Transcript Document
Yellow Wood Associates, Inc. 228 North Main Street St. Albans, Vermont 05478 (802) 524-6141 (802) 524-6643 Fax www.yellowwood.org Innovators in rural development since 1985. Helping clients discover their development choices. www.yellowwood.org The Problem: “Inadequate public infrastructure is viewed as the most significant roadblock to economic development in small town and rural America.” -- The Pulse of Small Town and Rural America, Report from the National Association of Development Organizations Research Foundation eForum (August 30, 2004 national focus group of 210 regional development professionals supported by the Kellogg Foundation) The Solution: Green Community TechnologiesSM is a new service to help communities make infrastructure choices that will • save money • improve municipal service delivery • improve human health and quality of life • and protect the environment. Among the approaches we consider are: • GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE • LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT • ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES • GREEN BUILDING Energy Production – Hull, Massachusetts is using a 150foot-high wind turbine to run the town’s street and traffic lights and saving $130,000 a year on electricity bills. Essex Junction, Vermont is using new technology at its wastewater plant to burn methane gas to generate electricity. Savings are expected to be $30,000 a year. Energy Efficiency – Newton, Massachusetts invested $130,000 in energy efficient lighting in 38 municipal buildings and is saving $60,000 a year on electricity bills. Medford and Brookline, among others, are saving tens of thousands of dollars a year by replacing their traffic lights with energy efficient traffic lamps, which use 80 percent to 90 percent less energy. Water Conservation – Augusta, Maine promoted water conservation and saved $3.5 million through reducing the size of new filtration and storage facilities, cutting the average residential water bill by $73 a year. Heat Production – 28 schools in Vermont now heat with wood biomass, which has increased comfort, supported improvements in indoor air quality, lowered costs, and benefited the local economy. Some schools are saving $40,000 + per year. District energy systems, which send heat generated by biomass through underground pipes to multiple buildings, are in use in government complexes in Montpelier and Waterbury, Vermont. St. Paul, Minnesota uses a district energy system to heat 75% of its downtown. Fuel Conservation – The City of San Diego Refuse Disposal Division saved $868,000 in heavy equipment and diesel rates by shutting off equipment during breaks and lunch periods. This opportunity was discovered through an environmental management system (EMS) approach developed by EPA. Green Building – ECHO at the Leahy Center for Lake Champlain • Uses a facility-wide digital control system • Fiber optic day lighting • Solar thermal system for water heating • Auto dimming fluorescent lights • Recycled content materials • LEED Green Building Rating System Certified. Systems/Holistic Approach • Design: Green Buildings, Low Impact Development, Green Infrastructure • Hardware: Biomass, Alternative Energy, Highly Efficient Equipment/Machinery • Behaviors: Conservation, Operations, Management The Green Community TechnologiesSM Process 1. GASB 34 Compliant Inventory and Assessment of Infrastructure Assets 2. Identify Areas to Explore with Local Decision-makers 3. Research Alternative Technologies and Present Findings 4. Assist Communities to Implement Appropriate Alternatives The Green Community TechnologiesSM Inventory and Assessment provides: Systematic overview of all your assets, their condition and the extent to which they are meeting current and future needs Tool for long-term asset management Information necessary for GASB 34 compliance We also use the Green Community TechnologiesSM Inventory process to identify opportunities for alternative approaches. Voice of: Ron Rodjenski, Richmond Town Administrator Inventory and Assessment Research Alternatives • What are they? • Where have they been used effectively? • What are the economic, environmental and social benefits and drawbacks? • Which technologists are doing this type of work? • What are the life cycle costing implications? • What is most appropriate for this municipality? Some Examples: • • • • • • • • alternative methods of sewage processing stormwater source reduction highly efficient pumps and motors energy audits and renovation for historic buildings alternative fuels for town vehicles repair of underground water lines green building components for new construction best practices for municipal garage management Life Cycle Cost Analysis Process of considering alternative which satisfy all performance requirements (e.g. code, safety, comfort, and reliability requirements) based on all costs spent over the life of the longest lived alternative. The alternative with the lowest LCC over a given period of time is the most cost-effective choice. These costs include: • Purchase price • Operation and maintenance costs • Replacement costs for shorter lived alternatives • Salvage and/or disposal costs if any Voice of: Rocky Martin, Director Department of Building and Facilities, Hinesburg Alternatives Research Implement Appropriate Alternatives • Performing due diligence with different technology providers – Interviewing providers and checking references • Assisting in finding funding for technologies and/or determining financing options. • Monitoring implementation • Evaluating impacts and establishing recordkeeping systems. Six Reasons why your local government should green up public facilities in your community and manage your public assets 1. Infrastructure costs taxpayers money and avoidance comes with a cost. 2. Taxpayers want high quality services and better services for less money. 3. It makes political sense; the people want a cleaner environment, improved quality of life. It gives meaning to the phrase “sustainable community.” 4. Thoughtful and creative planning is good government. 5. Oversight agencies and taxpayers want the kinds of accountability that can be achieved through GASB 34. 6. It supports environmental technology entrepreneurs and can lead to local job and/or business benefits, and creates a compelling profile for your community. How can we help you? Call us to discuss how we can move ahead together. We look forward to your call. This project is supported by the Small Business Innovation Research program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, grant number # 2004-33610 15010.