt fuel by 2010
• No more used Crown Vies in fleet
• Louisville is bike friendly
• Anti sprawl policies in place
• Partners have programs with incentives
and disincentives for mass transit/busses/
bikes/ carpooling
• TARC ridership doubled over current lev-
els in five years
• Bike lanes added serving partner facilities
and community-wide
• Bike/Pedestrian Awareness/Education
Program (Road sharing; safety; traffic regs;
road etiquette)
• Bike racks on all TARC busses (done)
• Study feasibility and replace fleet vehicles
with alt fuel/hybrids when feasible/eco-
nomic and reduce annual fossil fuel cost
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE 7 - RELATIONSHIP OF
PRINCIPLES TO OUTCOMES, PROJECTS AND
MEASURES (CONT.)
sures &
Indicators
• # bike lane miles added/year
• Bike/car and pedestrian/ car accidents
• # users of TARC bike racks (currently
8500/month)
• % partners fleet alt or hybrid
• Annual fleet fuel costs and gallons used
Principle
Design and Management of the Built Envi-
ronment
Outcomes
• LEEDS buildings supported by policy and
action by Partners
• Mixed use development standard for
building development
• Pedestrian friendly neighborhoods
• Neighborhoods have easy access to basic
needs
• Public involved in planning and decisions
about neighborhoods
• Increased % greenspace
Projects
tba
Measures &
Indicators
tba
Public Health
• Air meets EPA standards
• Health registry available (in two years) to
enable research and guide public health
programs
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE 7 - RELATIONSHIP OF
PRINCIPLES TO OUTCOMES, PROJECTS AND
MEASURES (CONT.)
itcomes
Projects
Measures &
Indicators
• Healthy living is part of Louisville culture
• Healthy students
• Chemical free buildings and grounds
• Chemical free and safe parks
• Access to health care and healthy lifestyle
programs and facilities
• Pet friendly parks
• Good food programs at/near partner fa-
cilities/improved nutritional options/local
foods when feasible
• Sidewalks exist where needed; well lit for
safety
• Public Health Registry
• Asthma Project
• Partners unite on "Take Charge " chal-
lenge and other programs linked to healthy
hometown and fitness for employees, stu-
dents, and others
• Hand wash education linked to partner
facilities
• Environmental Health Team- Sponsor ne\
team with EE and develop student led "food
audits" assessing menus; vending machine
options; food options in closest stores
• Environmental Health- Create "event"
focused EH program (sports events; other
events)
• Employees/others enrolled and participat-
ing in health/fitness programs
• Park visits/survey
• Crime rates in parks
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE 7 - RELATIONSHIP OF
PRINCIPLES TO OUTCOMES, PROJECTS AND
MEASURES (CONT.)
Measures &
Indicators
• Hand washing notices in partner facilities
• Health status of population compared to
others (rates of obesity et al)
• Reduced absenteeism, due to specific
health causes
• Student BMI's
Environmental Education
Outcomes
• Partner EE Collaboration has comprehen-
sive EE plan
• Unified approach between schools and
non-school EE programs
• Environmentally literate population
• Outdoor classrooms at all schools and all
campuses restored "green"
• Fully integrated EE curriculum used by
most schools
• Humane education a component of EE
• Inter disciplinary EE professional develop-
ment available to all teachers
• Volunteers involved in EE in structural
meaningful way
• "Working to scale" issues overcome
• Vegetable gardens part of outdoor class-
rooms
• All students (others) have nature immer-
sion experience
• EE focus centers available in all areas
• Louisville has Nature/EE tour
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
TABLE 7 - RELATIONSHIP OF
PRINCIPLES TO OUTCOMES, PROJECTS ANI
MEASURES (CONT.)
Projects
Measures &
Indicators
• EE Collaboration- Develop strategic pie
in 2006/2007
• Co- sponsor new team with EH re: stuc
led food audits with focus on access to
food choices and availability of locally gro\
foods
• Number students exposed to significant
EE curriculum
• Comparison of EE schools to others
• Number food audits conducted
PROJECTS APPROVED
FOR
The Partners approved the following new projects for the
year 2006 - 2007.
PROJECT
Improve Communications and Outreach. A major area of
emphasis for the Partnership is improving communication
and outreach.
Partnership Staffing. The Partnership needs a full time
coordinator and ongoing technical support.
Funding. The Partnership needs to formalize a funding
team, and align efforts with the three different budget cal-
endars and processes. Another priority is ramp up efforts to
pursue grant funding.
Environmental Performance Measures. The Partnership
will continue the efforts begun with the 2006 Focus Ses-
sions to develop performance measures for Partner initia-
tives.
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Implement the Climate Change Team. Louisville has ad-
opted the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. U of L
-------
96 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
and JCPS have agreed to team with the Metro government
to support implementation of the agreement.
Adopt a Policy on Environmentally Preferable Purchasing.
Two of the Partners are already in general compliance and
the third is close. No formal policy exists, but this is an at-
tainable goal for the Partnership and will give Louisville
recognition in this critical area of sustainability.
Implement the new Energy sub-team with fleet focus. A
new team has been formed to address fleet management is-
sues and opportunities.
Expand Electronic Waste Recycling. Address partner con-
cerns and fully implement e-waste program that has been
developed and operated by Metro for several years.
Continue Energy Use Initiatives. Energy Watch Dog and
other energy use initiatives need continued support.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
(EE)
EE plan linking collaborators. The Environmental Edu-
cation Team has recognized that excellent award winning
programs both within the school district and those funded
and operated by Partners have limited value unless more
students have access. The need for a formal plan linking the
diverse efforts of the Partners and linking curricula with
the relevant resources is essential for success. U of L and
the new faculty position in environmental education will
take the lead in developing this plan with the Environmen-
tal Education Collaboration.
Communicating the message. The Green Issues Orienta-
tion needs to be implemented with an emphasis not just
on professional development of teachers, which has been
ramped up in an exemplary manner by the Partnership col-
laboration. It must include communicating the standards
and principles to employees, faculty, and staff. All partici-
pants in all sessions emphasized the importance of envi-
ronmental stewardship and the need to educate at all lev-
els the importance of the environment and consequences of
mismanagement and exploitation. A special focus will be on
new employee orientation.
Linking with existing community initiatives. There are
five ongoing community initiatives that could pertain to
environmental education. The collaboration should explore
these possibilities in developing the Environmental Educa-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
tion plan. These initiatives are: Healthy Hometown Move-
ment; Everyl Reads; The City of Parks; The GE Foundation
College Bound District Program; and the West End Signa-
ture Partnership.
Join/support/help implement State Green Schools Rec-
ognition program. The Kentucky Environmental Education
Council is initiating a new Green Schools recognition pro-
gram. The EE collaboration will help implement this pro-
gram for the Louisville area.
Sponsored EE "Nights out" and tours to community EE
resources. Evaluate opportunities for expanding access to
community EE opportunities like the Zoo, museums, Bern-
heim Forest, and other resources.
Regional EE Centers. Evaluate possibility to establish EE
Centers in areas of Louisville currently underserved.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Asthma Project. The Asthma Project has been thwart-
ed by lack of funding, particularly difficulty in achieving
grants, as well as all the barriers originally identified at
conception. The Environmental Health Team has affirmed
the commitment to continue its efforts and build on the
more modest pilot efforts now ongoing.
Public Health Registry. This project, though stalled, was
identified as having the potential to separate the Louisville
Partnership from others. No model currently exists for the
kind of public health registry envisioned in this project. The
scale of this effort requires funding support and significant
private sector support in the health care community. Fund-
ing for preventive health research lags significantly behind
other health research funding, even though potential pay-
offs are much greater.
Healthy Living and Food. A new team will be formed by
the Environmental Health and Environmental Education
Teams, to focus on healthy lifestyles. Initial efforts will be
targeted to compliance with HB 72 and establishing links
to Healthy Hometown and U of L School of Public Health
research priorities. The team will explore the possibility
of student-led food audits that will look at availability of
healthy food and locally grown foods for students, faculty
and employees and other projects to support healthy eating.
The team might also undertake other activities such as au-
dits to document usage of bikeways, parks, etc., as part of
its efforts to encourage/support healthy eating and fitness.
-------
98 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
APPENDIX O — BLUEGRASS
PARTNERSHIP FOR A
GREEN COMMUNITY, 2OOC3
SUMMARIES
The Bluegrass Partnership for a Green Community of-
ficially began August 24, 2005 with a ceremony at McCon-
nell Springs and the signing of a joint proclamation formal-
izing the Partnership.
Prior to this event the Partners conducted exploratory
meetings regarding the feasibility and structure of a Part-
nership. In March of that year, key leaders of the three
founding Partners met at a Leadership Luncheon and dis-
cussed Partnership possibilities and to gain an overview
how such a Partnership might be developed. Organization-
al meetings continued through the spring and summer of
2005 and led to the McConnell Springs kickoff.
The three founding Partners of the Lexington Partner-
ship were the University of Kentucky (U of K), the Lexing-
ton-Fayette Urban County Government, and Fayette County
Public Schools. The Tracy Farmer Center for the Environ-
ment at the University of Kentucky was instrumental both
in organizing partner discussions and in providing seed
funding to initiate the process.
After the formal project kickoff the Steering Committee
began to implement the project through leadership inter-
views, three day-long cluster meetings and the formation
of teams to develop recommendations for projects for the
Bluegrass Partnership. They reviewed other partnering en-
vironmental projects (Table 1).
In November, 2005, the aforementioned cluster meet-
ings brainstormed project ideas focused in three primary
areas:
• Sustainability
• Environmental/Organizational Efficiency
• Environmental Education/Outreach
These cluster meetings encouraged participation from
all community sectors and stakeholders, including busi-
ness and industry, government, education, and nonprofits,
as well as other entities and individuals. Approximately
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
1/3 of the meetings' participants were employed by organi-
zations other than the original three Partners.
After review, the Steering Committee, determining that
the project possibilities needed further refinement, man-
dated project teams to focus more specifically on develop-
ing project agendas, schedules, and implementation plans.
The Steering Committee ultimately identified nine project
teams (expanded from an initial recommendation of eight
teams). Team leaders and members with expertise in the
identified areas were suggested. At this point, the Steering
Committee formally expanded membership in the Partner-
ship to other organizations and invited individuals from
those organizations to join the relevant teams.
The Team focus areas are:
• Green Buildings
• Transportation
• Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
• Green Purchasing
• Environmental Education
• Outreach/Communication
• Water/Stormwater
• Sustainable Foods
• Green Space and Sustainability
Over 100 persons are involved on project teams from
approximately 20 organizations, including the Bluegrass
Community and Technical College (now considered a pri-
mary member), Bluegrass PRIDE, Partners for Family
Farms, Bluegrass Conservancy, Kentucky Environmental
Education Council, Kentucky Environmental and Protec-
tion Cabinet, Kentucky Office of Energy Policy, Kentucky
Water Resources Research Institute, McConnell Springs
Nature Area, New Cities Institute, the Southeast Center for
Aluminum Technology, the Kentucky Pollution Prevention
Center, Smiley-Pete Publishing, Alltech, University of Ken-
tucky College of Agriculture, WUKY-FM, Appalachia - Sci-
ence in the Public Interest,and Sayre School. The US EPA
has observed and participated as a major funding partner
for key activities that have served to develop the Partner-
ship.
The teams worked through the spring and summer of
2006 to develop project recommendations and implementa-
tion strategies.
-------
1OO GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
QUESTIONNAIRE
An online questionnaire was sent to project team mem-
bers and those who had interest in the Partnership. The
questionnaire results provide an overview of the Partner-
ship's participants and priorities.
Survey participants:
• University of Kentucky - 17
• Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government - 11
• Fayette County Public Schools- 10
• Others- 16
Generally, the participants viewed themselves and the
community as average to above average in being "green" with
half the participants seeing themselves as "very green."
The participants identified at least twenty additional or-
ganizations or individuals as potential Partners for selected
projects.
An emphasis and concern about land and conservation,
evident during the November cluster sessions, also emerged
strongly in questionnaire responses. When asked to iden-
tify the most important things that the Bluegrass Partner-
ship can do, the participants responded:
54%- Land conservation and promote sustainable devel-
opment
39%- Growth management including partnering with
adjacent counties
34%- Transportation solutions
25%- Energy Conservation
25%- Environmental education for all ages
23%- Environmental advocacy and leadership
20%- Clean water
18%- Safe and waste conserving management of wastes
14%- Clean air
Participants indicated that they would participate in
Partnership activities and programs enthusiastically (60%)
or moderately as schedules allow (30%). Such voluntary
participation and support are vital to Partnership success.
RECOMMENDED
Teams met regularly during the spring and summer of
2006 to develop formal project recommendations, as well as
to begin implementation of initiatives already approved by
the Steering Committee.
On August 10 and 11, 2006, the Bluegrass Partnership
conducted a two day conference, Creating a Greener Blue-
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
grass, at which project teams publicly presented recommen-
dations for an initial set of Partnership projects. In addition
to team involvement, invited speakers provided information
about ongoing regional and national sustainability efforts.
Teams were encouraged to identify projects that are vi-
able within existing resources, that will permit early suc-
cesses, and that will provide quantifiable outcomes.
Team Leaders presented the following recommenda-
tions:
REDUCE, REUSE, AND
RECYCLE
US Mayors Cans for Cash Competition. This national
competition will take place September 15-30, 2006. Over
40 cities are expected to participate. The Partnership's par-
ticipation will be a component of an ongoing focus on alu-
minum can recycling.
Increase recycling rates of cell phones and rechargeable
batteries. Nationally less than 3% of consumers recycle
their cell phones. The Partnership will collaborate with the
nonprofit RBRC Call2Recycle Program, which emphasizes
reuse of phones in other countries.
Increase recycling at all Partner facilities. All Partners
currently recycle, but all acknowledge that improvement is
possible. Partners will implement new recycling opportuni-
ties and reward programs to encourage recycling by em-
ployees and students.
Increase recycling at area businesses. Bluegrass PRIDE
will have a key role in this project, which will identify busi-
nesses that do and do not recycle. Partners will develop pro-
grams to encourage and support increased recycling efforts
by private businesses in the Bluegrass.
Pur chasing Inventory. Partners are conducting a purchas-
ing inventory of items with annual expenditures amounting
to more than $25,000 in order to identify opportunities for
collaborative green purchasing.
Memorandum of Understanding. The Partners have draft-
ed a memorandum of understanding to facilitate joint green
purchasing activities.
Used Electronics. The Partners are evaluating participat-
ing in used electronics recycling with the federal prisons
program.
Policy on Environmentally Friendly Computers, Used Oil,
-------
1O2 GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
and Energy Star Appliances. The Partners are drafting/
evaluating purchasing policy for a variety of products and
services jointly used/purchased by the Partners.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Special Focus on the Bluegrass. A special environmental
education curriculum with many opportunities for activities
outside the classroom will be developed using partner
resources. The curriculum will emphasize the unique
natural resources of the Bluegrass, as well as cultural,
agricultural, and other assets that contribute to the quality
of life and have special regional significance.
OUTREACH /
COMMUNICATION
Support Team Projects and Programs. This team has
the unique mission of providing support to all other
teams. The team will serve as a nexus for both external
and internal partner communications efforts. As other
teams identify projects or programs that have outreach
and communication components, this team will facilitate
the efforts, using existing communication and community
resources whenever possible.
Water/ Storm Water
Focus on Watershed Education. This team will initiate
watershed education programs in two or more Bluegrass
watersheds (e.g., Cane Run, Wolf Run). These efforts will
include stamping culverts, adding watershed identification
signage, and using community water education messages
from the Commonwealth Water Education Program's "It's
In Your Water" program. The team will coordinate with
community watershed advocacy groups.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS
Community Gardens and Food Education. The team's ini-
tial efforts will focus on reviving and expanding community
gardens in Lexington, with emphases on partner facilities/
campuses and on linking environmental/food education to
the program.
2000 Miles per Bite. The team hopes to develop future
projects that address local foods and sustainability by em-
phasizing the importance of local foods to the economy and
healthy living.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
GREEN SPACE
SUSTAINABILITY
What Will a Sustainable Bluegrass Look Like? This team
was created recently by the segmentation of the original
Foods, Land and Sustainability team into the more focused
Sustainable Foods and Green Space teams. As such, the
Green Space team has not yet developed a specific agenda
beyond its general emphasis on land conservation and
sustainability.
GREEN BUILDINGS
Energy Policy. The partners are drafting a broad energy
policy addressing energy efficiency, performance measure-
ment, and sustainability. Elements of the policy will include
resource conservation, partnering, energy audits and as-
sessments, energy tracking, energy awareness training, and
green building standards for new buildings and retrofits.
Training Employees. The partners are reviewing energy
training programs for employees and contractors with the
intent to implement a comprehensive energy training pro-
gram.
Energy Tracking Initiative. The partners are evaluating
energy tracking software to share and use to track energy
performance of buildings.
TRANSPORTATION
On-road Biodiesel Initiative. The Partners have a large
number of diesel vehicles in their fleets, and this project will
focus on the conversion to biodiesel.
Off-road Diesel Use. Current regulations allow the use
of less clean (higher sulfur content) diesel fuel in off-road
construction vehicles. The Partners will require cleaner
alternatives for their construction projects.
Create No Idle Zones. The Partners would create no-idle
zones in areas where idling is now common—such as long
queues of school buses. This effort would model itself upon
similar successful projects. The team will research how
projects were implemented in other locations.
Lextran/ CATS Services. This project will elevate
awareness of Lextran and CATS bus services among
students and employees of the Partners by using some or
all of the following: general awareness promotion campaign,
employee incentives, promoting Lextran Class Pass, and a
student mentoring program.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
Alternative Transportation Survey. The Partners will de-
velop a survey to elicit information on individual opinions
and impressions of alternative transportation in Lexington
among employees and students of the partner organiza-
tions. Alternative transportation includes any non-single
occupancy vehicle mode of transport. The results will guide
future transportation team actions.
-------
GREEN CITY PARTNERSHIPS
-------
The Partnership Project
The Partnership for a Green City
Sponsored by:
University of Louisville
Jefferson County Public Schools
Louisville Metro Government
Fall 2004
-------
Jefferson Countyt
Public Schools
Shaping the Future
U^VERSITYqf IDUKWLLE
dare, to be great
August 2004
To Our Employees:
The Partnership for a Green City Project began with a $51,000 grant for environmental
education. Vision has developed a partnership between our three institutions into a project with
potential benefits that far outreach the grant's limits.
These benefits include improved environmental education of school children and the broader
community; cost savings for the partners due to economies of scale in coordinated purchasing,
contracting, and environmental management; more resources for joint studies and research; increased
expertise for academic instruction; coordinated grant applications; shared management expertise; and
capacity building opportunities.
Our combined institutions represent some 25,900 employees, more than 500 buildings, 7,000
vehicles, 25,000 acres of land, and 120,000 students. There is power in these numbers, and we can
channel that power to benefit all our community's citizens.
We call upon our staffs to make realities of the wide-ranging proposals in this report. We need
everyone's full cooperation and support to create a greener environment and an ethic that will attract
diverse populations and businesses and that will make our young people want to raise their families
here, making Louisville a place where we call can work together and enjoy a better life.
Stephen Daeschner
LOUISVILLE METRO HAIL 527 WEST JEFFERSON STREET LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40302 J03,S74.200i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION 2
Goals 3
Importance of Environmental Education 3
Importance of Environmental Management 4
Importance of Public Health 5
Why Louisville Should Strive to Be a Green City 6
The Brookings Report/Cornerstone 2020 6
Benefits of Collaboration 7
Existing Collaborations and Environmental Excellence 7
Barriers to Collaboration 7
B. HOW WE EXECUTED THE PROJECT 8
Key Elements of the Partnership Project Process 8
The Partnership Project in Depth 9
How Green Do Our Leaders Think We Are? 10
C. COMMON THEMES FROM THE FACILITATED SESSIONS .... 11
D. FOUNDATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP 11
E. PRIORITY PROJECTS 13
Adoption of Environmental Standards and Principles 14
Create an Energy Use Partnership 15
Communitywide Recycling Project 16
Buy Green/Centralize Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing 18
Environmental Education Collaboration 20
All Schools Should Have Access to Outdoor Classrooms 23
Conduct Regular Green Issues Orientations/
Professional Development for Employees 26
Develop a Registry for Environmental
Public Health Issues 28
Focus on Asthma 29
F. FUTURE ACTIVITIES 30
Appendices
Appendix A1: Metro Government Participant List 31
Appendix A2: U of L Participant List 32
Appendix A3: JCPS Participant List 33
Appendix B: Collaborative Environmental Education,
Management, and Health Programs 34
Appendix C: Additional Potential Projects 37
Appendix D: Outdoor Classroom Curriculum Matrix 40
Appendix E: Placing this Report in National Context 41
-------
The Partnership for a Green City (the
Partnership Project) began when
representatives from three major
Louisville entities came together
because of shared common interests
and concerns. They found that they
shared a vision of a greener, more
sustainable Louisville.The
collaborative dialogue and explorative
process among these representatives
was named the Partnership for a
Green City.The Partnership Project
itself was the process through which
these representatives began building
the foundation for their shared vision.
The recommendations contained in
this report are the key elements of
this shared vision.
A. INTRODUCTION
The Partnership Project is based on the premise that better collaboration
among key Louisville entities could help considerably in addressing
Louisville's significant challenges identified by the Beyond Merger report
from the Brookings Institute. The health and education of our children and
how we reduce waste, use energy, manage our natural resources, and build
green infrastructure are the keys to our success as a city.
The sheer magnitude of persons and resources impacted directly by the
participating organizations [Louisville Metro Government (Metro
Government), The University of Louisville (U of L), and the Jefferson County
Public Schools (JCPS)] makes any collaborative project a challenge as well as
a real opportunity. These three partners employ 5 percent of the Metro labor
market, have more than 75 percent of its students, own 10 percent of the land,
and use a significant amount of the energy consumed in the county. While there
are excellent environmental efforts taking place in the Metro area, they are
isolated, uncoordinated, and diminished in effectiveness by lack of venues for
communication and cooperation. The conclusions from considering just these
two facts alone are clear: coordination of efforts and cooperation among the
participants can greatly magnify the results of current environmental efforts.
Nothing occurs in isolation. While Louisville was working on the
Partnership Project, The National Science Foundation (NSF) developed an
Environmental Research and Education section and published a ten-year
research and action plan (www.nsf.gov/geo/ere/ereweb). The National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF) released a new,
major ten-year assessment on environmental literacy (www.neetf.org), and
the California High Performance Schools (CF£PS) released a national study
(www.chps.net/index.htm). See Appendix E for an overview. The Kentucky
Department of Education (KDE) and the Kentucky Environmental and
Public Protection Cabinet (KEPPC) Division of Energy coordinated a series
of initiatives around energy-efficient schools. The National Institutes of
Health (NIH) launched a major initiative on children's environmental health.
The Partnership for a Green City will help position Louisville to take major
advantage of these national initiatives.
As the Partnership Project evolved, the linkages among education, the
greening of the Metro area, and quality-of-life issues became viewed as
opportunities. These opportunities encompass treating the environment as
a unifying theme to change current practices for better results, including
student test scores and improving the budgets and performance
accountability of the three partner organizations.
-------
Goals
The Partnership Project participants defined three objectives important
for Louisville:
• Development of activities and opportunities to further a holistic
environmental education curriculum within JCPS
• Identification of research areas to assess the correlation between
environmental exposures and health impacts that may affect student
cognitive learning abilities or behavior
• Identification of strategies for JCPS, U of L, and Metro Government
to create sustainable, green public infrastructures.
Importance of Environmental Education
Environmental learning layers the sciences, mathematics, history,
language arts, and social studies with a hands-on, experiential approach to
study. By regarding the outdoors as a learning lab, a variety of subjects
become more personally relevant to the students and educators, while
teaching and learning become engaging and fun. As demonstrated by
several national research initiatives,1 environmental education improves
standardized test scores and prepares young people for the responsibilities
of citizenship. These responsibilities increasingly require an understanding
of many public issues affecting health and the environment.
The most prized result of environmental education for students is a quality
called environmental literacy, which consists of four parts [North American
Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), 2000]:
1. Developing inquiry, investigative, and analytical skills;
2. Acquiring knowledge of environmental processes and human systems;
3. Developing skills for understanding and addressing environmental
issues;
4. Practicing personal and civic responsibility for environmental decisions
As Appendix B (Collaborative Programs) indicates, there are
numerous opportunities for Jefferson County's teachers and the public to
participate in environmental programs that support the core content
objectives and assist in building an environmental ethic. However, these
experiences are not systemic in nature and only reach a fraction of the
students and the community.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky supports environmental education
through the KEEC, established by an act of the General Assembly and
codified in KRS 157.900 to 157.915.
1 Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment as an Integrating Context, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Environmental solutions are not only
scientific-they include historical,
political, economic, and cultural
perspectives. This also implies that
the environment includes buildings,
highways, and ocean tankers as well
as pine trees and coyotes.
• Environmental Education (EE) rests
on a foundation of knowledge about
social and ecological systems.
• Knowledge lays the groundwork for
analyzing environmental problems,
resolving conflicts, and preventing
new problems from arising.
• EE includes the affective domain-
the attitudes, values, and
commitments necessary to build a
sustainable society.
• EE incorporates a human
component in exploring
environmental problems and their
solutions.
The role of educators in addressing
the affective domain can be complex.
Educators should make it clear that
differing personal values exist, that
these values can color the facts, and
that controversy is often motivated by
differing value systems.
EE includes opportunities to build
skills that enhance learners' problem-
solving abilities in such realms as:
• Communication: listening, public
speaking, persuasive writing, and
graphic design
• Investigation: survey design, library
research, interviewing, and data
analysis
• Group process: leadership,
decision making, and cooperation
-------
"The Louisville Water
Company is committed to
environmental education
and will be a strong
partner participant."
-John Huber
Louisville Water Company
AsusedinKRS 157.900 to 157.915:
1. Environmental education means an education process dealing with
the interrelationships among the natural world and its man-made
surroundings; is experience-based; is interdisciplinary in its approach;
and is a continuous life-long process that provides the citizenry with
the basic knowledge and skills necessary to individually and
collectively encourage positive actions for achieving and maintaining
a sustainable balance between man and the environment.
2. Environmental literacy means having adequate knowledge and
understanding of environmental information, concepts and processes.
According to the Kentucky Energy
Education Project:
• U.S. public schools spend more
than $6 billion per year on utilities.
• Nationally, schools spend $151 per
student on electricity, fossil fuels,
and water.
• Last year in Kentucky, the average
spent was about $158 per student.
• In California, public schools use
about 30 to 40 KBTU/sq ft.
• In Kentucky, this intensity ranges
from about 60 to nearly 100 KBTU/
sqft.
Kentucky Schools can recover up to
25 percent of their energy
expenditures by aggressively
retraining pupils, teachers, and
staff.
Most Americans share an abiding belief that we need environmental
education. One can hardly go to a public forum on environmental issues
without hearing a passionate call for increased public environmental
literacy. NEETF/Roper research reveals that this need is so keenly felt that
95 percent of American adults (96 percent of parents) think environmental
education should be taught in the schools, and 90 percent believe that
people in the workplace and in other places in adult society also should
receive environmental education.2
Importance of Environmental Management
A survey of the combined resources of the three partner organizations
reveals the tremendous potential impact of a coordinated effort on
Louisville's environment in terms of resource consumption, resource
management, and human resources. The Partnership Project is one of the
ways in which Metro Government, U of L, and JCPS can make positive
changes and create better outcomes for area students and residents. Not
only do these partners influence and control land, buildings, and large
fleets, but they also deal directly with students, their parents, and the
public. They consume significant amounts of natural resources, energy,
and water, and they generate proportionate amounts of liquid and solid
waste.
Understanding Environmental Literacy in America, NEETF (www.neetf.org), 2004
-------
Table 1
Partners Can Influence Change
Approximate Combined Resources of Metro, U of L, and JCPS
Employees
Land (Acres)
Buildings
Students
Vehicles
Energy Use (annual)
Gas/Diesel (annual)
25,900
25,000
500
120,000
7,000
$33 million
> 10,000,000 gallons
The easiest and lowest-cost environmental stewardship practices, if
implemented in Louisville with the same enthusiasm as in greener cities,
could result in 10 percent or more energy reduction and significant savings
for the budgets of the partners. These savings can be achieved solely by
individuals changing the way they use fuel and energy. Applying state-of-
the-art green building and fuel-efficient fleet technologies to the 500-plus
buildings and 7,000 vehicles controlled by the partners can result in another
5 percent to 10 percent savings. In addition to saving money, the three
organizations can lead by example to improve Louisville's quality of life.
Importance of Public Health
Freedom from unnecessary exposure to environmental pollutants is a
basic tenet in defining quality of life. The impacts of exposure manifest
themselves in terms of restricted activity, increased susceptibility to and
manifestations of illnesses, decreased cognitive capacity, and premature
deaths. In addition to the direct impact on individuals, the public health
costs for additional health preventive services, lost productivity, and
absenteeism pose a significant economic impact on the community.
Louisville has public health risks from environmental contamination:
• The city does not meet national air-quality standards for ozone and
fine particulates.3
• The metropolitan area has been identified as having some of the
highest concentrations of air toxins in the United States.3
• None of the city's streams, or the Ohio River, consistently meet
body-contact recreational standards.4
• Potentially contaminated land exists throughout the metro area.5
• Lead levels in as much as 6 percent to 8 percent of the city's children
are elevated.6
• Asthma rates for children within the city are rising.6
3 Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 4 Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District-M/aters Report 2003
ACCORDING TO THE KENTUCKY
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMISSION:
The majority of evidence indicates
that now, more than ever, the
environment is influencing our health
and the health of our children and
may be contributing to Kentucky's:
• Pediatric asthma rates, which are
among the highest in the United
States.
• Pediatric cancers, the leading
cause of death by disease in
children.
• Birth defects, the leading cause of
child mortality.
• Learning disorders, affecting an
estimated one out of four children.
1 Louisville Metro BrownfieldsTask Force
5 Louisville Metro Department of Health
-------
BEYOND MERGER-A
COMPETITIVE VISION FOR THE
REGIONAL CITY OF
LOUISVILLE
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTE
New Vision
... The moment has arrived for the
new Regional City of Louisville to get
it right and establish itself as one of
the truly distinctive-and
competitive-American cities,
thinking and acting anew so as to
position the community to compete
and flourish in the global economy.
Education
...the improvement in education and
skills of its citizens represents the
single most important challenge
confronting the new Regional City-
ana may ultimately determine the
ability to achieve the promise of
merger. [What is required is]... an
unprecedented commitment to
pulling up the lowest-achieving
students.
Land Management and
Planning
The Regional City should protect its
liability, centrality and efficiency by
managing growth on a metro-wide
basis. [Louisville] must...
• Leaa the wider region toward true
metropolitan-scale coordination
and planning.
• Closely link transportation
planning and construction to land-
use, development, and housing
policies that support metro area
vitality.
• Improve access to affordable
housing throughout the Regional
City.
Why Louisville Should Strive to Be a Green City
Green cities are successful and prosperous. Studies have shown that cities
that advocate for best environmental performance and have a reputation for
accomplishing best practices in environmental stewardship are cities with
diverse and growing populations and healthier economies. These cities are
more attractive to young people and entrepreneurs. Among the greenest of
cities is Minneapolis, Minnesota. Minneapolis is green in its governmental
practices, in its planning and zoning, and in supporting and encouraging
citizen advocacy and participation in environmental decision making. Other
green cities of note include Portland, Oregon; Boulder, Colorado; Seattle,
Washington; and Austin, Texas—all successful, prosperous, and growing,
with reputations that emphasize environmental values and practices.
The Brookings Report/Cornerstone 2020
The 2004 Beyond Merger report has made us aware that with the
transition to a Metro government,7 Louisville has a window of opportunity
to become one of the greenest cities in the United States. Protected by
slow growth, Louisville has not yet developed many of the situations
harmful to the environment and quality of life that other cities have
experienced and found so difficult to remediate. With effective planning
and leadership, as the Brookings report stresses, Louisville need not
develop these problems and, better yet, can become an exceptionally
green, attractive, and flourishing city in which to live. Still, without
significant changes from current and past practices, Louisville will not
attain the success that the merger makes possible.
The Brookings report identifies many examples of environmental
excellence by the three partners. Other examples include U of L's 1999
Phoenix Award for Papa John's Stadium Brownfield Restoration and the
creation of the Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center; JCPS's reduced
energy use, its newly constructed "green building" Shelby Elementary
School, and its 25-year relationship with Blackacre State Nature Preserve;
and Metro Government's Metropolitan Sewer District's (MSB's) main
office, designated an Energy Star Building by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Brightside In-School Environmental
Education Program, and Metro's 2002 Phoenix Award for Waterfront Park
and Slugger Field Brownfield Restoration project. Cornerstone 2020, the
recently completed update of Louisville's Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
provides a template for making significant community-planning changes.
7 Beyond Merger - A Competitive Vision for the Regional City of Louisville
-------
Benefits of Collaboration
Participants in the project identified many benefits that their
organizations could achieve through collaboration:
• Improved education of students and the community
• Economies of scale in coordinated purchasing, contracting, and
environmental management
• Joint studies, research, and assistance for academic studies
• Coordinated grant writing and fundraising
• Shared expertise
• Capacity building in each of the three organizations
• Increased research and development
The recommendations in this report address the most significant
partnering opportunities.
Existing Collaborations and Environmental Excellence
In addition to considering what takes place in other cities, participants
identified existing environmental partnerships in Louisville that facilitate
best practices. They identified numerous examples, and project
participants thought that many existing programs or projects could be
expanded successfully if all of the partners contributed in a more
organized fashion. Some examples of existing programs or projects
involving two or more of the partners are detailed in Appendix B.
Barriers to Collaboration
Project participants identified barriers and constraints to additional
collaborations. Major barriers identified include:
• the lack of leadership structure or of a formal partnering agreement.
• the fact that none of the organizations reward collaboration.
• inadequate recognition and incentives for employers or students to
work toward protecting the environment.
• the autonomous limits of each entity that make even internal
coordination efforts difficult and communication among partners
even more difficult.
• the fact that turf-protection behavior is common to all large
organizations.
• the sheer size of the three organizations.
• the fact that no budget is identified for collaborative projects.
• the existence of cultural limitations and conflicting organizational
priorities.
• the fact that no one has clearly defined desired environmental outcomes.
"By partnering, we get
better prices and greener
projects. We need to
change attitudes and
consciousness about the
environment.There is
more potential now than
ever before for successful
partnering between
Metro GovernmentJCPS,
and U of L"
-Rick Johnstone
Metro Government
-------
"We are very concerned
about providing a safe
environment for our
students, teachers, and
employees. We have many
successes in saving energy
and learning how to
improve energy efficiency
in our school buildings. We
would like for all of our
buildings to be green
buildings."
-Michael Mulheirn
JCPS
B. HOW WE EXECUTED THE PROJECT
Through a participatory process and project approach, all partner
representatives provided input and helped to define future partnering
opportunities and priorities.
Key Elements of the Partnership Project Process
Leadership Interviews
A round of leadership interviews served to communicate project
expectations and identify issues that could affect the project outcomes.
Additional leadership interviews were conducted to review significant
findings and recommendations.
Selection of Participants
Each partner was asked to identify key managers and other individuals
who could effectively represent his or her organization. More than 70
individuals were accordingly invited to participate. Appendix A lists the
project participants. Some flexibility was important, as not all invited
participants could attend all of the meetings. Representatives or
substitutions were allowed.
Orientation
Project participants attended an orientation meeting where leaders of
each partner organization expressed strong expectations for the process
and participants defined their own goals. Participants resolved to provide
some best-practice examples of successful partnering in advance of the
next phase of the project, the cluster meetings.
Facilitated Cluster Meetings
Participants identified potential projects and collaborative
opportunities in a series of all-day facilitated cluster meetings. The three
clusters focused on environmental health, environmental education, and
environmental management. Each session was led by an outside certified
facilitator: Marcelle Gianelloni, Rosane Kruzich, and Marcia Boone. Since
overlap between the clusters was common, facilitators encouraged
participants in each cluster to define their own approach. The facilitated
cluster meetings generated ideas that are the basis for this report's
recommendations. In developing the final recommendations, project
facilitators integrated similar recommendations where appropriate.
Draft Report and Feedback
Key managers identified in the facilitated cluster meetings as project
leaders reviewed a draft report prepared by the project facilitators. Project
facilitators incorporated those managers' comments into the report. The project
-------
facilitators sent their draft report to all participants for review and feedback to
ensure that the final set of recommendations accurately reflected their input.
The Partnership Project in Depth
The Leadership Interviews
Leadership interviews were conducted with the executive leaders and
others identified in the box on this page. Leaders answered questions
concerning the environmental priorities of their organization, their views
on the possibilities for change, and the ways in which they assessed
community support for change and partnering. The discussion covered the
links among education, quality of life, and economic development. Key
findings of these interviews include the following:
Support for Partnering
All leaders interviewed expressed strong support for partnering with
the other organizations, consistent with the project goals. Many had
examples of current efforts intended to increase partnering and
communication. Most were very open about identifying the current
strengths and weaknesses in their organizations' approach to
environmental issues.
Strengths
The interviews revealed that all three organizations can present examples
of partnering, environmental education, and management that have been
recognized at the highest levels. Leaders showed positive support and
enthusiasm for improvement. There was a general confidence that the
community would support changes, especially if those changes were likely
to result in better services, a cleaner environment, and improved educational
outcomes. All of the leaders thought that they had people within their
organizations with the talent and desire to do things better. Probably the
most significant shared value was a universal vision of a better Louisville.
Weaknesses
Leaders were asked about their organization's environmental practices
and policies, as compared to a theoretical green ideal. All interviewees
were open and reflective about how they assessed their organizations, and
similar weaknesses emerged in all the interviews:
1. All three partners have dedicated personnel at some level
committed to environmental programming and regulatory
compliance; however, in general, these efforts are not focused and
are not integrated with executive management.
2. None of the three had a strategic organizational plan focused on
environmental issues.
LEADERSHIP INTERVIEWS
University of Louisville
Dr. James Ramsey
Dr. Nancy Martin
Dr. Robert Felner
Dr. David Tollerud
Larry Detherage
Ken Dietz
Larry Owsley
Cam Metcalf
Jefferson County Public Schools
Dr. Steven Daeschner
Pat Tod d
Michael Mulheirn
Jacque Austin
Marty Bell
Louisville Metro Government
Joan Riehm
Rick Johnstone
Rudy Davidson
Bruce Traughber
Bud Schardein
John Huber
Dr.AdewaleTroutman
Cynthia Knapek
BobSchindler
Sheila Andersen
Mike Heitz
Jody Hamilton
-------
"We are very green and
want to do our share as
part of Metro Government
to make the partnering
project a success."
-Bud Schardein
MSD
10
3. None of the three had a clearly articulated (written) set of
environmental principles and policies that could be shared with
employees and the public.
4. None of the three had publicly accessible performance indicators
and measures at a level that promote best environmental practices.
5. There was no focal point for communication among the partners,
and there was no way to identify environmental issues common to
each partner, although the discussion necessary for creating a
partnering office is under way.
All of the partners were aware of some activity going on within their
organizations to address some of these weaknesses, but none had a current
commitment to address all of them. All of the interviewees expressed
some interest, and most expressed strong interest, in improving their
organization's environmental performance. All view the Partnership for a
Green City as an opportunity to foster change.
How Green Do Our Leaders Think We Are?
The leadership interviews included questions asking how green they
view their organizations, their city, and themselves. The responses
provided a good indication of the current situation and of the potential for
positive change.
In general, but with a few notable exceptions, the leadership among all
three partners viewed their current environmental practice as average or
slightly below average. They agreed that this reflected the current
community standard. The leaders saw themselves as generally being
greener than the organizations they represented. None of them viewed this
project and related efforts to make their organizations greener in a
negative way. A few people identified potential barriers and constraints,
but, over all, nothing was identified that would limit success if the partners
committed to change.
The general message emerging from the leadership interviews for the
project participants can be summarized as follows:
• At best, we are average in our environmental performance. (Many
did, however, note their best environmental accomplishments.)
• We can do better, and partnering is a way for us to do better.
• We (the leaders) want our organizations to do better.
• We recognize that being green can help us to achieve community
goals that relate to education, quality of life, and economic
development.
-------
C. COMMON THEMES FROMTHE FACIUTATED SESSIONS
The three partner group meetings (Health, Education, and
Management) exhibited high energy, and the participants appreciated the
challenge of identifying possible projects. Common themes emerged from
each group:
1. Coordinated purchasing and contracting to obtain economies of
scale
2. Research and research funding (e.g., Congressional earmarks,
grants)
3. Collaborative efforts to educate students and the community
4. Collaborative environmental management programs to obtain
economies of scale (cheaper to buy in larger quantities) and to
share expertise
5. Development of an annual environmental strategy and budget
6. Development of performance indicators to promote best
environmental practices
7. Formal partnering structures and staff to facilitate and coordinate
collaborative projects
D. FOUNDATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP
Two recommendations were so important that they were identified in
some form within each group. These two recommendations are critical to
successful implementation of the project goals:
1. Interagency Coordinating Committee
A high-level, cross-functioning team of partner representatives
can take the Partnership Project through the implementation phase,
can champion projects and programs, and can help secure
permission and funding for recommended initiatives. All three
partner organizations have huge responsibilities, are large and
complex, and ultimately are governed by elected officials and
legislative priorities. Commitment and communication must be
continually renewed.
The leaders of each organization, by creating and supporting a
Partnership Project oversight committee, can do much to make
possible the implementation of many of the green city initiatives
described in this report. The form of this interagency coordinating
committee was not specified, but all agreed that executive-level
"Persuasion, modeling,
and support are the
approaches we must take
to make this project
successful for JCPS."
-PatTodd
JCPS
-------
"I think it's great. We will
give this project a high
priority and look at it as a
way to expand our success
at U of L in environmental
management."
-Larry Owsley
UofL
12
support is essential. There are existing partnerships that could be
expanded to fill this need such as: The Metro Environmental Task
Force, The JCPS Center for Environmental Education (Center for
EE), U of Us KIESD, and the joint U of L/Metro Partnership
Office.
2. Commitment and Incentives
The success of efforts to improve the environmental
performance of each of the organizations will require both top-
down commitment and bottom-up participation. Interviews with
key leaders from each of the three organizations indicated that
general support, at the least, existed for improved environmental
performance within each organization. There must be specific
support and commitment from the upper management of each
organization for improved collaboration. Even with upper
leadership support, the recommendations contained within are not
likely to succeed without the broad support of the organizations'
employees, midlevel managers, students, and the public. Each
organization already is implementing innovative environmental
programs, but they are isolated and incomplete.
The recycling program may best exemplify this phenomenon.
The programs are being universally implemented in all agencies.
However, employees and students receive no feedback on how
much is being recycled or on the value of recycling. The potential
expansion of the programs to cover additional recyclables is often
ignored because it is no one's responsibility to oversee efforts to
minimize the waste being generated by the entire organization.
To obtain the support of employees, midlevel managers,
students, and the general public, each organization must find
ways to:
• Maintain continued awareness of environmental programs.
• Provide incentives for full participation.
• Ensure accountability in implementing programs.
• Improve access to programs.
• Position to get grants and other funding and resources.
-------
E. PRIORITY PROJECTS
These recommendations emerged as priorities identified by the participants.
The table below is a summary of the recommendations from the work group.
Title
Interagency
Coordinating
Committee
Environmental
Standards and
Principles
Energy Use
Partnership
Communitywide
Recycling Project
Buy Green/
Centralize
Environmentally
Preferable
Purchasing
Environmental
Education
Collaboration
Outdoor
Classrooms
Green Issues
Orientation and
Professional
Development
Registry for
Environmental
Public Health
Issues
Asthma Project
Description
A high-level, cross-functioning team of partner
representatives can take the Partnership Project
through the implementation phase, champion
projects and programs, and help secure permission
and funding for recommended initiatives.
Adopt mutually agreeable principles and standards.
Use proven strategies to reduce energy use and
result in budget savings and a larger level of
environmental stewardship.
Combine partner resources and expertise and efforts
to recycle, reuse, and reduce waste.
Pool and jointly purchase green products and
services cost-effectively.
Develop a comprehensive, long-term focus for
environmental education both in the schools and in
the community.
Every school should have access to an outdoor
classroom.
Connect and implement partner resources to improve
and enhance professional development and training for
teachers and informal educators; incorporate
environmental priorities and partnership goals into
employee and student orientation; and support
employee exchanges and/or participation in education.
Close information gaps that thwart effective public
health programs. Assess linkages among health and
school attendance and academic performance.
A coordinated community attempt to address and
manage asthma will enhance quality of life and
reduce hospital admissions/emergency room visits,
and missed school days.
Lead contact information
New U of L/Metro
Government/JCPS
Partnership Office,
Metropolitan Center
Metro Environmental
Division, KIESDJCPS
Kentucky Pollution
Prevention Center (KPPC)
Metro Solid Waste
Management Dept.
KPPC; purchasing directors
of each institution
Center for Environmental
Education
JCPS Center for EE,
Brightside, Metro Parks
Human resources offices
of each institution
Metro Department of
Health
U of [School of Public
Health
"The Jefferson County
Teachers Association
strongly supports making
Louisville a Green City.
More than ever before,
environmental education
is essential to the future
of our society."
-Brent McKim
JCTA President
"This is a great project.
All of these
recommendations fit our
mission and our goal for a
healthy community.
Partnerships are very
important to us."
-Dr.AdewaleTroutman
Metro Health Department
-------
Table 2
CERES Principles
(www.ceres.org)
Principle No. 1
Protection of the biosphere
Principle No. 2
Sustainable use of natural
resources
Principle No. 3
Reduction and recycling of
waste
Principle No. 4
Energy conservation
Principle No. 5
Risk reduction
Principle No. 6
Safe services
Principle No. 7
Environmental restoration
Principle No. 8
Informing the public
Principle No. 9
Management commitment
Principle No. 10
Audits and reports
14
Recommendation: Adoption of Environmental Standards
and Principles
Purpose
Participants and project leaders identified the need for common standards
and environmental principles to guide employees, students, and members
of the community in implementing the recommendations of this report.
Implementation
Create an interagency work group to develop or adopt mutually
acceptable environmental principles and standards to be used to guide
policy decisions and programs in each of the organizations. One possible
set of standards that could be adopted is the CERES Principles (see Table
2), already in use by MSD.
More than 80 major companies, including General Motors, Ford, Sunoco,
and Coca-Cola, have formally adopted the CERES Principles. Another
approach would be for the partners to develop and adopt a unique set of
standards that includes priorities identified by the project participants,
including:
• Models for sustainable living
• Healthy city
• Continuous learning and improvement
• Sound land stewardship
• Standards for energy conservation and use of renewable energy
• Social justice
• Pollution prevention
• Sound and growing economy
It was not possible to develop the standards as part of the first phase of
this project. However, it is very important to the success of the project that
the partners develop and adopt common standards and principles to insure
the most successful implementation of the recommendations in this report.
Potential Benefits
The development of written environmental principles and standards would
meet the need for a clearly articulated set of environmental principles and
policies that could be shared with employees and the public.
Funding
A limited amount of funding is required to develop environmental
principles and standards.
-------
Recommendation: Create an Energy Use Partnership
Purpose
Reduced energy use results in budget savings and a larger level of
environmental stewardship.
Implementation:
An energy use task force will be formed with representatives from each
partner's operations divisions. This task force will develop strategies to
conduct energy audits and to share information and experience among
partners. It will conduct energy/green building audits in locations the
partners propose. Student involvement will be encouraged, and attempts
will be made to train, supervise, and use student audit teams at school
buildings. If successful, these teams could audit JCPS, Metro Government,
and U of L buildings. Strategies used will be both structural and
nonstructural. Using proven, energy-saving technologies and changing
employee and student energy-use behavior will result in significant
savings. The team will also develop performance contracting and shared
purchasing and contracting approaches.
• First Six Months: The task force will be formed and will identify
collaborative strategies and priorities for partner initiatives.
• Five-Year Goal: All U of L, JCPS, and Metro Government buildings
will be audited and scheduled for green building retrofits. Employee
and student training on energy savings will have been implemented
and reinforced. Energy savings will be documented.
Potential Benefits
All partners can easily achieve a 10 percent to 20 percent energy cost
reduction in building operations, which will result in millions saved for
partner energy conservation initiatives and other purposes.
Funding
Cost savings in the years after the audit will offset initial expense. Savings
over time should be at least 10 percent to 20 percent of current costs.
Payback for green building initiatives often takes fewer than three years.
JCPS already has used performance service contracting successfully. MSD
has paid back investments many times over for retrofitting all of its
buildings with energy-efficient lighting and for applying other energy-
saving strategies.
"If we ever hope to have
less energy dependence
in America, buildings must
be a big part of the deal.
The country has 5 million
commercial structures, 76
million residential.They
account for two-fifths of
total national energy use.
And we keep building
them at a furious pace-
an estimated 38 million
new buildings by the end
of this decade. The
environmental stakes are
immense. Buildings
generate a third of our
carbon dioxide emissions
(a chief culprit in global
warming).They're
responsible for half our
sulfur dioxide emissions, a
quarter of nitrous oxide
emissions, major acid rain
and smog problems,
according to a Progressive
Policy Institute roundup."
-Neal Price
2004 Washington Post
Writers Group
-------
"You have our 100-
percent support. This is
an exciting project."
-Rudolph Davidson
Metro Public Works Secretary
16
Recommendation: Communitywide Recycling Project
Purpose
Combine partner resources and expertise. Recharge efforts to reduce,
reuse, and recycle waste. In a parallel and related activity, engage schools
and students to recycle consumer goods.
Justification
Partner participants all have ongoing recycling and re-use programs that
have languished during periods of conflicting budget and organizational
priorities. All have commitments including some regulatory obligations to
reduce, reuse, and recycle waste. All have identified significant
opportunities to improve but have difficulty obtaining organizational
commitments. In addition, some waste streams are subject to economy-of-
scale and market issues that may limit their individual potential but could
be enhanced if the partners coordinated their efforts. Partners working
together have the opportunity to build markets and achieve savings.
Implementation
The Metro Department of Solid Waste Management will convene a partner
working group, with U of L's KPPC as a significant resource. The working
group will:
1. Assess and evaluate existing recycling programs and contracts.
2. Inventory waste streams and identify current and potential markets
for recycled and potentially recycled materials.
3. Develop any needed Request for Proposals (RFP) to contract
delivery of services to effectively recycle on a partnership basis.
4. Develop a long-term strategic plan to evaluate, improve, and
expand items recycled by JCPS, Metro Government, and U of L.
5. Create a means of reporting to employees and students the level of
recycling and success of the program within individual buildings.
Initial efforts will include paper and paperboard, plastics, aluminum cans,
corrugated cardboard, scrap metal, and obsolete electronics. A sub-team
with construction expertise will focus on the re-use of construction
material, which participants identified as a special waste stream
inadequately recycled now. Partners could have immediate impact by
approaching the issue on a partnership basis. This waste stream includes
clean fill dirt, gravel, mulch, and construction debris (bricks, asphalt,
lumber, concrete, and other waste from demolition and/or partner
construction projects). Partners identified sharing stockpile locations,
-------
reprocessing contracts, and pick-up/delivery resources as a means of
improving construction material reuse.
• First Six Months: Form a working group. Develop a long-term
strategic plan. Issue RFPs. Identify construction material stockpile
locations.
• Long Term: Implement a long-term plan. Monitor process, and
report results.
Potential Benefits
Partners agree that small initial costs can be converted to savings. The
partners believe markets can be created or enhanced over time and that
other public and private sector companies can also benefit.
Funding
Initial costs are mostly staff costs, from staff dedicated to waste-
management issues within the partner organizations. Savings will offset
some of the long-term costs, with a potential for significant savings over
time.
WHY RECYCLE?
Recycling conserves landfill space,
energy, and natural resources.
Recyclables are easily marketed and
find their way quickly into new, usable
products. Recycling sparks a powerful
cycle of events that saves our
environment and makes our
community a better place to live.
-------
WHY PURCHASE
ENVIRONMENTALLY
PREFERABLE PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES?
Did you know that the United States
consumes approximately 25% of the
world's resources with only 5% of the
world's population?
Did you know that the U.S. federal
government is the single largest
consumer of goods and services in
the U.S., and probably, in the world -
spending more than $200 billion
annually on goods and services? The
federal government also spends an
additional $240 billion a year,
indirectly, through grant
disbursements.
EPA recognizes the influence the
United States, and in particular, the
U.S. government, has on what
products and services are produced
due to this tremendous purchasing
power. EPP works to leverage that
influence to minimize environmental
burdens.
THE BENEFITS OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY
PREFERABLE PURCHASING
• Improved ability to meet existing
environmental goals
• Improved worker safety and health
• Reduced liabilities
• Reduced health and disposal costs
From: www.epa.gov/epp
18
Recommendation: Buy Green/Centralize
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Purpose
Partners can use the ability to pool and jointly purchase green products
and services cost-effectively.
Justification
In the past, buying green was hampered by a lack of choice among
competitive green alternatives. This has changed, as more large
governmental units and corporations have committed to environmentally
preferable purchasing. More products and green options now exist.
Partners have not taken advantage of the opportunities to purchase goods
jointly using economies of scale and a more focused assessment of green
products and services. Partners jointly use huge quantities of fuel, energy,
consumables, and durable goods and services, and all partners have
significant waste-disposal budgets that could be reduced.
Implementation
Partners will form a purchasing consortium (not limited solely to buying
green but committed to doing so when favorable options can be found)
with representatives from purchasing and facilities management
departments from each partner. Units of Metro Government with
independent purchasing authority will also be invited to participate. The
consortium will define the mission and assign responsibility/leads to:
1. Inventory current purchasing practices and policies.
2. Develop "buy green" policies and procedures (as well as potential
green products and services lists) that can be used by all three
partners.
3. Conduct training of purchasing staff with each of the partners to
acquaint them with the importance of green purchasing and using
green products and services lists, and to communicate new
purchasing policies.
4. Measure and monitor an increase in green products and services
use and a reduction in costs.
5. Communicate "buy green" success to employees, students, and the
community.
6. Conduct green product testing and specification development as
needed.
-------
• First Six Months: Form consortium, identify partner
representatives, and provide training.
• Long Term: Begin inventory of current practices and policies.
Draft "buy green" policy and procedures. Identify potential
green products and services. Implement "buy green" policy and
joint-purchasing initiative. Measure and monitor progress and
success. Communicate success with employees, students, and
the community.
Potential Benefits
The partner participants, including those familiar with current practice,
were enthusiastic about the potential for their organizations to buy green
and purchase jointly as a means to reduce costs and move towards more
sustainable purchasing and use of goods and services. Health benefits can
occur through the reduction of chemical exposures and risks to students,
employees, and the general public.
Funding
Start-up costs are small and involve more partner commitment to the effort
than dollars. While ongoing costs are insignificant, ongoing savings are
potentially large.
-------
"This is a perfect time for
us to be involved."
-Dean Robert Felner
U of L College of Education and
Human Development
"It is important to make
the connections between
environmental education
and learning.There are no
conflicts between meeting
educational goals for our
students, including
improved test scores, and
having good
environmental education
opportunities for every
student and having access
to outdoor classrooms at
every school. Making real-
life connections results in
more successful students."
-Jacque Austin
JCPS
20
Recommendation: Environmental Education Collaboration
Purpose
A coordinated approach to environmental education is needed to develop
and expand programs, professional development, research, and evaluation.
Every student and citizen should be able to apply informed decision
making to maintain a sustainable lifestyle and develop a fundamental
understanding of environmental processes. A coordinated approach will be
spearheaded by expanding the existing U of L/JCPS Center for EE to
include Metro Government.
Justification
As evidenced by the extensive list of their collaborative educational
projects (Appendix B), all three partners currently are working together,
but there is a need for better coordination, planning, and research. The
Center for EE has been a collaborative effort of U of L and JCPS for the
past ten years. Although the Center for EE has worked collaboratively
with a number of Metro Government agencies on individual projects, to
date there has been no formal agreement with Metro Government. Formal
participation in the Center for EE by Metro Government would strengthen
the existing center as well as the various Metro Government agencies
implementing environmental education programs.
The strengthened center will develop grant applications, engage in cooperative
training, ensure that environmental education curricula meet JCPS scope and
sequence, create an interdisciplinary network through the KIESD and Metro
Government agencies, and conduct research. The Center for EE will help the
U of L College of Education and Human Development meet two new
requirements of the Kentucky Educational Professional Standards Board
(EPSB). In 2002, EPSB developed a new requirement that environmental
education be infused into preservice teacher-preparation programs. On May
19, 2004, the EPSB approved an endorsement program for environmental
education, which will need to be developed and implemented.
Implementation
There will be three codirectors of the Center for EE, representing Metro
Government, JCPS, and U of L.
JCPS: The director of the JCPS Center for EE in the Department of
Curriculum and Assessment
U of L: A full-time, tenure-track faculty member with an
appointment in the U of L College of Education and Human
-------
Development with a specialization and research interest in
environmental education
Metro Government: A joint appointment of Metro Government and
U of L focusing on coordinating Metro Government agencies'
environmental education programs for schools and the community
For administrative and grant support, the Center for EE will be attached to
KIESD, which is part of the U of L Office for Research.
Key tasks for the Center for EE will include:
1. Adopting the environmental education standards developed by
KEEC and working with the U of L College of Education and
Human Development to incorporate the standards into their
preservice training program.
2. Seeking approval for an environmental education endorsement at
U of L through the Kentucky Professional Standards Board. This
endorsement would be developed and administered through a
collaborative effort between the JCPS Gheens Academy and the
U of L College of Education and Human Development.
3. Linking existing and future environmental education curricula to
the JCPS Core Content guides. Coordinating Metro Government
education programs to ensure that they support the JCPS scope and
sequence and, with the help of Metro Government agencies,
developing future environmental education curricula.
4. Professional Development—Developing and implementing a
program for certified staff in JCPS to teach environmental
education curricula identified above. Professional Development
(PD) courses will be conducted using resources of U of L, JCPS,
and Metro Government. Schools will be linked with community-
based educators and Metro Government agencies.
5. Providing U of L graduate and undergraduate students with
environmental education experiences in local schools,
environmental education organizations, and Metro Parks through
graduate assistantships, internships, and in-class observations.
6. Creating a position for a school-based environmental leader to
promote environmental education, energy reduction, recycling,
outdoor classrooms, and environmental clubs at every JCPS school.
7. Conducting and disseminating environmental education research
on the impact of environmental education on student performance
and on the impact of environmental toxins on cognitive learning.
SERVICE-LEARNING
OPPORTUNITIES INHERENT IN
THE PARTNERSHIP PROJECT
Service learning is an instructional,
knowledge-work strategy actively
involving students in the application
of academic knowledge and critical-
thinking skills to address community
needs. If all JCPS students availed
themselves of service-learning
opportunities, more than one million
hours of community service would
result. Students want meaningful
service-learning and environmental
projects, and those that are included
in the Partnership Project are exactly
what is needed.
Service-learning projects have three
components (preparation, action, and
reflection) that match the
environmental literacy goals (page 3).
Most of the recommendations and
the additional projects listed in the
Appendix offer significant service-
learning opportunities including
outdoor classrooms, energy-use
partnership, and communitywide
recycling. Many potential Science
Fair/Research/Senior Capstone
Projects with a service-learning focus
can evolve from initiatives of the
Partnership Project.
It is intended that service learning be
incorporated into implementation
plans for each recommendation as
appropriate and that JCPS and U of L
students and teachers be included in
every aspect of planning and
implementation.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CORE
KNOWLEDGE
1. How do the natural and social
systems interact?
2. How are human attitudes and
behavior and environmental quality
interdependent?
3. How does one best manage
renewable and nonrenewable
resources?
4. What are the economics of
environmental quality?
5. Do I know the community in which I
live?
6. Am I able to logically evaluate
alternative responses to
environmental issues?
7. Do I know the effects of multiple
uses of the environment?
According to the KDE and the KEEC,
environmental education content,
materials, and programs should:
• Be standards-based.
• Include hands-on activities that
lead to problem solving and critical
thinking.
• Include community-based
instruction.
• Be interdisciplinary.
• Include authentic assessments.
• Be age-appropriate.
• Be inquiry-based.
• Use scientific processes to study
interactive systems.
• Serve all students.
• Promote independent thinking.
• Address social, cultural, and
physical diversity.
22
Potential Benefits
Using the environment as an integrating context for learning has been shown
to improve student performance. The environment provides a framework for
education that is interdisciplinary, collaborative, student-centered, and
hands-on. It employs schools, as well as the surrounding community, as a
framework within which students conduct their own learning guided by
JCPS teachers, U of L, and Metro Government professionals. The observed
benefits of using the environment as the context for learning have been:
• Better academic performance in reading, writing, mathematics, science,
and social studies, particularly with lower-performing students.
• Reduced discipline and classroom-management problems.
• Increased engagement and enthusiasm for learning.
• Greater pride and ownership in accomplishments.
Curricula currently being promoted by Metro Government agencies are not tightly
aligned with the educational standards and the core content that local schools are
required to teach. Often educational programs are delivered directly to classrooms
without teacher professional development. This approach is costly, reaches only
limited numbers of students and—without integration into overall teaching—is of
limited value. An expanded center that includes Metro Government would
provide a mechanism for efficiently coordinating and ensuring systemic coverage
to all public school classrooms at the appropriate grade level.
Funding
The revised Center for EE will require the creation of two new faculty lines in
U of L's College of Education and Human Development. One of the lines will
be a joint appointment with Metro Government, which will pick up 50 percent
of the cost of the position. Partial funding may be available from the state. In
the 2002 regular session, the General Assembly passed KRS 224.43-505, which
created a bond issue whose funds would be used to clean up abandoned
landfills. The interest from that bond issue was directed to the KEEC to
implement the environmental education center component of the
Environmental Education Master Plan. In January 2004, monies began
accumulating in this fund.
The General Assembly mandated the creation of environmental education
centers in 1990 with KRS 157.915(3), which states that one of the functions of
the KEEC is to establish and help coordinate the activities of regional
environmental education centers and advisory committees at all state universities
to serve as networks for the dissemination of environmental education programs,
materials, and information across the state. These centers will serve as catalysts
to improve the way college and university students, elementary and secondary
teachers, and the public learn about their environment.
-------
Recommendation: All Schools Should Have Access to
Outdoor Classrooms
Purpose
The Center for EE will help schools develop outdoor classrooms through
the identification of open spaces, development of site-based learning
potential, and provision of professional development necessary for
teachers to be able to use the local environment as a context for learning.
Contexts beyond the four walls of a single classroom would include
school buildings and campuses, neighborhood parks, and other community
public lands and facilities within walking distance of the school. To
provide a consistent message, the partners will jointly adopt land-
stewardship principles and approaches and best-management strategies
that emphasize green practices and sustainability.
Justification
Experiential education using schools and outdoor classrooms as learning
contexts has been shown to improve student academic performance and
test scores. However, only a small number of students are currently
afforded outdoor and experiential education opportunities because of lack
of funding, lack of access to place, or other constraints. Outdoor
classrooms are powerful vehicles to achieve educational goals. They
motivate young people to learn, building on what Rachel Carson calls the
"sense of wonder." Natural places are rich learning environments, which
provide a multitude of hands-on experiences grounded in real-life
learning. Outdoor classrooms support curriculum objectives in all content
areas, including science, mathematics, social studies, language arts, health,
physical education, and other subjects. The JCPS Center for EE has
developed an elementary outdoor classroom curriculum matrix to provide
educators with an idea of the academic uses of outdoor classrooms (see
Appendix D).
Partners' resources are vast, and all partner participants expressed interest
in helping and using community facilities for learning. Engaging students
in real-world learning and helping partners become better managers and
land stewards can have profound impacts.
Metro Parks has 122 parks covering more than 13,500 acres. Louisville
Metro Government has more than 850 vacant lots that could be used as
outdoor classrooms. Schools will be encouraged to adopt as outdoor
classrooms individual public lands to which pupils can walk, so that they
will have significant opportunity to explore their local community and to
"We're on board with this
project. It brings home the
message that the city is a
park and supports the
mayor's initiative of
citizens and groups
adopting parks."
-Michael Heitz
Metro Parks Department
Director
"I see very significant
opportunities for involving
JCPS and U of L students
in research projects
involving urban and
suburban ecology in
Louisville. Many good
things will come from this
partnering project."
-Dr. Margaret M. Carreiro
UofL
-------
"By transforming the
schoolyard into an
outdoor classroom, not
only are we enriching the
learning environment for
our students, but we also
are enhancing the
habitats for many plants
and animals of our
community. We are
supporting the planet's
biodiversity in our own
schoolyard."
-Bryan Thompson
JCPS
24
develop service-learning opportunities. If local schools adopted some of
the vacant lots in their neighborhoods, much could be accomplished to
clean up blighted neighborhoods while students learn basic skills that will
help them be academically successful.
Implementation
The implementation of the community wide outdoor-classroom approach at
the level envisioned by the participants is complex and crosses
organizational and cultural boundaries for all of the partners. An
interagency group will oversee this activity. School-based initiatives will
focus on bringing outside resources to the campus and will help use the
campus and the surrounding neighborhood as a more effective learning
environment linked to specific curriculum objectives that are consistent
with core content requirements.
A model for implementation could include:
1. A GIS analysis of schools, Metro Parks, and vacant lots to identify
parks and open spaces that schools could adopt as an outdoor
classroom; a survey of all principals and environmental education
contacts to determine interest in developing their own land and/or
adopting a local park or open space.
2. The creation of school-based environmental teams ideally comprised
of an administrator, teachers, a plant operator, parents, students, a
community land manager, and an environmental researcher.
3. The development of a resource guide to help teachers connect their
classroom work with an outdoor classroom; cataloguing existing
projects and evaluating existing resources with the intention of
linking every school to communitywide resources such as
Blackacre State Nature Preserve, Jefferson County Memorial
Forest, Louisville Nature Center, the Louisville Zoo, Bernheim
Forest, the Louisville Science Center, and Metro Parks.
4. Encouraging schools to adopt a Metro Government park as a
community outdoor classroom.
5. Developing relationships with health-promotion schools of
excellence to encourage students to walk one mile three times a
week in their outdoor classrooms.
6. JCPS, U of L, and Metro Government staff offering professional
development for teachers.
7. Developing a common and consistent message among entities; the
Center for EE working with the three partners to develop a
-------
statement of land management (by linking partner lands with land
stewardship, learning, and research). Facility managers from each
of the partners will develop best-management practices for public
lands. These will offer students opportunities for education and
outdoor learning, service-learning projects, and research. This
component of the project will build upon and expand successful
partner efforts identified as part of the project by formalizing
relationships and developing standardized approaches that will
strengthen the existing school/community partnerships.
Six-Month Goals: Establish the task force, conduct a survey, and
create curriculum correlations.
"In an age of rapid urban
development, creating a
land ethic to manage
green space is essential
for preservation."
-Carolyn Cromer
Blackacre Foundation Inc.
• Five-Year Goals: Affirm ongoing partner commitments. All schools
will have access to outdoor classrooms and opportunities for students
to experience meaningful out-of-classroom learning. Teacher
training will include instruction in the use of outdoor/out-of-
classroom tools and curricula. Curricula will be available for all
schools at all learning levels and will be linked to core content and
learning expectations. Partner resources available to teachers and
schools will be identified and will be easily accessible. Evaluation
criteria will be identified, and evaluation of the effectiveness of
programs will be embedded in the implementation.
Potential Benefits
Based upon a study of 70 schools nationwide, including several JCPS
schools, test scores at schools that emphasize environmental and
experiential education showed an increase over those from traditional in-
classroom learning approaches. Environmental education includes
stewardship and citizenship consistent with local, state, and federal
emphasis on clean water, clean air, recycling, conservation of resources,
and the impact of individual and societal behaviors on the environment
and the community. Green cities result in a better living and learning
environment, as well as in a more vigorous local economy that attracts and
retains an educated workforce and a higher quality of life.
Funding
Funding for the six-month goals can be found within the resources of the
partners. Most of the recommendations build upon existing successful
efforts of the partners. Significant funds could be required to develop
walking paths, transform public landscapes, and plant native species.
-------
Recommendation: Conduct Regular Green Issues
Orientations/Professional Development for Employees
Purpose
Regular environmental awareness programs are needed to enhance
compliance with the partners' environmental goals of energy conservation,
material reduction, reusing and recycling, improving air and water quality,
and promoting a healthier lifestyle. The partners' environmental goals will
be included in employee and student orientation by supporting employee
exchanges and participation in environmental education. A recognition/
award program will be developed to encourage and identify outstanding
environmental employees. One hopeful outcome is for the partners to
develop a common language and set of goals for the green-city initiatives.
Justification
Collectively, the partners employ more than 25,000 people, and many of
the recommendations made in this report to promote a green city will
require their support and action. To ensure a consistent message and to
efficiently convey information, a collaborative effort will be needed to
inform and educate employees of actions that they can and must take to
ensure a green city. The adoption of environmental principles, wise energy
use, recycling, environmentally preferable purchasing, environmental
education, and health priorities will require action by all employees.
Partners can engage employees and others in this process only if they
proactively support employee participation in learning and show them
how to use that knowledge to improve the environment. The learning
process will require a range of training programs, ranging from improving
awareness to professional development.
Implementation
Environmental educators within each of the three organizations will work
to prepare an educational program to provide preservice training and
professional development.
• First Six Months: The committee will inventory environmental
education programs for employees, including determining who is
leading these programs and what their goals are. The committee will
propose a systematic, well-coordinated scheme for environmental
education among and across the partners. It will identify who will
take primary responsibility for each educational program, how often
it will be conducted, and the nature of the educational program.
26
-------
Long-Term Goals: Conduct orientations for existing and new
employees on new policies and programs that occur as a result of
recommendations of this report (e.g., buying green, new recycling
policies, adoption of environmental principles, energy conservation
measures). These orientations could be conducted jointly so that
employees from all three organizations would receive the same
information. Additional professional development will be needed for
some programs to be effectively implemented (e.g., purchasing
officers knowing how to identify green products, plant managers
understanding energy-efficiency measures to be implemented, health
registries and asthma education being implemented).
Potential Benefits
A key piece of the foundation for creating a green city will be the support
and participation by the employees of the three organizations. That support
and leadership will translate into communitywide support and
participation, engaged students, and improvements in the quality of life in
the Metro area.
Funding
Funding needs for some of these programs are generally small. For
employees, the focus is on integration with existing initiatives and training
(such as employee orientation). Funds will be needed for the recognition
program.
-------
Children at Risk
Exposure to lead can
affect anyone, but children
age 6 and younger face
special hazards. According
to the Kentucky Health
and Family Services
Cabinet's Lead Program,
lead, which children often
consume as paint chips or
paint dust, can impair the
development of infants'
brains, lowering
intelligence, reducing
attention spans, and
causing children to
become hyperactive.
-The Courier-Journal
Feb. 11,2004
28
Recommendation: Develop a Registry for Environmental
Public Health Issues
Purpose
To fill information gaps that thwart effective delivery of public health
programs, including assessing linkages between health, school attendance,
and academic performance.
Justification
Better data is needed to understand public health issues, especially those
related to children and academic performance. Asthma, cancer, birth
defects, sleep apnea, immunization effectiveness, and toxic exposures,
including lead, are examples of community and professional public health
concerns of the partners. Within the past several years, community groups
have been increasingly vocal about the information gaps that exist on local
environmental health issues. Asthma is the number-one cause of student
absenteeism, and lead poisoning has a major impact upon children and is a
significant cause of attention deficit disorders.
Implementation
The Louisville Metro Health Department will take the lead on this
initiative. The U of L School of Public Health and the JCPS Student Safety
and Relations Office (containing both the Attendance Office and the
Health Office) have agreed to be active partners. Private-sector and local,
state, and federal participation will be solicited.
• Six-Month Goal: The working group would be formed and would
begin an inventory of existing data, problems, and data gaps related
to priorities.
• Five-Year Goals: Identify additional registries needed, and
implement the creation and maintenance of the registries.
Potential Benefits
Significant funding for research, the testing of all preschool children for
lead and asthma, increased attendance, and improved test scores
Funding
Long-term funding costs are unknown and will vary according to the
findings and recommendations of the registry assessment group. Short-
term funding costs are low and consist primarily of organizational
commitments from the partners.
-------
Recommendation: Focus on Asthma
Purpose
To create a task force for surveillance and evaluation that will lead to the
education of our community regarding asthma.
Justification
The Center for Disease Control notes that asthma is a leading cause of
student absenteeism nationwide and in JCPS particularly and is an
increasing health risk locally and nationally, a risk that has doubled in the
last 20 years. The Metro Health Department reports data that shows higher
instances of asthma among African-American and other minority
populations. One survey showed 10.5 percent of all those surveyed (not
just minorities) had been told by a physician that they have asthma. The
Metro Health Department is currently studying hospital discharge data for
asthma incidence. While asthma may be effectively treated with inhaled
corticosteroids and bronchodilators, the cost of absenteeism is
considerable. Research has shown that poorer-performing schools have
higher percentages of students with unrecognized symptoms of asthma.
Considerable attention has been given to asthma in the general news media,
and a more coordinated community response is recommended.
Implementation
A task force would be jointly appointed by the Partnership Project. The
task force would evaluate community asthma issues and current responses
and recommend a long-term agenda. This agenda would include:
• Improved patient and community asthma awareness and education.
• Increased monitoring of lung function to diagnose asthma
prevalence.
• Improved access to and improved quality of clinical care.
• Reduced exposure to environmental triggers.
• Improved coordination among schools, health care providers,
insurers, community-based agencies, local health departments,
parents, and caregivers.
JCPS has already initiated school-based education and audit programs to
identify potential triggers of asthma. This effort can be expanded to
include Metro Government and U of L participation. To improve
coordination among health-care providers, an asthma center will be
established to provide a central point for patients and parents to seek
assistance.
"Nothing is linked more to
environmental causes
than asthma and lead.The
key to the success of the
registry is how much
information on acute and
chronic diseases can be
gathered."
-Dr. David Tollerud
UofL
-------
Potential Benefits
Asthma rates in Louisville have a significant impact on the quality of life of
children and adults. Asthma hits poorer, inner-city residents hardest and
disproportionately but impacts students at all socioeconomic levels.
Increased education, health-care assistance, and diagnosis can succeed in
managing this public health problem. Managing asthma will enhance the
quality of life of asthma sufferers, reduce hospital admissions/emergency
room visits that impose significant costs on the community, and reduce the
number of missed school days.
Funding
Funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for
Environmental Health Science (NIEHS), other federal agencies, private
foundations, pharmaceutical corporations, and health-care providers is
available to address this public-health issue. The University of Louisville
School of Public Health will take a leadership role in obtaining funding.
The Partnership for a Green City
Project has shown us on a small scale
what is possible for Louisville on a
much larger scale. The process of
collaboration for the project has itself
been beneficial.The project has built
links and dialogue and increased
enthusiasm and creativity. As the seed
fora new beginning,The Partnership
for a Green City Project shows us our
potential for growth. Louisville
provides fertile ground in which to
nurture this seed.
F. FUTURE ACTIVITIES
The three partners will commit to support these recommendations. They
will solicit funding and participation to implement them. Some funding
options have already been identified. Other partners (the state and federal
governments; the private sector; environmental nongovernmental
organizations) may be recruited as partner initiatives evolve. Formal
approval of the project recommendations is desirable but not necessary for
progress to be made. The community's leadership and the leaders of the
three partners, who together are making this project possible, will be
instrumental in helping the promise of this effort reach its highest level of
success, resulting in the realization of substantial benefits for the entire
community.
30
-------
Appendix A
THE PARTNERSHIP FORA GREEN CITY
METRO GOVERNMENT PARTICIPANT LIST
Sheila Anderson Metro Health Department
Bonnie Biemer Metro Development Authority
Jim Brammell Louisville Water Company
Marie Burnett Waste Management District
Sarah Lynn Cunningham Metropolitan Sewer District
Rudolph Davidson Secretary for Public Works
Kelly Dearing-Smith Louisville Water Company
Terry Dunn Waste Management District
Phyllis Fitzgerald Air Pollution Control District
Marcelle Gianelloni Louisville Zoo
Jody Hamilton Metro Parks
Cass Harris Waste Management District
Lisa Kite Metro Parks
Mike Heitz Metro Parks
Susan Hamilton Metro Development Authority
Dr. Kraig Humbaugh Metro Health Department
James Hunt Metropolitan Sewer District
Cynthia Knapek Brightside
Doug McCoy Louisville Zoo
Theresa Mattel Louisville Science Center
Dennis Minks Metro Development Authority
FredNett Metro Development Authority
Judy Nielsen Metro Health Department
BethNolte Louisville Science Center
Susan Rademaker Metro Parks
Joan Riehm Deputy Mayor
Bob Schindler Solid Waste Management—Director
Julie Shinton Brightside
Rengao Song Louisville Water Company
Bruce Traughber Secretary for Community Development
Dr. Adewale Troutman Metro Health Department—Director
Richard Wellinghurst Metro Health Department
Ann Wethington Metro Health Department
Connie Willis Metro Health Department
Barry Zalph Air Pollution Control District 31
-------
THE PARTNERSHIP FORA GREEN CITY
U of L PARTICIPANT LIST
Dr. Tim Aldrich Health Sciences/Epidemiology
Russ Barnett Kentucky Institute for the Environment and Sustainable Development
Dr. Paul Bukaveckas College of Arts and Sciences/Biology
Dr. Barbara Burns College of Arts and Sciences/Psychology
Dr. Bill Bush College of Education and Human Development, Mathematics/Science Center
Dr. Michael Byrne Health Sciences/Medical Administration
Dr. Margaret Carreiro College of Arts and Sciences/Biology
Dr. Richard Clover School of Public Health and Information Science—Dean
Larry Detherage Physical Plant—Director
Kenneth Dietz Planning, Design and Construction—Director
Dr. Allan Dittmer College of Education and Human Development,
Teaching and Learning and Arts and Sciences/Psychology Dept.
Dr. Veronnie Faye Jones Health Sciences/Pediatrics
Dr. Robert Felner College of Education and Human Development—Dean
Dr. John Gilderbloom School of Urban and Public Affairs/
Center for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods
Dr. Lauren Heberle School of Urban and Public Affairs/
Center for Environmental Policy and Management
Cheri Hildreth Watts Environmental Health and Safety—Director
Dr. Karen Karp College of Education and Human Development, Teaching and Learning
Dr. Paul Lederer Speed School/Civil and Environmental Engineering
Dr. Clara Leuthart College of Arts and Sciences/Geography
Lissa McCracken Speed School/Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center
Dr. Nancy Martin Research—Vice President
Cam Metcalf Speed School/Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center—Director
Dr. Peter Meyer School of Urban and Public Affairs/
Center for Environmental Policy and Management
Dr. Dennis Molfese College of Arts and Sciences/Psychology
Dr. Victoria Molfese College of Education and Human Development, Center for Childhood Research
Dr. Steven Myers Health Sciences/Pharmacology
Larry Owsley Business Affairs—Vice President
Dr. William Penrod College of Education and Human Development, Teaching and Learning
Dr. Margaret Pentecost College of Education and Human Development, Administration
Dr. Thomas Rockaway Speed School/Center for Infrastructure Research
Dr. Bryant Stamford College of Education and Human Development, Teaching and Learning
Dr. Barbara Stetson College of Arts and Sciences/Psychology
Rebecca Stutsman School of Medicine
Dennis Sullivan Environmental Health and Safety
Dr. David Tollerud Environmental and Occupational Health Science
Dr. Deborah Wilson Justice Administration—Chair
32
-------
THE PARTNERSHIP FORA GREEN CITY
JCPS PARTICIPANT LIST
Jacque Austin Curriculum and Assessment—Director
Marty Bell.... Community Development and Governmental Relations—Deputy to Superintendent
Aaron Bivins Central High School Magnet Career Academy, 2004 Graduate
Larnell Brown Kennedy Metro Middle School
Tommy Brown Sr C.B. Young Jr. Service Center—
Director for Mechanical and Electronic Maintenance
Aukram Burton Diversity and Multicultural Education Office—
Multicultural Education Specialist
Bonnie Ciarroccki Health Promotion Schools of Excellence
Dr. David Crawford DuPont Manual High School
Carolyn Cromer Blackacre Foundation, Inc.
Chuck Fleischer C.B. Young Jr. Service Center—
Director for Safety and Environmental Services
Donna Griffin Curriculum and Assessment—Environmental Education
Darleen Horton Chenoweth Elementary
Dorcas James Elementary Principal Liaison
Dr. Sheree Koppel School-to-Career Services
John Lee C.B. Young Jr. Service Center—Director for Facility Planning
Mary Lineberry Jeffersontown High School Magnet Career Academy
Charlesetta Mayfield Health Services—Coordinator
LorettaMinn Bates Elementary
Mike Mulheirn C.B. Young Jr. Service Center—
Executive Director for Facilities and Transportation
Lee Ann Nickerson Curriculum and Assessment, Science
Andrew Payne DuPont Manual High School—Senior
Ike Pinkston C.B. Young Jr. Service Center—Director for Vehicle Maintenance
Scott Quisenberry Meyzeek Middle School
Beth Sanders Conway Middle School
Bryan Thompson Curriculum and Assessment—Environmental Education
PatTodd Gheens Professional Development Academy and
Student Assignment, Health, and Safety—Executive Director
Jim Vaughn C.B. Young Jr. Service Center—Environmental Coordinator
Dr. David Wicks Curriculum and Assessment—Environmental Education
Aaron Wilson Service Learning
Marianne Wunderlin Service Learning
33
-------
Appendix B
Collaborative Environmental Education, Management, and Health Programs
SPONSORED BY U OF L, JCPS,AND METRO GOVERNMENT
There are many other environmental education initiatives in the Louisville area sponsored by the state as well as
nongovernmental programs. This list only contains the programs that are a result of or that are sustained by
cooperation between two or more of the partnership participants (April 2004).
Ad ventures in Water
An award-winning water curriculum and Web
site
Kelly Dearing-Smith
Louisville Water Company
550 South Third St.
Louisville, KY40202
(502) 583-6610
www.lwcky.com
Beargrass Creek Task Force
Involves schools and students in watershed
projects/watershed protection/environmental
monitoring
Phyllis Croce
MSD
P.O. Box 740011
Louisville, KY40201-7411
(502) 540-6000
www.msdlouky.org
Blackacre State Nature
Preserve
Environmental education professional
development and programs for students
Carolyn Cromer
Blackacre Foundation Inc.
3200 Tucker Station Road
Louisville, KY40299
www.blackacrefoundationinc.org
Donna Griffin/Bryan Thompson
JCPS Center for EE - Gheens Academy
4425 Preston Highway
Louisville, KY40213
(502) 485-3437
www.jcpsky.net/ee
Brightside School Programs
Fred Wiche Award, support for cleanups, and
the third grade Stage One weeklong drama and
environmental class
Julie Shinton
400 South First Street
Louisville, KY40202
(502)574-2702
www.loukymetro.org/Department/Brightside
GIS Education Committee
A coalition to support four JCPS high schools in
developing four-year GIS programs at Eastern,
Doss, Jeffersontown, and Central high schools
Dr. Sheree Koppel
JCPS School-to-Career Office
VanHoose Education Center
3332 Newburg Road
Louisville, KY40218
(502) 485-3122
Health Promotion Schools of
Excellence
Professional development, curriculum, and
support for 55 schools in a comprehensive
health education program
Bonnie Ciarroccki
546 South First Street
Louisville, KY40202
(502) 485-7920
http://apps.jefferson.kl2.ky.us/hpse
-------
Indoor Air and Asthma
Coalition
Improved Air Quality through EPS program IAQ-
Tools for Schools, asthma education, and
secondhand tobacco smoke
Jim Vaughn
JCPS Environmental and Safety Services
C.B. Young Jr. Service Center
3001 Crittenden Drive
Louisville, KY 40209
(502) 485-3698
Jefferson County Conservation
District
Long-time sponsor of essay and poster contest,
Food Farming and Environment Teachers
Conference, Natural Resource Field Days, in-
school science experiments, and the Envirothon
Competition
Cheryl Bersaglia
Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation
District
4233 Bardstown Road, Suite 100-A
Louisville, KY40218-3280
(502) 499-1900
http://jeffcd.org
KAIRE and Ozone Action Days
model
Environmental education initiatives that focus
on air quality and transportation issues
Air Pollution Control District
850 Barrett Avenue
Louisville, KY40204-1745
(502) 574-6000
www.apcd.org/kaire
Kentucky Pollution Prevention
Center
Pollution-prevention education and
professional development
Cam Metcalf
Kentucky Pollution Prevention Center
University of Louisville
420 Lutz Hall
Louisville, KY40292
(502) 852-0965
www.kppc.org
Louisville Brownfield Working
Group
Strategy group to forward environmental
assessments and cleanups of land for
redevelopment
Bonnie Biemer
Metro Development Authority
Environmental Division
(502) 574-2512
Louisville Zoo and Louisville
Nature Center
Conservation teacher training and programs at
the Zoo focus on biodiversity and habitat.
Backyard educational series and exhibits on
Beargrass Creek and Wetlands. With Rod
Goforth, the Zoo and Nature Center direct
activities at Beargrass Creek State Nature
Preserve and the Louisville Nature Center.
MarcelleGianelloni
Louisville Zoo
P.O. Box 37250
Louisville, KY40233-7250
(502) 459-2181
www.louisvillezoo.org
Metro Parks
Offers community programs and environmental
education sites at all of its parks, with a
dedicated naturalist staff at Otter Creek and
Jefferson County Forest.This summer, Brightside
is offering an environmental component for all
Metro Park summer programs.
Jody Hamilton
Metro Parks
1297 Trevilian Way
P. 0. Box 37280
Louisville, KY40233
www.loukymetro.org/department/metroparks
MSD-Ellen Swallow Richards
Ecology Learning Center
"After We Flush" Off-Site Program for JCPS fifth
graders-professional-development
opportunities for educators and citizen groups
Sarah Lynn Cunningham
MSD
700 West Liberty Street
Louisville, KY40202
(502) 540-6000
www.msdlouky.org/education.htm
-------
SUSTAIN-An Environmental
Journal
A quarterly academic and community-oriented
research journal that investigates
environmental issues of interest to Kentucky
Allan Dittmer
U of L Center for EE
College of Education and Human Development
Louisville, KY40292
(502) 852-0791
Salt River Watershed Watch
Support, coordination, and professional
development for citizen water-monitoring
programs in the Salt River Watershed
Russ Barnett
KIESD
Patterson Hall
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY40292
(502) 852-1851
http://kywater.org/watch/salt
Service-Learning Initiatives
Coordination and development of service-learning
opportunities in the Louisville Metro Area
Marianne Wunderland
VolunteerTalent Center
330 So. HubbardsLane
Louisville, KY40207
(502) 485-7047
The World Around Us
The Louisville Science Center's The World Around Us
exhibit [and the accompanying multimillion-dollar
National Science Foundation (NSF) budget and
large educational staff] will provide leadership,
professional development, and in-depth, inquiry-
based environmental science opportunities.
Theresa Mattel
Louisville Science Center
727 West Main Street
Louisville, KY40202
(502)561-6100
www.louisvillescience.org
ToxRAP: Environmental Health
A month-long environmental health curriculum
implemented in eighth grade science/practical
living classrooms-professional development
and supplies provided by U of L.
Steve Meyers
U of L Medical School Department of
Toxicology
Urban Forest Research
Ecological and participatory research on urban
forests and their impacts on local and global
environmental trends.
Margaret Carreiro
U of L Biology Department
Louisville, KY40292
(502) 852-2093
Urban Watershed
Middle school investigation of Jefferson County
watersheds
David Wicks
JCPS Center for Environmental Education
4425 Preston Highway
Louisville, KY40213
(502) 485-3295
www.jcpsky.net/ee
Waterfront Development
Corporation
Educational curriculum that connects the Ohio
River, the Waterfront, and Metro Government
Ashley Cox
Louisville Waterfront Development Corporation
129 East River Road
Louisville, KY40202
(502) 574-3768
www.louisvillewaterfront.com
West Jefferson County
Community Task Force
A partnership of nine neighborhoods, U of L, and
Metro Government to serve as a forum for
environmental issues that affect Louisville's West End
Arnita Gadson
West County Task Force U of L - KIESD
www.louisville.edu/org/wjcctf
-------
Appendix C
Additional Potential Projects
At each of the facilitated sessions, participants brainstormed collaborative initiatives that could build on existing
projects or that were new initiatives. Some of the projects were combined and/or expanded, and then the participants
voted on their top priorities. Projects not on the priority list are still important and might be pursued as funding allows.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROJECTS
Service-Learning Research Project
Create new and build on current service-learning project, and tie into all three
organizations. Conduct applied research.
Evaluating Your Environment (EYE)
Assessment/Audit of Work and Learning Spaces: There is a need for objective, not
just observational, information. Create a test for measurement: How healthy are our
work and learning spaces?
Environmental Health Fitness for All
Conduct a fitness survey, and then encourage all partners to have an aggressive
fitness program for all staff and students.
Indoor Air Project (Involving children,
but experts needed)
Sample air in occupied buildings (Metro Government, U of L, JCPS). Set priorities
regarding what should be tested and when.Test inside school buses. How much
testing is needed? Are new buildings toxic? There may be bad rooms in good
buildings. Should testing be random?
Biomarker Project (Lead,Tobacco,
Trichlor, Per Chlor)
Urine/Blood Samples-Focus on lead long term: voluntary studies of students,
employees, etc. This could form the basis for long-term medical research.There are
many privacy issues. Other Concerns-HeadStart has tested 1,500 people, and
10,000 children have been screened. One fourth of total private physicians don't test.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Land Stewardship
(1) Jointly develop best management practices (BMPs) for public land. BMPs will
cover at least plant selection; control of noxious plants; selection, appropriate use,
storage, and disposal of chemicals; integrated pest management; erosion and
sedimentation control; irrigation and maintenance; runoff control and water quality;
riparian area vegetation. (2) Develop method and criteria for evaluating success of
landscaping and land restoration projects. (3) Develop or contract training of
operation and maintenance personnel in the stewardship practices. (4) Develop
service-learning and classroom activities focused on the stewardship practices.
Urban Transportation Center
Develop transportation policy short-term ($$)
• Examine existing fuels and use by three organizations.
• Review use of alternative fuels/vehicles.
• Examine personal/organizations' travel patterns. Long-term ($$$)
• Integrate alternative fuel vehicles into three organizations' use.
• Develop long-term plan for a green transportation network, synergistic effects.
• Develop IT tools for fleet use for service delivery (route minimization, scheduling
efficiency, etc.).
• Examine long-term health effects from transportation on children.
• Develop transportation demand management recommendations to promote
carpooling, transit usage, etc., among three organizations' employees.
37
-------
Bicycles United for Fun (BUFF)
Encourage more bike riding among partners (employees and children/students).
• Identify comprehensive plan encompassing workplaces, schools, and businesses.
• Encourage the development of bike lanes and restricted bike-only areas.
• Market and educate to promote concept and use.
Joint Procurement and Use of Cleaner
Fuels
Develop partnerships for procurement. Identify preferred clean fuels. Enhance
Kentucky clean fuels coalition curriculum. Identify representative/Fleet Managers
Committee.
• Research alternatives.
• Evaluate current purchasing procedures for partners (identify barriers to
overcome).
• Develop/Adopt joint partner purchasing procedure.
• Identify quantitative measures for benefits of clean fuels.
• Track cost-saving/emission reductions.
• Promote/market use and results (use student involvement).
• Teachers use Kentucky Clean Fuels Coalition (KCFC) curriculum in classroom.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Food for Thought
Connect kids to their stomachs via on-site farmers markets, intergenerational
school/community gardens, and locally raised food in their school cafeterias, with
interdisciplinary core content connections.
• Select school document baseline nutrition data and assess nutrition data.
• Connect with the Cooperative Extension Service, farmers markets, and school/
community gardens.
• Increase nutrition training for cafeteria workers and other involved staff.
Grow the Green in You!
Lifelong experience, classroom, and community partners, cradle to grave, an
integrated curriculum and experience
• Professional development (create a resource guide for educators that is
coordinated with the curriculum).
• Sponsor a pilot expanded Environmental Summit.
• Green-ln-You Bus, fleet, or Enviro-Mobile outfitted to visit schools (funded through
private donations, sponsors).Training high school students to mentor; staff the
bus (service-learning); children at the Kentucky State Fair (with admission)
Clean Air Kids
Projects that would enhance student learning, resulting in improved math skills,
better environmental health, reduced fuel consumption, and cost savings.
• Select school (baseline data on current fuel consumption).
• Select feeder school to personalize (with art) backside of visor.
• Students develop a persuasive letter to vehicle operator(s) asking for their
participation.
Economics for Environmental
Responsibility
Show future decisions that are sustainable, teaching students and community
members how to become informed consumers and how to make responsible,
informed decisions about energy use and natural resource conservation through
existing local models. Format might include workshops and case studies.
• Establish a brainstorming/advisory group of the three partners with Council for
Economic Education to identify models for economics and sustainability; create
or find interactive learning materials, locally based videos, Web sites or field
trips highlighting these model projects.
38
-------
Community Environment Fair
County fair format to highlight environmental partnerships on hot topics, such as
mass transit, health issues, water resources, asthma, solid waste, wildlife resources,
etc. Partner with Metro Government's Neighborhood Summit. Involve Youth Summit
with a booth at the fair. Choose issue based on need-piggyback on Mayor's
Community Conversations.
• Pilot gatherings in schools highlighting environmental issues such as water
quality. Continuous cycle of fairs highlighting different issues
Environmental Yellow Pages (Online)
Environmental Yellow Pages (Online)/Manual of Community Resources
Description: Online database including identification of community resources,
contacts, research studies about Louisville's environment, curriculum/lesson plans/
service-learning ideas, grant request for proposals, free resources with student-
friendly research agenda. Student ideas for capstone or science fair, service-learning
projects. Annual conference for sharing ongoing research and identifying research
agenda
Center for K-12 CIS (Geographic
Information Systems)
To develop the GIS capacity to support all environmental education field trip sites
and outdoor classrooms and to support investigations into local, national, and
global environmental and community issues:
• Develop an Arc IMS site to create Internet mapping of all Metro Government parks.
• Continue developing with Doss, Eastern, Jeffersontown, and Central high schools
GIS career pathway.
• Support class-based projects and internships that link environmental projects
that the three agencies need.
• GIS reference center hosted by students, to develop maps for the entire
kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) core content.
Environmental Science Fair Projects
Local, state, national, and international science fairs have added environmental
science to their category list. Intel, the largest of all science fairs, uses the following
description: Environmental Science-Study of pollution (air, water, and land) sources
and their control; ecology.
• Create a booklet describing environmental research that is needed in Jefferson
County, with a list of individuals who could support, guide, and help students
who choose these projects.
• Conduct an annual conference at U of L highlighting the environmental research
that goes on at the university.
• Present awards/recognition for students participating in and winning the
environmental science fair divisions.
39
-------
Appendix D
Outdoor Classroom Curriculum Matrix
Visit the JCPS Center for Environmental Education Web site www.jcpsky.net/ee for in-depth explanations.
Grade
PI
P2
P3
P4
4
5
Weeks 1- 6
Plants and Animals:
The World Around Us
Exploring the
Outdoors Together
Animal Evidence
Classifying Plants and
Animals in the
Schoolyard
Mapping
Geography: Tools to
Explore OurWorld
Weeks 7-12
Exploring Our
Community
Comparing
Environments
People and Animals
Sharing the World
Using Original
Documents and
Timelines
Food Webs in your
Community:
Who Eats Whom?
A Patchwork of
People, Places, and
Living Things
Weeks 13-18
What's Happening on
the Earth and in the
Sky?
Seasons
Diversity
Earth Materials and
Resources
Kentucky's Physical
Environment
Water!
Weeks 19-24
Changes
It Happened in
America
Community Timelines
The History of
Louisville and
Jefferson County
Kentucky Culture
Adapting and
Modifying Our
Environment
Weeks 25-30
Using Our Senses
Places Where We Live
Experiencing Our
Environment
Rural, Urban, and
Suburban
Environments
How Much Energy Do
We Use?
Collecting and
Understanding Data
Weeks 31- 36
Objects: Natural,
Historical,
Mathematical
Measurement
Using Natural
Resources
Properties of Light,
Heat, Electricity, and
Sound
Inquiry: Let's Be
Curious
Energy: Getting Jobs
Done
40
-------
Appendix E
Placing this Report in National Context
From the National Science Foundation's 2003 report
Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth,
Life, and Society in the 21st Century, a report
summarizing a ten-year outlook in environmental research
and education for the National Science Foundation
As the global footprint of human activity
continues to expand, environmental science and
engineering problems will provide great challenges
and opportunities in the next decade. Because of the
complex relationships among people, ecosystems, and
the biosphere, human health and well-being are
closely linked to the integrity of local, regional, and
global ecosystems. Therefore, environmental research
and education are central elements of local, national,
and global security, health, and prosperity.
New instrumentation, data-handling, and
methodological capabilities have expanded the
horizons of what we can study and understand about
the environment. These advances create the demand
for collaborative teams of engineers and natural and
social scientists that go beyond current disciplinary
research and educational frameworks. Imagination,
diversity, and the capacity to adapt quickly have
become essential qualities for both institutions and
individuals, not only to facilitate research, but to
ensure the immediate and broad-based application of
research results related to the environment.
To meet these complex challenges as well as
urgent human needs, we need to develop
environmental synthesis to:
• frame questions or problems for investigation,
• integrate research activity,
• conduct meta-analyses (the synthesis of existing
data sets from diverse fields and sources) to
define the state of knowledge, and
• make the resulting scientific data, models, and
conclusions publicly accessible.
Research must integrate spatial, temporal, and
organizational scales, draw from many disciplines,
and facilitate the synergy that results from
partnerships among governmental, academic, and
private organizations. This research must use diverse
data sets and approaches and be effectively
communicated among researchers, educators,
students, resource and industrial managers, policy
makers, and the public.
From the National Environmental Education and Training
Foundation: Understanding Environmental Literacy in
America: And Making it a Rea//fy-2004
If the leaders of America's top environmental
education organizations and programs were ever
assembled in a room and asked what they most
wanted, you would hear many different responses.
There would, however, be some common themes. For
example, they might suggest that a percentage of the
billions of dollars of public resources that are spent
each year on environmental information campaigns
be re-directed from pushing simple awareness to a
focus on real learning and skill development. Most
might also tell you that they want a fairer shake from
America's opinion leaders. Quit blaming the
professional EE community for the digressions of
over-zealous publishers, public interest groups,
companies or even individual teachers who step over
the line in pushing their own agenda. They would
appreciate it if environmental education could be seen
for what it really is—a bona-fide effort to bring
important, balanced, and useful learning about the
world and how people affect it to children and adults.
41
-------
CHPS - California High Performance Schools-High-
performance design can impact a district from the
classroom to the boardroom, www.chps.net/index.htm
The primary benefits include:
Higher Test Scores. A growing number of studies are
confirming the relationship between a school's
physical condition, especially its lighting and indoor
air quality, and student performance. One recent study
of school districts in California, Washington, and
Colorado strongly indicates a correlation between
increased daylight and improved student
performance. In the California district, for example,
students with the most daylight progressed 20 percent
faster on mathematics tests and 26 percent faster on
reading tests in one year than did those with the least
amount of daylight. These results echo findings in a
similar study conducted with schools in North
Carolina.
The message is clear, and it confirms what teachers,
students, and parents have known anecdotally for
years: a better facility—one with great acoustics,
lighting, indoor air quality, and other high-
performance features—will deliver better student
outcomes. (For more information, read the National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities report on
how school facilities affect academic outcome.)
Increased Average Daily Attendance (ADA). A
high-performance school provides superior indoor air
quality by controlling sources of contaminants,
providing adequate ventilation, and preventing
moisture accumulation. As a consequence, pollutants
are kept out of the classroom, stale air is eliminated,
and mold growth is eliminated—all tactics designed
to reduce the sources of health problems and inhibit
the spread of airborne infections. The result will be
fewer sick days for students and teachers, especially
those suffering from asthma or other respiratory
problems. The majority of a school's operating budget
is directly dependent on ADA, so even a small
increase can significantly boost the operating budget.
Reduced Operation Costs. High-performance
schools are specifically designed—using life-cycle
cost methods—to minimize the long-term costs of
ownership. They use less energy and water than
standard schools and are easy to maintain. As a
consequence, overall operating costs are low and will
remain so for the life of the facility. Savings can be
used to supplement other budgets, such as special
education, computers, books, and salaries.
Increased Teacher Satisfaction and Retention.
High-performance classrooms are designed to be
pleasant and effective places to work. Visual and
thermal comfort are high, acoustics are good, and the
indoor air is fresh and clean. Such environments
become positive factors in recruiting and retaining
teachers and in improving their overall satisfaction
with their positions.
Reduced Liability Exposure. Because they are
healthy and emphasize superior indoor environmental
quality, high-performance school buildings reduce a
district's exposure to health-related lawsuits.
Reduced Environmental Impacts. High-
performance school buildings are consciously
designed to respond to and positively impact the
environment. They are energy and water efficient.
They use durable, nontoxic materials that are high in
recycled content and are themselves easily recycled.
They preserve pristine natural areas on their sites and
restore damaged ones. And they use nonpolluting,
renewable energy to the greatest extent possible. As a
consequence, high performance school buildings are
good environmental citizens and they are designed to
stay that way throughout their entire life cycles.
42
-------
The Partnership for
a Green City
One Year Report
Sponsored by:
University of Louisville
Jefferson County Public Schools
Louisville Metro Government
Fall 2005
-------
The Partnership for a Green City Steering Committee
Russell Barnett
Kentucky Institute for the Environment and Sustainable Development
202 Patterson Hall
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY 40292
(502)852-1851
r.barnett@louisville.edu
Dr. Allan Dittmer
University of Louisville Center for Environmental Education
College of Education and Human Development
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY 40292
(502) 852-0791
allan@louisville.edu
Casslyn Q. Harris
Louisville Metro Solid Waste Management Department
600 MeriwetherAve.
Louisville, KY 40217
(502) 574-8439
cass.harris@louisvilleky.gov
Dr. David Wicks
Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) Center for Environmental Education
JCPS Gheens Academy
4425 Preston Highway
Louisville, KY 40292
(502) 485-3295
dwicksl ©Jefferson.k12.ky.us
To get involved, contact any of the project facilitators
-------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction.
II. Accomplishments 5
III. Waste Management Committee 10
IV. Green Purchasing Committee 13
V. Energy Use Partnership 16
VI. Environmental Education Committee 20
VII. Outdoor Classroom Committee[[[ 22
Environmental Health Committee[[[ 25
IX. Interagency Coordinating Committee 27
X. Principles and Standards Committee 27
XI. Looking to the Future 28
Appendices
A. Project Participants 30
B. Draft Statement of Environmental Principles 32
C. MOA for Joint Purchasing 34
D. Professional Development Courses Offered 2005-2006 37
The Partnership for a Green
City project was funded in
part by a grant from the U.S.
Department of Education and
is administered by the
University of Louisville's
Kentucky Institute for the
Environment and Sustainable
Development (KIESD).
Funding for the Partnership
was made possible in part
through a collaborative effort
of the Kentucky University
-------
Introduction
A Greener City will be a
place where young
people choose to make their
homes and raise their
families and a desirable
location for companies that
use quality of life as a
yardstick when they decide
where to set up their
headquarters.
-Jerry Abramson
Mayor
Louisville Metro
It's not easy being green. True, there are many reasons for
cities to strive to be environmentally responsible. Community
planners and advisors know that green cities are the most successful and
prosperous. Studies have shown that cities that advocate best practices in
environmental stewardship are cities that also have a diverse and growing
population and enjoy a healthy economy.
Following the launch of the new Louisville-Jefferson County Metro
government in 2003, Louisville leaders began to believe that there was a
better opportunity to become a green city, to be more environmentally
responsible, and to improve the health of our citizens. They based that
assessment on recommendations from Beyond Merger, the 2002 report
prepared by the Brookings Institution to address the issues that faced our
community as we made the transition to merged government.
Louisville's path to becoming a model green city was hampered by
significant barriers, according to the authors of Beyond Merger. Specific
challenges identified were:
• The state of the health and education of our children,
• The need to reduce waste, make better use of energy and better
manage our natural resources, and
• The need to build a green infrastructure.
The Partnership for a Green City began in August 2004 as a major
step toward overcoming those challenges and improving Louisville's
environmental practices. It represents a collaborative effort to improve
environmental education, environmental health, and processes for waste
reduction and energy management by three of Louisville's largest public
entities: Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (Metro
Government), the University of Louisville (U of L), and Jefferson County
Public Schools (JCPS).
From the beginning, all Partners recognized the challenges of
developing the Partnership. The sheer size of the three entities could
threaten to derail the project before it got started. Together, these three
institutions employ some 25,900 people, about five percent of the entire
labor market in the community. JCPS and U of L enroll 120,000 students,
more than 75 percent of all students in the community. They own more
-------
than 500 buildings, 7,000 vehicles, and 25,000 acres of land in Metro
Louisville. Together, they consume a significant amount of energy.
After recognizing the challenges, leaders of the three organizations
agreed: if the barriers could be overcome, the payoffs would be huge. For
the short-term, the committee members saw an immediate chance for
collaboration of services, cost savings, and, best of all, three of the
community's largest organizations working more closely together and
sharing information on environmental challenges. They also agreed that,
collectively, the Partners could be much stronger and achieve greater
results. They could see that the coordination of efforts and cooperation
would greatly magnify the results of the community's current
environmental efforts. Most important, they were committed to the
process itself.
The Partners also envisioned an environmentally sustainable city
where people choose to live and work. Here at last was a chance to put
together a model program of true partnership among organizations, all
working toward one ultimate goal: to make Louisville a better place to
live.
In addition to the many
environmental initiatives the
three partners are already
involved in, the Green City
Partnership builds capacity
to make great strides to
improve the quality of life
for all of our citizens.
-James R. Ramsey
President
University of Louisville
The Organization
The Partnership began with $51,000 in funding provided by the U.S.
Department of Education through Murray State University.
Organizationally, it was launched with a series of meetings to determine
structure, goals and priorities. From those facilitated meetings came three
objectives, identified as important for Louisville's future:
• Environmental Education - Develop strategies to further holistic
environmental education in all three organizations.
• Public Health - Conduct research to assess the correlation between
environmental exposures and health impacts that may affect student
cognitive learning abilities or behavior.
• Environmental Management - Identify strategies for JCPS, U of L,
and Metro Government to create sustainable, green public
infrastructures.
-------
Environmental problems are
solvable, and we can alter
our behaviors without lower-
ing our standard of living.
We recognize intuitively that
green cities are more attrac-
tive to people and supportive
of families.
-Stephen W. Daeschner, Ph.D.
Superintendent
Jefferson County
Public Schools
Committees were formed from these three objectives:
• Waste Management Committee to initially address recycling but
expanded to include the broader issues of waste management.
• Green Purchasing Committee to seek out joint "green" purchasing
policies, practices and opportunities among the three Partners.
• Energy Use Partnership to pursue proven strategies to reduce
energy use.
• Environmental Education Committee to focus on creating
coherent environmental education programs for all Partners.
• Outdoor Classroom Committee to develop Partnerships between
schools and Metro Parks and create professional development for
teachers and curriculum for students.
• Environmental Health to create a research agenda to improve
public health in all three entities.
• Environmental Standards and Principles Committee to establish
a mutually agreeable set of environmental principles and standards
to be used to guide policy decisions and programs in each of the
organizations.
• Interagency Coordinating Committee to link the Partners with
top leadership and facilitate coordination with other organizational
initiatives.
• Communications Committee to design consistent internal and
external communications messages.
The Steering Committee was formed as a cross-functioning team of
partner representatives to oversee the project and assist the various
committees in their planning. This committee also was charged with
securing funding for recommended initiatives.
-------
Accomplishments
Highlights of the Partnership's Work to Date
Since its beginning in August 2004, The Partnership for a Green City
has realized an impressive list of accomplishments: external funding
raised, operating costs lowered, environmental protection increased,
environmental education expanded, joint positions established, new
projects planned and implemented. All the more remarkable is that these
accomplishments have been achieved through the collaborative efforts of
almost 100 employees from Metro Government, the school district and
University, with no budget (see Appendix A for a complete list of
participants).
The accomplishments are a result of eight committees working on
different goals and objectives which include energy use, waste
management, buying green, environmental health, outdoor classrooms,
environmental education, principles and standards and interagency
coordination. The specific reports of these committees are included in this
report; they outline in more detail the purpose and accomplishments of each
committee. In addition to the individual committee reports that follow, the
Partnership has had eight overarching benefits:
Partnering results in improved job performance
We often speak about the need for "improved partnerships" but it is rare to
truly enter into one. Early in the Project, staff from all three Partners
recognized that the collaboration provided the opportunity to realize
accomplishments that individually had been elusive. In one example of
collaboration, the goals involve recycling. The University had wanted to
increase its recycling efforts but was hampered by its inability to transport
collected material to markets. On the other hand, Metro Government had
established a goal to increase its recycling efforts and had the transportation
capacity to pick up recyclables from the University. In one short meeting,
an agreement was reached, and both the University and Metro Government
were able to meet their goals.
A second example may result in significant energy savings. All three
Partners spend more than $35 million annually on energy. The major
provider, LG&E, sends each month more than 600 bills for gas and
All of the participants in the
green city projects can be
very proud of the first year
accomplishments and how
much progress has been
made, in some cases
exceeding the most
optimistic expectations. The
sophomore year will be a
challenge to match what
was done, but both leaders
and team members are up
to the task. Louisville is on
the map as a green city and
it can only get better.
-Gordon Garner
Consultant
-------
The University of Louisville is
participating in the partner-
ship for a Green City Pro-
gram. As a result of this
participation, we have
identified areas for energy
reduction, some of which
have been implemented
while others are being
considered.
The University looks forward
to continuing as a partner in
the Green City program so
that other ideas may be
brought forward to help us
more efficiently utilize our tax
dollars and be better stew-
ards of the environment.
-Larry Detherage
Associate Vice President for
Physical Plant
UofL
electricity to the three partners combined. Administrative costs to process
multiple bills are high, while scrutiny to assure that bills are accurate is
low. Working together, the Partners have jointly purchased a utility data
system that will improve energy management. As part of the collaborative
effort, LG&E is working to provide billing information electronically that
will lower administrative costs not only for the Partners but also the utility
company. In addition, all 28,000 employees and the 120,000 plus students
can easily access the energy use data for their own studies and analysis.
This will form the basis of a new energy education program for staff and
students.
These are examples of how the Partnership has empowered employees
to improve job performance while lowering costs. Empowered employees
are able to create cultural changes within their organizations. All three
Partners are public entities, and cost savings realized are benefits not only
to the organizations but to the citizens of the community.
Partnering builds capacity in each organization
As job performance has improved, the capacity to perform necessary
duties within each organization has improved. Employees have stepped
back, observed and thought about the function they perform and how it
can be improved in terms of efficiency and environmental protection. The
Project has brought in experts from the outside to provide information.
The Energy Committee sponsored a training session on energy
management. The Outdoor Classroom Committee used a software
program, CITYgreen, to allow students to map urban forests across the
metropolitan area. The use of in-house experts and experts from across the
nation has helped improve the capacity of the Partners to better perform
their functions. This capacity building is transferable to other programs
and other partners. This summer, the University of Kentucky, Lexington-
Fayette Urban County Government and the Fayette County Public Schools
initiated an identical partnership using the U of L/Metro/JCPS Partnership
as their model.
Shared expertise benefits all Partners
One of the most critical achievements of the Partnership during the first
year was perhaps one of the most unexpected: the realization that a wealth
of expertise exists within the three organizations. Until the creation of the
-------
Project, information from experts and existing programs had not always
been available to other entities. For example, improved energy management
was the goal of the Energy Use Partnership, and many of the programs
being pursued by that committee had already been implemented by JCPS
over the past three decades. Expertise in the purchase of environmentally
friendly products existed at the University. Waste management expertise
was available at Metro Government. Prior to this project, this expertise was
not always available to the other Partners, and often they did not know that
it existed.
Partnering enables the advantage of efficiencies of scale
Collectively the Partners employ 25,900 people who are a significant
portion of the local economy. Using their collective purchasing power, the
Partners have realized that they can obtain economies of scale that
previously were unavailable to any one of them. When comparing waste
disposal costs, the Partners realized that Metro Government had a lower bid
for waste disposal. The University has taken advantage of this and now
disposes all of its solid waste at a Metro transfer station, saving $8,000 per
year in disposal costs, time, fuel and truck maintenance costs that may be as
high as another $4,000. JCPS hopes to take advantage of this cost savings
as soon as its current contract expires.
The Partners have issued a joint request for proposals to supply white
paper to all three entities. Buying in large quantities potentially will mean
savings for each Partner on a per unit cost basis and will provide a means
for all to increase the use of recycled content paper. Although the
Partnership has focused on improving administration with the goal of
environmental protection, significant cost savings have already been
realized through economies of scale.
Partners able to attract additional external funding
The Project to date has obtained more than $880,000 in outside grants and
contracts to fund individual projects. In many cases, funding agencies such
as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Kentucky Office of
Energy Policy have approached the Partners offering funding to support the
Project, and then worked to develop specific proposals. Most of this
funding would not have become available or been awarded to the Partners
if any of the Partners had applied as a single organization.
-------
Partnering increases environmental education programs
A key success of the Partnership has been an increase in environmental
education programs. The Partners are sponsoring 85 Professional
Development courses this year for K-12 and community teachers. In the
first month, more than 570 teachers received professional training from
University, Metro Government, and other educators. Metro Government
and the University are supporting a position within JCPS to develop a plan
to integrate Metro environmental education programs within the school
district's curriculum and to provide professional development to teachers
so they can take advantage of Metro facilities and resources. Using funds
provided by the Metropolitan Sewer District, outdoor classrooms are being
constructed at six public schools.
Project being institutionalized within the Partners
The Partnership has created many beneficial relationships that are likely to
continue beyond the life of the Project. The long-term success of the
Partnership is dependent on incorporating the goals and initiatives into
each organization's operating procedures. The Principles and Standards
committee has proposed a common set of principles to be adopted by all of
the Partners. If adopted, it would institutionalize the role of each Partner in
protecting the environment and operating in a sustainable manner. The
Partnership has already created joint appointments with individuals
working for two or more of the partners. A public health position is a
product of the Environmental Health Committee between the University
and school district. An education position is a jointly funded position of all
three partners. Joint positions help institutionalize an ongoing
collaboration between the Partners.
In the first year, the Partnership for a Green City has made significant
contributions to Louisville's environment. Most of the accomplishments
can be characterized as "low hanging fruit," capable of being quickly
implemented. These successes have created an environment within which
bolder action can take place. The Partnership also has become a model for
each of the institutions: a model based on bottom-up collaboration, top-
down support, stated goals and objectives, and a focused plan of action.
-------
There is a growing awareness of the Partnership
The Partnership has been recognized locally and nationally for its
achievements and innovation. The Kentucky Environmental Quality
Commission, the Kentucky League of Cities and the Kentucky Association
of Counties joined together to recognize the Partnership for a Green City as
an outstanding initiative that exemplified the concept of sustainability. The
Partners were presented the award at a ceremony in Frankfort as part of the
Earth Day celebration in April 2005.
University of Louisville President James Ramsey (right), Metro Louis-
ville Deputy Mayor Joan Riehm and Jefferson County Public School
Superintendent Dr. Stephen Daeschner (left) accept a 2005 Earth Day
Award from Lindell Ormsbee, EQC, for the Green City Partnership.
The Partnership has appeared in national publications, has been the
topic of discussion at national meetings and has generated interest across
the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has expressed interest
in the Partnership, noting that while there are many examples of green
cities, green campuses and green schools, Louisville is the only example in
the U.S. where a city, university and school district have partnered to work
toward a sustainable community. The Partners have received information
requests from across the nation on the Partnership.
The Partnership is a model for other Kentucky communities. The
University of Kentucky, Fayette Urban County Government, and the
Fayette County School District have established a similar Partnership to
collaboratively work together on improving environmental sustainability.
Bellarmine University in Louisville has initiated a collaborative
relationship with Louisville Metro Government's Waste Management
Department to increase its recycling rates.
Truly sustainable actions and
decisions are those that
enhance environmental
integrity, economic prosperity
and community liability
When Louisville and Jefferson
County merged in 2003 the
intent was to boost agency
efficiency, urban vitality and
regional cooperation. Now as
the nation's 16th largest city-
with almost 700,000 residents
- a unique partnership has
emerged to make Louisville a
Green City as well.... The
agencies found a number of
significant opportunities to
make Louisville one of the
greenest cities in America,
providing a setting for a
healthier economy with
substantial job growth, a more
diverse citizenry and a place
where young people will want
to live and raise their families.
-Kentucky Environmental
Quality Commission
-------
Committee Reports
The Partnership Waste
Management Committee is
identifying many solid waste
issues that present possibili-
ties to achieve significant
environmental impacts as
well as savings through
economies of scale. Recy-
cling is an area that we are
looking forward to being able
to achieve more by combin-
ing our efforts and our
material streams.
-Bob Schindler
Director
Metro Solid Waste
Management
Waste Management Committee
Enhance waste management systems including increasing recycling and
improving waste disposal efficiencies at the three institutions through
potential cooperative efforts. The committee is seeking ways to combine
efforts that will produce operational savings.
Progress Report
Initially, the committee endorsed and recommended changing the name of
the committee to the Waste Management Committee because, after much
discussion, it quickly became evident that there are an equal number of
efficiencies available in the solid waste management area as in recycling.
Reflective of this name change, the committee began examining waste
disposal issues common to the Partners and sought opportunities for
efficiencies.
The committee conducted a waste audit (dumpster dive) at a U of L
student residence facility to determine the potential for recovering
recyclables from the waste stream. The waste audit was a precursor to
establishing a pilot recycling program in some student residences. Metro
Solid Waste helped the student association obtain containers and now
provides pickup and recycling for
the collected materials. In
conjunction with this initiative,
JCPS kicked off an effort to
promote an increase in paper
recycling in its buildings. The
committee will work with JCPS
to help create rewards and
awards for schools achieving
exemplary participation.
Recycling
• Following the waste audit,
a pilot dormitory recycling
program was established
during the spring semester
U of L Student Government purchased re-
cycling cans for university dorms. Every
ton of material recycled saves $24 in dis-
posal costs.
10
-------
at U of L. Using a combination of carts and small dumpsters,
recyclables are collected twice weekly by U of L and weekly by
Metro Solid Waste. The operation continued in the fall semester.
• Metro was in need of a source for recycling spent fluorescent tubes
in compliance with the Universal Waste Rule. Effective September 1,
2005, Metro Government was added to the contract to use the JCPS
vendor.
• Metro Solid Waste Management has begun to help Bellarmine
University with recycling in some of its buildings. While not directly
connected to the Partnership, this activity is a direct result of
Partnership activities. Students and staff at Bellarmine who were
interested in increasing recycling heard about the Partnership project
and asked Louisville Metro for help.
Waste Disposal/Contracts
This committee initially
identified all the recycling or
waste disposal contracts
used by each entity. The goal
was to look for opportunities
to combine similar contracts
to gain an economy of scale
and hopefully yield fiscal
and operational savings.
The committee agreed that
the containerized waste
disposal contracts presented
the best immediate
opportunity to achieve an
economy of scale savings.
The next step is to develop a Fluorescent lights contain mercury that re-
quires care in handling and disposal. Tony
draft bid for services that can pne|ps with Metro Solid Waste Management
accommodate the Department packs used tubes for recycling.
operational needs of each Partner.
Once a draft contract specification is developed, the Waste
Management Committee will work with the Green Purchasing Committee
to put a contract out for bid. One hurdle to overcome will be to mesh the
JCPS Safety and Environ-
mental Services will be
conducting a pilot study this
spring on the feasibility of
adding aluminum cans and
plastic bottles to the recy-
cling stream in existing
recycling dumpsters at every
school. We are also looking
at partnering with U of L
when the recycling contract
is rebid next summer.
-Jim Vaughn
JCPS Environmental
Compliance Coordinator
11
-------
JCPS Safety and Environmen-
tal Services has saved over
$200,000 a year over the past
5 years through analysis and
assessment of school waste
needs as a direct result of data
gathered during the original
recycling pilot study and waste
audit, prior to implementing the
current District-wide recycling
program 5 years ago. Since
then, JCPS has collected over
100 tons of paper and card-
board per month.
-Chuck Fleischer
JCPS Environmental
Compliance
varying contract periods in order to reach a starting point for a
consolidated contract.
As a result of discussions in Committee, the University of Louisville
has begun to dispose of its waste at the Metro Waste Reduction Center on
Meriwether Avenue. This enables U of L to utilize the lower price Metro
pays for disposal as well as save time, mileage and fuel for the University
because of a closer location.
My School Recycles Self-Audit and Recognition Program
Self-audit forms and Humpty Dumpster mascot posters were sent out to
each JCPS school inviting them to participate in a "Recycling Self-Audit"
program. Participating schools were recognized in addition to individual
recognitions to those teachers, custodians, food service workers, staff and
students deserving of special recognition for their efforts in supporting
recycling. The school received a plaque, a Humpty Dumpster certificate,
and a 3x5 Earth flag to display during America Recycles Week in
November and Earth Week in April.
The presentations were made in person by various members of the
Partnership for a Green City as well as First Lady Madeline Abramson.
The JCPS Safety and Environmental Services Office coordinated the effort
which was well supported by Metro Solid Waste Management Department,
the Center for Environ-
Management, and the
JCPS Center for
Environmental Education.
It is hoped that this
activity will be repeated
U of L students conduct
"Dumpster Dive" on No-
vember 15,2004, and deter-
mine that 40% of the waste
discarded at dormitories
could be recycled.
12
-------
each year to involve the rest of the schools in this worthwhile self-audit and
recognition program.
The following 19 schools were recognized:
Churchill Park School, Cochrane Elementary, Fern Creek Elementary,
Kennedy Montessori Elementary, Cochran Elementary, Cane Run
Elementary, Byck Elementary, McFerran Elementary, St. Mathews
Elementary, Gilmore Lane Elementary, Lincoln Elementary, Myers
Middle, Brown School, Crums Lane Elementary, Greenwood
Elementary, Tully Elementary, Barret Middle,
Farnsley Middle, and Louisville Male High Schools.
Using Metro government's waste disposal contract will save the University $8,000
a year in disposal costs.
Green Purchasing Committee
Create the ability to pool and jointly purchase green products and services
cost-effectively.
Progress Report
The committee established one-year objectives as first priority:
• Inventory purchasing practices and policies
• Establish baseline data
• Develop green purchasing policy statement and definitions
• Provide employee awareness program
The Green City initiative will
ensure that every child will
grow up in a healthier
environment where the spirit
of learning and collaboration
is the culture of the commu-
nity and results in a better
quality of life for all.
-Pat Todd
Executive Director JCPS
Gheens Academy and
Student Assignment
13
-------
The three organizations have
reached a major milestone
through a group purchasing
agreement which will allow them
to save money while benefiting
the community through
improved environmental
stewardship.
-Don Douglas
Kentucky Pollution
Prevention Center
• Develop interagency agreement
• Develop contract language and bid specifications for all three
partners
• Issue Request for Proposals to purchase items to be identified
• Award contract
• Provide implementation training
• Measure and monitor program
The committee agreed to first target white copy paper (WCP) because
it is common to all three partners and because two of the partners currently
purchase WCP with recycled content. The initial step involved establishing
a baseline matrix from the previous fiscal year purchase of WCP for all
three organizations. Also, a draft Green Purchasing Policy statement was
developed but not finalized.
A meeting was held in March 2005 with paper vendors to announce
the plan to solicit a single bid for WCP for all three organizations. The
meeting attracted 17 vendors and paper manufacturers. The purpose of the
meeting was to obtain feedback from attendees and to address any
concerns or issues that may arise from the vendors as a result of the
project.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MO A) was developed and signed by
the chief executives of all three Partners (Appendix C). The MOA is
designed to allow all three Partners to purchase goods and services from
one contract.
A draft bid specification document has been developed and submitted
to all three Partners for review and finalization. The specifications require
WCP with a minimum recycled content of 30 percent. This is consistent
with the EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines established for
federal agencies and state agencies that receive federal monies. The
proposed schedule to issue the bid solicitation for WCP is:
• Issue Bid: November 1-15, 2005 (open for two weeks)
• Award Contract: December 15, 2005
• Contract Start Date: January 1, 2005 for U of L and Metro
• Contract Start Date: February 1, 2006 for JCPS
The Committee also is evaluating the bid solicitation method to use on
future joint purchases. Metro has successfully used the reverse auction
method over the past few years and has realized considerable savings.
14
-------
The Committee initially considered this method for the joint purchase of
WCP but decided to wait for future projects before pursuing this method in
greater detail.
During its initial discussions, the Green Purchasing Committee learned
that JCPS purchases copy machines, rather than using lease agreements as
the other partners do. Because the copiers are purchased, the schools tend
to retain them much longer than would ordinarily be the case if they had
been leased. As a result, they possess a large number of older copiers that
often have problems using recycled content WCP. To address this, a pilot
study was completed at four JCPS schools to evaluate the possibility of
using recycled content paper in their copiers. The four schools selected
included both older and more recently constructed schools (older schools
tend to use older copiers). The four schools that participated in the pilot
study were: Male High School, Westport Middle School, Foster
Elementary School and Shelby Elementary School.
The pilot study was conducted from February 1, 2005 through May 30,
2005. The study determined that none of the schools experienced
difficulties associated with recycled content WCP. Consequently, JCPS
informed the committee that recycled content copy paper would be used on
a regular basis for all schools in the future.
The committee is evaluating the next product/service to purchase using
the joint purchase agreement. Environmentally friendly janitorial cleaning
products were initially discussed, but no decision has been made at this
time.
Baseline Matrix for White Copy Paper
Recycled
81/2x11
81/2x14
Recycled (3HP)
81/2x11
Virgin
81/2x11
81/2x14
Total
Combined
Metro JCPS UofL Totals
Total
Costs
$16,702
$707
$0
$59,747
$4,882
$82,037
Total
Quantities
(reams)
7,530
250
0
27,970
1,800
Total
Costs
$0
$0
$0
$612,386
$7,582
$619,968
Total
Quantities
(reams)
0
0
0
287,160
3,400
Total
Costs
$224,624
$1,300
$20,700
$0
$0
$246,624
Total
Quantities
(reams)
112,800
400
9,200
0
0
Costs
$241,326
$2,007
$20,700
$672,133
$12,464
$948,629
Quantities
120,330
650
9,200
315,130
5,200
450,510
The Green Purchasing
Committee is an extraordi-
nary opportunity for the
University of Louisville in a
number of ways. First, in
cooperation with our Green
City Partners, Louisville
Metro Government and
Jefferson County Public
Schools, we can lead the
way as an example of
community sustainable
development. Second, even
if the Partnership was not
purchasing environmentally
friendly commodities, pooling
the buying power by the
three entities will bring better
pricing than when we bid the
same commodities sepa-
rately.
-Don Speer
Director of Purchasing
University of Louisville
15
-------
We constantly strive to make
our buildings as energy
efficient and environmentally
friendly as possible. Our goal
is to provide the best "built
environment" in which to
deliver our educational
program. Our students are
taught by our teachers, but
they learn from their environ-
ment. This partnership with
students and staff will result
in a sustainable facility and
the life cycle cost return will
maximize dollars assigned for
direct instruction in the
classrooms!
-Mike Mulheirn
Executive Director
JCPS Facilities and
Transportation
Energy Use Partnership
Reduce energy use resulting in budget savings and a higher level of
environmental stewardship; attract more project funding for energy
efficiency (E2) projects and training; and create a forum to share ideas and
experiences.
Progress Report
To accomplish its purposes, the Energy Use Partnership (EUP) is
providing an on-going mechanism for knowledge exchange and
demonstration of proven E2 methods and technologies. The EUP
established eight objectives for improving the energy and environmental
performance at the three organizations involved.
• Develop proposals for funding of energy efficiency projects/energy
education programs.
• Identify a standardized electronic format for utility data to better
track energy usage in buildings
• Perform E2 audits at all organizations
• Identify and highlight successful energy programs
• Develop E2 technology training for facilities personnel
• Promote alternative financing mechanisms, such as energy savings
performance contracting
• Develop E2 awareness training programs for all three Green City
Partners by 2006
• Work with engineering firms to incorporate E2 language into new
building specifications
Funding and Financing
The EUP Partners have completed proposals to the Kentucky Division of
Energy (KDOE) for a Building Energy Study for $66,000 and an Energy
Efficiency and Bio-based Products Outreach and Demonstration for
$49,450. The Partnership received a $396,800 grant from the U.S.
Department of Energy for an Active Solar Demonstration Project. In
addition, $5,000 of U.S. EPA Region 4 funds passed through the Air
Pollution Control District, were used to purchase Energy Star Building
Portfolio Manager software. The Partnership provided $5,225 to purchase
energy data management software.
16
-------
A key goal is to promote alternative financing mechanisms for the years
ahead. All of the activities of the past year are seen as setting the stage for
new initiatives in the next 12 months. Our energy accounting solution will
allow us to benchmark the agencies' entire portfolio of buildings to
determine the best candidates for future projects. As the low cost and no
cost energy efficiency initiatives ramp up, the time will come to begin
looking at longer term capital investment type projects that may require
agencies to consider alternative finance mechanisms. To address this issue,
a two-day seminar on Energy Savings Performance Contracting will be
held by the Kentucky Energy Services Coalition in Spring 2006.
Technology
The Energy Accounting sub-committee investigated numerous options for
electronically tracking building energy usage and selected a web-based
solution. LG&E is cooperating with the committee and has assigned staff to
assist in transferring account information electronically directly to the
service provider, Energy Watchdog Pro. Each agency has agreed to
participate and to
pay an annual
service fee.
In support, the
Partnership has
provided all of the
funds necessary to
launch the service
with a year's worth
of past billing
installed so that
there is enough
information to
begin
benchmarking
buildings right
away. The program
will be launched in
one to two months,
Coal is a predominant source of energy for the partners.
Prices since 2004 have increased almost 100%.
Metro Government welcomes
the resources and initiatives
that have resulted from our
participation in The Partner-
ship for a Green City's
Energy Use Partnership. As
the Partnership enters its
second year, we look forward
to continued implementation
of facility improvements
across Metro Government.
And as fuel costs escalate,
we look forward to a collabo-
rative pursuit of fleet im-
provement issues.
-Rudy Davidson
Secretary
Metro Cabinet for Public
Works and Services
17
-------
As the cost of fuel continues to
rise at an alarming rate, there
has never been a more critical
time to come together, share
resources, and pursue energy
efficient strategies. With the
help of the Kentucky Pollution
Prevention Center and the
Kentucky Office of Energy
Policy, Jefferson County Public
Schools has been able to
compare successes, avoid
pitfalls, and capitalize on
identified energy-saving
opportunities with the other
members of the Energy Use
Partnership; thus becoming
better stewards of our taxpay-
ers' dollars and proudly
accountable for our endeavors.
-Kevin Stoltz
JCPS Energy Auditor
pending the development of a system for data transfer from LG&E. As part
of this effort, U of L has begun to install electrical sub-metering on some
of the buildings on the Belknap campus.
Audits
Kentucky Pollution Prevention
Center secured funding to
perform energy audits for the
EUP. Energy audit training for
students from U of L's J.B.
Speed School of Engineering,
the J. Graham Brown School
and Waggener High School was
completed in mid-March, and
energy audits for 11 buildings
were performed from March 14
through March 31. The audits
included four classroom
buildings at U of L, four JCPS
schools, Louisville Metro Hall
and the Metro Hall Annex as
well as the Fiscal Court
Building. Utility billing,
heating/cooling systems,
lighting, office equipment and building envelope for each facility were
assessed and reports on energy usage and energy management
opportunities identified in these buildings were completed by June 30.
Subsequently, each agency has begun to implement some of the low
cost energy savings recommendations on a small scale. These efforts are
ramping up and will be very important in the upcoming year. These
recommendations included use of energy saving devices on vending
machines and working with IT departments to ensure that the power
management features of the agencies computers are activated with the right
settings. Metro Government has recently completed an assessment of the
mechanical systems in its buildings that identified some of the same
improvements recommended in the E2 reports and work on these items is
being addressed.
Students from U of L and area public
schools conducted extensive energy au-
dits as a part of the Green City initiative.
The Kentucky Pollution Prevention Cen-
ter at U of L co-sponsored the effort.
18
-------
Expand E2 Awareness
The group has shared cumulative
experiences for energy
management improvements for
the three organizations.
In addition, the group has
invited guest speakers to provide
energy information that is
pertinent to EUP. John Davies,
Director of the Kentucky
Division of Energy presented
information about U.S.EPA's
Energy Star Program. Karen
Reagor, Director of the
Kentucky National Educational
Energy Development (NEED)
program, talked about energy
curriculum being delivered to
Jefferson County schools. Melissa Howell with the Kentucky Clean Fuels
Coalition shared the latest developments on availability of bio-diesel in the
Louisville area with the agencies' fleet personnel.
Another goal of the committee was to incorporate E2 language into new
building specifications. As a result, EUP members held a two-hour meeting
with representatives of AMEC Earth and Environmental to hear a
presentation about the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) program. The LEED program awards recognition for energy
efficient buildings and provides a set of guidelines for the construction of
"green buildings." This meeting was attended by more than 20 participants
including most of the top facilities personnel of the three organizations.
Each soft drink dispenser uses $140 a
year in electricity, energy paid for by the
Partners. Pilots studies to reduce energy
costs are underway.
Training
With the Energy Efficiency and Bio-based Products Outreach and
Demonstration funding, a three-day seminar was delivered on Cost-
Effective Energy Management at which members of Metro, JCPS and the
Louisville Water Company were present. The seminar was delivered in late
May by Dr. Wayne Turner, professor at Oklahoma State University and
nationally known in the field of energy management. Also, this funding was
19
-------
The Partnership for a Green
City has laid the groundwork
for developing educational
partnerships that are based
upon job-embedded profes-
sional development and field
trips aligned with what is
being taught in each grade
level. I would like to challenge
readers of this report to
dedicate themselves to
ensuring that these high
quality field and community
experiences involve all
segments of our community.
-Jacque Austin
Director
JCPS Curriculum
and Assessment
used by the Green City's Green Purchasing Committee (GPC) to
coordinate a half-day workshop in early June on the procurement of
energy efficiency (Energy Star) and bio-based products. A third workshop,
the Compressed Air Challenge, was held in August on energy efficiency in
compressed air systems and was attended by members of Metro
Government's GSA department.
Environmental Education Committee
Develop a comprehensive, long-term focus for environmental education,
both in schools and in the community.
Progress Report
Professional Development
Working with the six other committees of the Partnership for a Green City,
the Committee created 85 three-hour and six-hour professional
development sessions for teachers and interested community members,
organized around three themes:
• Environmental Education: Strategies and Outdoor Classrooms,
• Kentucky's Biodiversity and Watersheds,
• Environmental Issues and Community Investigations.
There are 62 different presenters, primarily from the Partnership, but also
from state government and the University of Kentucky.
Curriculum and Instruction Initiatives
Lincoln Foundation's Natural Resource Academy: Working with the U
of L School of Arts and Sciences, the UK Tracy Farmer Center, the UK
College of Agriculture, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources and the Jefferson County Public Schools, the Lincoln
Foundation offered its first Natural Resources Academy for minority high
school youth. This next year, there are plans in the works to make the
academy statewide. There has been discussion about adding a second track
focusing on public health.
Wild About Reading: An annotated guide to Children's
Environmental Literature: Nine public school librarians met for five
days to review the North American Association for Environmental
20
-------
Education's environmental education guidelines, The Project Wild
Curriculum, the JCPS elementary science modules and the JCPS
Curriculum and Assessment Maps. The librarians and JCPS Center for
environmental education staff created a searchable database of 280 books.
U of L purchased a set of books and made them available for the Louisville
Metro community. The committee also is working with the Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources to host an online searchable
database of the books (www.kentuckyawake.com)
In-depth workshops and graduate courses: With the support of the
Kentucky Council for Post Secondary Education, the committee offered
two weeklong workshops. The first, Urban and Rural Watersheds, focused
on ecological integrity of the Salt River Watershed Basin. The second, The
Biodiversity of an Urban Watershed Summer Teacher Academy, focused
on Beargrass Creek. With the support of the Metropolitan Sewer District,
the Partners offered a multi-day course on CityGREEN, an Arc View
extension developed by American Forests. The CityGREEN software
quantifies the economic value of urban forests.
Publications
Inside the Issue: The Office of the Superintendent wrote a one-page issues
description for the Partnership for a Green City. This one-page statement
was then printed, placed on-line and delivered to all 12,000 JCPS
employees.
Sustain: A Special Issue on Green Cities: U of L published an issue of
Sustain which is a journal of environmental and sustainability issues,
published by the Kentucky Institute for the Environment and Sustainable
Development. The issue contained introductory articles by Dr. Stephen
Daeschner of Jefferson County Public Schools, President James Ramsey of
the University of Louisville, and Mayor Jerry Abramson. Other articles
described the state of green city efforts in New York City; Portland,
Oregon; Austin, Texas; and Eugene, Oregon. In other pieces, local authors
discussed green spaces such as Louisville's Waterfront Park, the new green
visitors center at Bernheim Forest, and Louisville's new vision as a 'City of
Parks.'
Our environment is a
learning lab where we
connect the classroom to
real life. This process in
which students become
environmentally literate
adults is critical to the
pursuit of a sustainable
world.
-Donna Griffin
Resource Teacher
JCPS Center for
Environmental Education
Blackacre Field Office
21
-------
Helping students become
responsible, contributing
members of their community is
a rich by-product of teaching
environmental science. By
building the outdoor classroom
with and for students, a
wonderful door opened to
make us all on-the-job environ-
mentalists. Instead of stomping
on bugs, my students now get
on their hands and knees to
observe invertebrates! Instead
of polluting the environment,
my students are now protec-
tors and conservators of the
land, water and air. I look
forward to sharing our success
so all elementary schools can
take full advantage of their
school campus.
-Darleen Morton,
Chenoweth Elementary
Outdoor Classroom Committee
To assure that every school has access to an outdoor classroom, defined as
open spaces available for teachers to use as a context for learning which
may include school buildings, campuses, schoolyards, neighborhood parks
and other community public lands and facilities within walking distances
of the school.
Progress Report
Outdoor classroom support
With financial support from the Metropolitan Sewer District, six west
Louisville schools received $6,000 each to develop outdoor classrooms.
The schools are: Kennedy Elementary, Shawnee High School, Foster
Elementary, Young Elementary, King Elementary, Carter Traditional and
the Duvalle Education Center.
.'
Outdoor classrooms offer new opportunities for learning.
Jeffersontown Elementary applied for an EPA environmental
education grant and received $5,000 to build an outdoor classroom at their
school.
22
Outdoor classroom survey:
In February 2005, the committee prepared and distributed a survey to
JCPS schools to discover outdoor environmental education needs. The
results indicated the top four needs are:
-------
• Professional development,
• Site development,
• Additional funds, and
• Curriculum
One major concern identified was the care of outdoor classrooms
during the summer months. Schools most frequently requested the follow-
ing items be added to their outdoor classrooms: water features, historic
trees, gardens (vegetable, herb, butterfly), weather stations, composting
sites, bird feeders, nature trails, study or picnic tables and amphitheaters.
A significant finding was the number of elementary schools that use their
school campus to support the implementation of the 17 elementary science
module kits. Teachers indicated that the science modules they most often
use outdoors are: animals 2x2, sunshine and shadows, air and weather,
insects, food webs and food chains, earth materials, and solar energy.
Publications
In collaboration with the Blackacre State Nature Preserve Educational
Program, an Environmental Education Curriculum guide for outdoor
classrooms was published. The guide is correlated with the JCPS
curriculum and assessment map. It provides suggested activities for every
six-week block of school on every grade level from K-5.
A poster series entitled Investigate the art and science of Outdoor
Classrooms was published and distributed.
Use of CIS
Two GIS programs were initiated by JCPS high schools to support outdoor
classrooms through funding provided by the Metropolitan Sewer District
(MSB). In Project City Green, Central High School students and their
teachers are mapping the trees on school campuses, using CITYgreen
Software. The software conducts complex statistical analyses of ecosystem
services and creates easy-to-understand maps and reports. CITYgreen
calculates dollar benefits of urban forests based on specific site conditions.
The economic benefits of urban forests include storm water runoff
reduction, air quality improvements, summer energy savings, carbon
storage and avoidance, and tree growth. The students collected data on 25
school campuses and this fall will produce maps and the statistical analysis
In order to develop and
maintain sustainable urban
landscapes, we must
understand and honor how
natural systems function.
Without this basic knowledge,
we can't connect with nature
or expect our kids to care
about it. Outdoor Classrooms
bring these critical natural
elements within easy reach.
What better way exists to
experience, appreciate and
learn about our urban
environment than to be able
to step outside into a
schoolyard filled with native
trees and flowers, designed
with comfortable places to
read or write or make art or
put on a play or dig in the soil
or plant a seed and watch it
grow?
-Phyllis Croce
MSD
23
-------
We are pleased that Doss
H.S. CIS students have the
opportunity to use their
computer skills to help JCPS
elementary school teachers
and students investigate their
local environment. Making
small-scale maps of a school's
outdoor classroom provides
my students with a real
audience for their work. It
helps us create connections
between schools in the district
and between the teachers and
their communities, all the
while learning map skills, a 4th
grade core content social
studies item.
-Shannon Gilkey
Doss High School
Central High School Students being recognized by the JCPS Board for their
work promoting CityGreen
data sheets. Their goal is to raise funds to enable them to conduct the
analysis of all JCPS, Metro Government and U of L lands.
In another project, Doss High School to Career students are mapping
JCPS School Campuses. In this project, they are creating school yard
maps for teachers, when requested, using ArcGIS 9/1 software. So far, 93
teachers have requested outdoor classroom maps. When a school requests
a map set, they receive two 35 x 50 inch maps, three 81/2x11 inch color
maps and three 81/2x11 inch black and white maps. The maps are in
1:1000, 1:4000 and 1:6000 scale. Teachers are using the maps to plant
their outdoor classrooms, as well as for instruction in map reading and
design.
Professional development
The committee worked with the Partnership's Environmental Education
Committee and produced a booklet of 82 environmental education
professional development offerings including 12 specific sessions to assist
with planning outdoor classrooms. More than half of the other offerings
are designed to help teachers develop strategies and/or content knowledge
for using their school campuses for learning. A description of the 82
professional development courses are listed in Appendix D.
24
-------
Legislation
The Kentucky State Legislature passed a bill allowing and encouraging, but
not requiring, every teacher to bring his or her students outside for 30
minutes of exercise daily (HB 172). The bill also requires every school to
develop a plan for the school's physical activity environment. Plans are
underway to combine the environmental investigation possibilities that
support the curriculum and assessment map at the same time the students
and teachers are doing their exercise.
Environmental Health Committee
To fill information gaps that thwart effective delivery of public health
programs including assessing linkages between health, school attendance
and academic performance.
Goals
• To develop a Registry for Environmental Public Health Issues. This
goal involves creating an inventory of existing data systems that
track public health concerns such as Asthma, cancer, birth defects,
sleep apnea, immunization effectiveness and toxic exposure.
• To create awareness of Asthma as an increasing health risk locally
and nationally and as a leading cause of student absenteeism
nationwide and in JCPS particularly. Awareness will include
evaluating community Asthma issues and recommending an
educational agenda.
Progress Report
Environmental Health Tracking
The first action of the committee was to prepare a letter of support for a
grant proposal designed to support the creation of a state environmental
registry. The grant, Academic Partners for Excellence in Environmental
Public Health Tracking, is a collaborative effort including U of L, Western
Kentucky University, Eastern Kentucky University, and the Kentucky
Department of Public Health. The grant is to develop a common vocabulary
between information systems, inventory of databases and a means of
According to the Kentucky
Environmental Quality
Commission:
The majority of evidence
indicates that now, more than
ever, the environment is
influencing our health and the
health of our children and
may be contributing to
Kentucky's:
Pediatric Asthma rates,
which are among the highest
in the United States.
Pediatric cancers, the
leading cause of death by
disease in children.
Birth defects, the leading
cause of child mortality.
Learning disorders, affect-
ing an estimated one out of
four children.
25
-------
pulling data from various sources to create meaningful links between
environmental conditions and health outcomes. Notification of the grant is
currently pending.
The committee took the initial steps of identifying existing local and
statewide data systems concerned with healthcare and environmental
conditions, such as air pollution, water quality, housing data, etc. The
committee plans to identify stakeholders, gaps in current data collection,
inventory processes, and conduct an inventory of the registry. Dr. Robert
Esterhay will develop a format for gathering information on database
efforts.
Asthma Education
The committee has been discussing Asthma in the Louisville Metro area.
While aware of the disease's impact on children and school attendance, as
well as adults and work attendance, the committee still faced significant
challenges as it began to determine the level of coordination among
various organizations in the community involved in providing care and
services. The committee also sought to identify the gaps. For example,
JCPS does not currently collect data on cause of illness. This might be an
area the committee could address. Discussion of the current programs for
Asthma education were discussed, and options for extending that
education included:
• JCPS professional educational programs with teachers,
• LMHD Mobile Health Unit,
• Improved awareness with existing programs,
• Bus posters and signage,
• Involvement of the American Lung Association and the American
Health Education Association.
Faculty Position
The Jefferson County Public Schools and the University School of Public
Health entered into an agreement to establish a joint position to address
health issues that present obstacles to the students, education or
progression within the classroom. Dr. Ruth Carrico was appointed to the
position. One of the first initiatives of this joint position involves
improving immunization rates.
26
-------
Interagency Coordinating Committee
Integrate the Partnership for a Green City project with other Louisville
Metro Government, University, and School District collaborative projects.
Progress Report
There are a wide variety of collaborative projects between the three
partners that are ongoing. To improve this collaboration, each of the
partners has identified staff with the mission of facilitating existing, and
encouraging new, joint projects.
The Committee recommended to the Steering Committee that
additional efforts were needed to improve communication from committees
and their participants, to upper managers, and to individuals and institutions
outside of the three partners. Ongoing efforts are being made to address
these recommendations. As a result of this recommendation, a
Communications Committee was established to assist in using existing
internal and external communication channels to keep participants advised
on efforts being made through the Partnership.
Principles and Standards Committee
Develop written principles and standards to be used to guide policy, budget
and program decisions being made by the Partners to incorporate
environmentally sustainable ideals.
Progress Report
The Committee was formed to include representatives of agency leaders,
facility managers, and program managers from each of the Partners. The
committee reviewed national and international principles and standards that
have been adopted by other cities, campuses, and industries. It was decided
to formulate a set of principles and standards specifically to meet the goals
of the Partnership. The principles and standards were reviewed by all of the
Partnership committee members, and have been approved by the leadership
of each of the Partners. The draft of the principles and standards is in
Appendix B.
27
-------
Looking to the Future
I believe we could and should
have a tremendous impact on
our 25,000 acres of common
land. If we begin reforesting
today the positive impact will
increase exponentially, in
multiple ways, in our near
future. I feel this would be the
best investment we could
make for a green city.
-Bryan Thompson
JCPS Center for
Environmental Education
The achievements of the Partnership for a Green City have established
a firm foundation for continued progress. The committees are all at
various stages as they plan their future actions. The Energy Use
Committee, for example, will be working to implement the
recommendations to reduce energy consumption identified in energy
audits of selected buildings. The Green Purchasing Committee has already
identified janitorial supplies as its next target for joint purchase of
environmentally beneficial products. A few new committees will be
established in the next year, including one that will work to improve
employee awareness of "green" operational practices.
Next year the project will focus on taking actions to institutionalize
the Partnership, establish more formal structures, measure success, and act
as a model to the broader community. Transforming core values and
operational practices of the three institutions toward environmental
sustainability will require concerted efforts.
Environmental Principles and Standards
Draft Principles and Standards have been developed, and their adoption
will provide a foundation for the transformation of values and operational
practices of the partners. Implementation of these Principles and Standards
will require significant changes of the culture and individuals of all three
entities. These sea changes will occur by increasing the awareness of, and
identifying what each of us can do to support, sustainable practices. The
Partnership will broadly distribute and promote the environmental
principles and standards after they are adopted by the Jefferson County
Board of Education, the University of Louisville Board of Trustees and the
Louisville Metro Council. Increased communication and training will be
required to promote a transition toward environmental sustainability.
Full-Time Director
Overall management of the Partnership has been conducted through the
collaborative efforts of individuals from each of the partners. An initiative
such as this cannot survive if coordinated by people with other full-time
job responsibilities; therefore the Partnership will explore establishing a
28
-------
full-time director for the project. A stable funding source based on the
demonstrated tangible and intangible benefits of the project will be needed
to support this position.
Accountability
A system of environmental accountability, measuring the benefits of the
Partnership, is a necessary next step. To date the benefits measured have
focused on individual projects, e.g., energy savings, reduced cost of waste
disposal, and lower white paper costs. These benefits have focused on
tangible benefits. Intangible benefits may prove to be the greatest
achievements of the Partnership, e.g., improved educational achievements,
better management of natural resources, and improved public health. The
environmental accountability system needs to provide a measure of how the
Partnership has improved environmental sustainability through strategic
planning, budgeting, management and educational activities undertaken by
each of the partners. To evaluate and document the work and results of the
program, the Partnership will explore hiring an independent external
contractor.
Summary
From the beginning, one of the primary goals of the Partnership has been
for the University, school district and Metro Government to be models for
environmental sustainability, creating programs that other organizations
could emulate. The objective was to serve as an example for students and
employees, the broader community, businesses, and other cities, school
districts and universities, to encourage them to modify how they live and
work to incorporate environmentally sustainable practices.
Despite the goal, the Partnership has largely worked internally during
these first months, using internal resources to implement each of the
projects. Inclusion of individuals outside of the Partners has been limited.
The idea was to "get our own house in order" before talking to others about
environmental sustainability. But now the Partnership is ready to share its
successes and be a model and guide for the rest of the Commonwealth.
Few things have a more
positive impact on civic pride
than the visual appeal of a
clean and green city. The
strength of the Partnership
sends a clear and distinct
message to residents and
visitors alike that this is a
priority for Louisville Metro.
The synergy created by the
Partnership for a Green City
will be a great catalyst in
ensuring that our community is
green and beautiful and a
place people are proud to call
home.
I strongly believe that the
investment the Partnership
has made in education will pay
great dividends. I am pleased
that Brightside has been able
to contribute to this effort as
there is certainly no more
important factor in making
sure that a green city is part of
our future than to educate our
youth. Engaging the teachers
is the best possible way to
reach the thousands of
students who will some day be
the community leaders that will
ensure the continued legacy of
a clean and green city."
Cynthia Knapek
Executive Director
Brightside
29
-------
Appendix A
Project Participants
JCPS
UofL
Metro
Steering
David Wicks
Interagency Coordinating
Jane Charmoli
Kim Wilson
Principles and Standards
Carol Haddad
Mike Mulheirn
PatTodd
Robert Rodosky
Allan Dittmer
Russell Barnett
Dan Hall
Deborah Wilson
Larry Owsley
William Pierce
Mitchell Payne
William Brammell
Cass Harris
Carol Butler
Tom Owen
Bud Schardein
Rudy Davidson
Ron Wolf
Mike Heitz
Susan Rademacher
Bonnie Biemer
John Huber
Barry Barker
Geoff Hobin
Energy Use Partnership
Mike Mulheirn, Co-Chair
Kevin Stoltz
John Lee
LeeAnn Nickerson
David Swann
Amy Lowen
Waste Management
Chuck Fleischer
Jim Vaughn
Cam Metcalf, Co-Chair
Sieglinde Kinne
Mary Joyce Freibert
Sri Iyer
Jan Wilt
Chris Wooton
Larry Detherage
Kenneth Dietz
Paul Lederer
Tina Pierce
Keith Sharp
Bill Brammel
Jim Slayden
Lucian Young
Don Douglas, Facilitator
O'Dell Henderson
Ed Meece
Tom Raderer
James Mok
James Hunt
LaDonna Bemus
Kim Stalls
Phyllis Fitzgerald
Michelle Stites
Cynthia Lee
Art Williams
Bob Schindler, Chair
Cass Harris
30
-------
Green Purchasing
Linda Ballman
Environmental Education
Jacqueline Austin, Co-Chair
Amy Herman
Dorcas James
Keith Look
LeAnn Nickerson
Donna Griffin
Outdoor Classroom
David Wicks, Chair
Shawn Canady, Central HS
Caryn Walker, Brown
Vera Prater, Fern Ck El
Shannon Gilkey, Doss HS
Jim Fegenbush
Lewis Hammond
Bryan Thompson
Donna Griffin
Environmental Health
Bonnie Ciarroccki
Don Speer, Chair
Lorrie Winfrey
Sue Russell
Lissa McCracken, Facilitator
Don Douglas, Facilitator
Dean Robert Felner, Co-Chair
Becki Newton
Cheryl Kolander
Clara Leuthart
Jean Ann Clyde
Thomas Tretter
Rebecca Crump
Margaret Pentecost
Margaret Carreiro
Craig Bowen
Bob Cromis
Communications
Allison Martin
Dr. David Tollerud, Co-Chair
Ruth Carrico
Dr. Robert Esterhay
Carol Hanchette
Faye Jones
Irma Ramos
Robert Slayton
Rebecca Stuttsman
Barbara Parker
Chris Woolen, Chair
Denise Fitzpatrick
Art Williams
Cynthia Knapek
Marcelle Gianelloni
Theresa Mattel
ChristaWeidner
Allan Nations
Julie Shinton
Bennett Knox
Phyllis Croce
Cheryl Bersaglia
Terry Wooden
Tonya Swan
Judy Nielsen, Co-Chair
Sheila Andersen
Art Williams
Matt Zahn
Cathy Hinko, Metro Housing
Coalition
Kay Vance, Passport
Brennan O'Banion, KDPH
Amy Vissing, Passport
Fran Crawford, Passport
Lauren Roberts
31
-------
Appendix B
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT
DRAFT
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
PREAMBLE: As stewards of Louisville Metro and of all its resources, we understand the
interdependence of humans with the environment. We must apply thoughtful and creative
planning to achieve a thriving economy built on the principles of sustainability. We must
foster conservation, pollution prevention and restoration of ecosystems with both public
policy and personal behavior. We must promote a common agenda for Louisville as a
green city, preserve and enhance the quality of life for our citizens and future generations,
and widen recognition of the importance of good stewardship of the community's natural
resources.
Leadership Commitment and Measures
We will implement these Principles by demonstrating community leadership, collaborative planning and
by adopting best environmental practices. We will establish goals, objectives, and indicators; conduct
an annual self-evaluation of our progress; and jointly issue a public report.
Sustainable Use and Protection of Natural Resources
We value and conserve natural resources and will seek to preserve and make sustainable use of our
air, water, soils and forests. We will protect and conserve non-renewable natural resources through
efficient use, careful planning and collaborative land management programs. We will reduce use of
substances that may cause environmental damage to the air, water, earth or its inhabitants. We will
safeguard all habitats affected by our facilities and operations, especially the public lands we manage,
while promoting biological diversity. We will conserve open spaces through comprehensive planning.
Land and Water Management
We will promote natural areas for biological diversity, protect areas along streams and water bodies,
and plant with native species. We will enhance, enlarge and protect our urban forests. We will practice
responsible water use.
32
-------
Reduction and Disposal of Wastes
We will combine resources to reduce or eliminate wastes through source reduction, reuse and
recycling for our own facilities and operations and for the Metro area in general. We will handle and
dispose all waste using safe and responsible methods.
Energy Use
We will conserve energy and improve the energy efficiency of our buildings, vehicles, and equipment
and the goods and services we use. We will use environmentally safe and sustainable energy sources,
while achieving savings. We will increase our use of energy from renewable sources.
Transportation
We will build and redevelop our community to minimize transportation demands, while providing
pedestrian and bicycle-friendly pathways and an effective public transit system. We will work to reduce
vehicle miles traveled in the community, while implementing the vision of our organizations, using
energy efficient vehicles.
Purchasing Products and Services
We will pool our knowledge and resources to jointly purchase green products and services. We will
work with our suppliers to adopt sustainable approaches and solutions. We will partner to create a
stronger market for environmentally friendly and regionally produced products and services.
Design and Management of the Built Environment
We will design, build, restore and manage our facilities and neighborhoods in ways that promote and
protect health and safety. We will use school campuses, Partner buildings and lands as settings for
learning.
Public Health
We will monitor our policies and practices to assess and reduce public health risk. When potential risks
are identified, we will identify and implement solutions.
Environmental Education
Through environmental education we are committed to developing and supporting environmentally
literate citizens. We will involve colleagues, students and citizens in demonstrating the ability to
implement these principles.
33
-------
Appendix C
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
between the
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government
and
Jefferson County Public Schools
and
the University of Louisville
pertaining to:
Cooperative Purchasing
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered by and between the Louisville/Jefferson County
Metro Government, (hereinafter "Metro Government") and. Jefferson County Public Schools
(hereinafter "J'CPS") and the University of Louisville (hereinafter "UofL").
WHEREAS, Metro Government, JCPS and UofL (hereinafter collectively the "Parties" or
individually the "Party") are agencies or public entities for the Commonwealth of Kentucky: and
WHEREAS, the Parties have formed The Partnership for a Green City (hereinafter the
"Program") to make cooperative purchases for the benefit of the local community and
environment; and
WHEREAS, this Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter '"MOA") sets forth the lights and
duties of the Parties with regard to such purchasing.
NOW, THEREFORE, for consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
1. PURCHASING PROCESS:
I.I Upon agreement of the Parties, any Party may serve as the issuing Party for any
procurements pursuant to this Program. Unless otherwise preferred by any Party,
UofL shall serve as the issuing Party of procurements on behalf of the Parties. The
issuing Party shall, ensure that the procurement process complies with the minimum
requirements of each of the Parties. Each Party shall timely review and submit
information necessary for the preparation of any prospective procurement.
Page 1 of 3
34
-------
1.2. The issuing Party shall consult with the other Parties regarding the form and
content of any prospective procurement.
1.3, Each Party shall submit any specific purchase orders directly to the. applicable
vendor and pay .for such orders according to. the terms of the purchase agreement.
1 A-. Each Party shall he considered an independent Party and shall not be construed to-
be an agent or representative of any other Party. Therefore, no Party shall be liable
for any acts or omissions of another Party or for the purchase orders of any other
Party,
2. CONSIDERATION: No payments shall be made between the Parties for services provided
pursuant to this MOA. The sole consideration shall be the economy of purchasing, the benefit to
the Commonwealth, and thejnutual waiver and release hereby agreed to by the Parties for any
claims, liabilities, or damages whatsoever incurred as.a result of this MOA.
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: The effective dates for this MOA will be from October 15,
2005 through June 30, 2008, This MOA shall not be modified except by the written agreement
of all Parties, No work may begin under this MOA until all Parties have signed it. The MOA will
be reviewed in January 2008 and may be renewed upon the written agreement of the Parties.
4. TERMINATION: Any Party may terminate this MOA on thirty days written notice to the
other Parties. In the: event of termination, any purchasing obligations incurred prior to the
effective termination date shall remain the responsibility of each Party.
5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The Parties certify, by the signatures of duly authorized
representatives on this MOA, that they are legally entitled to enter into this MOA and that they
shall not. be violating, either directly or indirectly, any conflict of interest statute of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky by the performance of this agreement.
6. RECORDS: The Parties shall maintain, during this MOA, and for not less than Five years .
from the date of its termination, complete and accurate records of all the sendees provided
hereunder. The Parties shall allow the other Parties, at any reasonable time, to inspect and audit
those records by authorized representatives of its own or of any public accounting firm selected
by it.
7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This MOA is the entire agreement and understanding of the
Parties with respect to the subject matter set forth herein and this MOA supersedes any and all
prior and contemporaneous oral or written agreements or understandings between the Parties
relative thereto. No representation, promise, inducement, or statement of intention has been
made by the Parties that is not embodied in this MOA. This MOA cannot be amended, modified.
or supplemented in any respect except by a subsequent written, agreement duly executed by'all of
the Parties hereto.
Page 2 of 3
35
-------
8. SUCCESSORS: This MO A shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties
hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns.
9. SEVERABILITY: If any court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this MOA
unenforceable, such provision shall be modified to the extent required to make it enforceable,
consistent with the spirit and intent of this MOA. If such a provision cannot be so modified, the
provision shall be deemed separable from the remaining provisions of this MOA and shall not
affect any other provision hereunder.
,10. COUNTERPARTS: This MOA may be executed in counterparts, in which case each
executed counterpart shall be deemed an original and all executed counterparts shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
APPROVED AS TO LEGALITY AND FORM:
Assistant Jefferson County Attorney
Date
ssistarit General Counsel
Date
Assistant University Counsel
AP/Rf)VED:
Oct. 25, 2005
(Jefferson County Metro Government . Date
rson CMMy Public Schools '
Uniwrsity of Louisville
October Jl, 2005
Date
1
Date
Page 3 of 3
36
-------
Professional Development Courses Offered 2005-2006
Theme 1: Environmental Education Strategies
and Outdoor Classrooms
Theme 2: Kentucky's Biodiversity
and Watersheds
Theme 3: Environmental Issues
and Community Investigation
Aug.
8/29/05 Intro to Blackacre
Sept.
9/07/05 Eco-DRAMA: School Based EE partnership
9/08/05 Building an Outdoor Classroom that Supports Science *
9/12/05 Using the Historic Homestead to Teach Social Studies
9/21/05 Living in Water
9/22/05 Planning for an Outdoor Classroom
9/28/05 Using Braille Field Guides to Study Insects
9/29/05 The World Around Us - Louisville Science Center
9/30/05 Kentucky Forests* Project Learning Tree
9/30/05 Planning for an Outdoor Classroom
9/30/05 What's In A Name? Using plant names to teach*
9/01/05 Exploring Beargrass Creek
9/07/05 Kentucky Wildflowers
9/12/05 Exploring the Salt River
9/26/05 Terrestrial Insects
9/28/05 Plant Life of Kentucky
9/29/05 Kentucky Trees
9/30/06 Introduction to Canoeing
9/08/05 Introduction to Jefferson Memorial Forest
9/14/05 Environmental Issues that Face
Louisville's west end.
9/15/05 Food, Farming and the Environment
9/26/05 Kentucky's #1 water pollution problem
9/28/05 Smart Growth and Land Use
9/28/05 Pollution Prevention: The Preferred
Option for Waste Management
9/30/05 Water Quality 101
CD
Q.
X"
O
Oct.
10/05/05 Pure Tap Adventures in Water* a Learning Curriculum
10/06/05 It's everywhere; Louisville Water Go's K-2 curriculum
10 /10/05 Writer's Notebook, Science Notebook, and Nature
Journaling
10/20/05 Using the Outdoor Classroom to Connect Science
10/24/05 The World Around Us* The Louisville Science Center
10/25/05 Understanding Soil-Make it Live
10/27/05 Scientific Process: The Short Form
10/03/05 Exploring Biodiversity at the
Louisville Zoo
10/10/05 Urban Forests
10/19/05 Investigating Adaptation and
Evolution at the Louisville Zoo
10/25/05 Of Woods and Water*
10/06/05 Energy use in your school: conducting
audits and implementing strategies to
reduce.
10/12/05 Waste Management: Be a Solid Waste
Survivor
10/13.05 Olmstead Parks: Cherokee and Seneca
10/20/05 Olmstead Parks: Iroquois Park
10/27/05 Olmstead Parks: Shawnee and Chickasaw
Parks
Nov.
11/02/05 AWAKE: All Wild about Kentucky's Environment
11/10/05 Rigby in the Outdoor Classroom
11/14/05 Aquatic Wild
11/28/05 Investigating the Environment as an Integrating Context
11/30/05 Outdoor Classrooms: Planning, Development, and
Instruction
11/03/05 Nature Photography
11/09/05 Using Native Plants to Attract Birds
11/16/05 Introduction to Native Plants
w
11/02/05 Promise and Betrayal: Universities and the
Battle for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods
11/03/05 Preventing transmission of infectious
disease: Human health and the environment
11/03/05 Asthma and Lead Poison: impact and
strategies for prevention
11/03/05 Introduction to Toxicology
11/15/05 Community Investigation of Air Quality
-------
w
00
Professional Development Courses Offered 2005-2006
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Theme 1: Environmental Education Strategies
and Outdoor Classrooms
2/01/06 Outdoor Classrooms: Earning seed money with your
environmental school plan
2/08/06 Introduction to Blackacre
2/08/06 Mapping Your School Yard
2/09/06 The World Around Us - The Louisville Science Center
2/27/06 AWAKE: All Wild about Kentucky's Environment
2/28/06 Infusing Core Content into your Outdoor Classroom
2/23/06 How to begin an Outdoor Classroom
3/01/06 Project Wild
3/03/06 Developing a Backyard Habitat
3/03/06 Intro to GIS (Geographic Information Systems)
3/06/06 Wild About Reading
3/13/06 Soils
3/22/06 Pure Tap Adventures in Water* a Learning Curriculum
3/23/06 It's everywhere; Louisville water company's new K-2
curriculum
4/20/05 It's All Down Hill from Here: Using a stream to teach
history, earth science, biology, creative writing, and
physics.
Theme 2: Kentucky's Biodiversity
and Watersheds
2/16/06 Exploring Biodiversity at the
Louisville Zoo
2/23/06 Beargrass Creek and GIS
(Geographic Information Systems)
3/1 5/06 Water Quality / Stream
Assessment
3/20/06 Aquatic Insects
3/29/06 Exploring Beargrass Creek
3/20/06 Of Woods and Waters
4/19/06 Plant Life of Kentucky
4/25/06 Weeds of Kentucky
4/25/06 Kentucky Birds
4/26/06 Kentucky Aquatic Life
4/27/06 Kentucky Wildflowers
Theme 3: Environmental Issues
and Community Investigation
2/09/06 Introduction to Jefferson Memorial Forest
2/15/06 Mapping Urban Forestry
2/22/06 Air Cadets or Air heads: A teacher's tool kit
for exploring air pollution
2/22/06 Energy & the Growth of North America, a
KY State Fair thematic workshop
4/20/06 Identification of Invasive Plants and
Methods of Removal
4/24/05 Exploring the Five Themes of
Geography with Lewis & Clark
4/25/06 Ecological Restoration of the Tyler-
Schooling Property along Floyd's Fork
5/01/06 Energy & the Growth of North America, a
KY State Fair thematic workshop
------- |