1. Kansas City’s STAR Certification Aaron Shroyer Dennis Murphey
City Council Business Session
December 22, 2016

2. OVERVIEW Background on STAR Overview of KCMO’s Score
Implementation & Next Steps
For those of you new to STAR…[Read]
The rating system was developed by more than 200 volunteer tech experts working in committees between The Health & Safety committee, for example, had representatives from several local governments, CDC, FEMA, the Prevention Institute, the American Planning Association, and the Atlanta Regional Commission.
The Rating System was released publicly in the fall of 2012.

3. STAR Community Rating System
The STAR Community Rating System (STAR) is the nation’s leading comprehensive framework and certification program for measuring local sustainability. STAR was built by and for local governments and the communities they serve.
For those of you new to STAR…[Read]
The rating system was developed by more than 200 volunteer tech experts working in committees between The Health & Safety committee, for example, had representatives from several local governments, CDC, FEMA, the Prevention Institute, the American Planning Association, and the Atlanta Regional Commission.
The Rating System was released publicly in the fall of 2012.

4. ABOUT THE RATING SYSTEM
Nation’s first comprehensive framework and certification program for evaluating local sustainability, encompassing economic, environmental, and social performance measures.
Many different interpretations of sustainability; STAR’s definition is broad
Allows communities to credibly track their progress toward overall sustainability objectives and to allow communities to compare progress with each other.
WHO DEVELOPED THE STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM?
STAR was developed for local governments by local governments five years ago

5. Certification Process
SIGN UP
Local government signs up for a STAR subscription
Receive access to Online Reporting Tool
STAR provides trainings and resources
REPORT
Build team of staff and local partners to gather data
Gather data based on requirements in Technical Guide
Enter all submittal requirements into Online Tool
Takes approximately 6 months-1 year
GET VERIFIED
Submit online application for verification
STAR staff verifies all submittals for accuracy
One chance to make changes or amend application
STAR performs final verification
ACHIEVE
CERTIFICA-TION
STAR awards certification
Certification lasts for 3 years

6. The STAR Framework 7 GOALS 44 OBJECTIVES 108 OUTCOME MEASURES
Example: Built Environment
44 OBJECTIVES
Example: Housing Affordability
108 OUTCOME MEASURES
Example: Demonstrate that 10% of units built
are dedicated as subsidized affordable housing
408 ACTION MEASURES
Example: Require, incentivize, or
subsidize creation of affordable housing
Broad sustainability themes with community-level aspirations
Subcategories that move the community toward the GOAL
KC applied for credit on 393 and got credit on 327
516 Evaluation Measures Used to Assign Points

7. THE STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM
Goal Areas & Objectives are rated and evaluated in the online system, helping local leaders set goals and measure progress across all areas.
The framework of the Rating System includes: 7 sustainability goal areas supported by 44 objectives. An innovation and process category allows for creativity and bonus points,

8. CERTIFICATION LEVELS Certified 3-STAR Community (200-399 points)
Recognized for sustainability leadership
Certified 4-STAR Community ( points)
Recognized for national excellence
Certified 5-STAR Community (600+ points)
Recognized as top tier achiever in national sustainability

9. Nearly 100 communities in the US and Canada are using STAR
Nearly 100 communities in the US and Canada are using STAR... That’s over 40 million people.
STAR-certified communities
STAR-certified communities
Communities using STAR or pursuing certification

10. Certified STAR Communities
More than 50 US cities and counties have received a STAR Community Rating, including:
5-STAR Community
Baltimore, MD
Cambridge, MA
Seattle, WA
4-STAR Community
Austin, TX
Evanston, IL
Las Vegas, NV
Raleigh, NC
Boise, ID
Iowa City, IA
Louisville, KY
Memphis, TN
Burlington, VT
Columbus, OH
Tucson, AZ
Tacoma, WA
Portland, OR
Washington, DC
Plano, TX
Lawrence, KS
Dubuque, IA
3-STAR Community
Albany, NY
Cleveland, OH
Las Cruces, NM
Riverside, CA
Atlanta, GA
Columbia, MO
Phoenix, AZ
St. Louis, MO
Beaverton, OR
Des Moines, IA
San Antonio, TX
Birmingham, AL
Fayetteville, AR
Fort Collins, CO
Wichita, KS
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN

11. STAR in other cities
To strengthen Business Plans or Sustainability Plans
To use as planning framework
To identify and implement best practices
To identify gaps and prioritize investment
To build strategic partnership in the community
To communicate and brand sustainability
To increase transparency
To demonstrate creditworthiness to bond agencies

12. Acknowledgements THANK YOU! KC Departments Community Partners
Water Services
Planning
Neighborhoods & Housing Services
Public Works
City Manager’s Office
Mayor’s Office
Health
General Services
Municipal Court
Parks & Recreation
Human Relations
Human Resources
Police
Fire
Aviation
Community Partners
Bridging the Gap
KC P&L
Heartland Conservation Alliance
CultivateKC
KC Food Circle
KC Healthy Kids
BikeWalkKC
MARC
EDCKC
HAKC
Show Me KC Schools
Connecting For Good
reStart
THANK YOU!

13. Kansas city: a 4-star community
Achieved 480 (out of 720) points
11th highest score (top 20th percentile)
Got credit for 334 indicators, again roughly 2/3 of the potential points

14. Education, Arts & Community
Score overview
Goal
Approved Score
Total Points Possible
Percentage Achieved
Built Environment
62.1
100
62%
Climate & Energy
63.3
63%
Economy & Jobs
68.8
69%
Education, Arts & Community
59.4 70
85%
Equity & Empowerment
43.0
43%
Health & Safety
62.3
Natural Systems
71.8
72%
Innovation & Process
50.0 50
100%
TOTAL
480.7
720
67%
Shows the raw score, total points possible, and the percentage of the points achieved

15. KCMO Score in context
-Median Score for all STAR applicants is 380.7; we outperformed by 100 points, achieving almost exactly 2/3 of the available points
-Largest gap was in the Innovation & Process goal area, next was Natural Systems and Climate & Energy – both were 15 points or roughly 30% more than the median
-EJ, EAC, EE were all over ten points (on a 100 point scale) over the median; or 20%
-Health & Safety and Built Environment were slightly above the median

16. Score overview – built environment
STAR Objective
Actual Score
Maximum Score
BE-1: Ambient Noise & Light
1.83 5
BE-2: Community Water Systems
14.37 15
BE-3: Compact & Complete Communities
5.7 20
BE-4: Housing Affordability
6.71
BE-5: Infill & Redevelopment
5.42 10
BE-6: Public Spaces
14.57
BE-7: Transportation Choices
13.5
TOTAL
62.1
100

17. SCORE ANALYSIS– Built environment
Strengths
Areas of Opportunity
BE-2: Drinking water quality
BE-2: Secure water supply
BE-2: Safe stormwater management
BE-6: Acreage of parkland per resident
BE-6: Connectivity to trails
BE-6: Citizen satisfaction
BE-7: Transportation safety
BE-1: Setting and achieving targets for ambient light and noise
BE-3: Compact & Complete Communities
BE-4: Achieve housing production goals
BE-5: Increase and track amount of infill development
BE-7: Transportation mode split and affordability
Strengths
Drinking Water: meet EPA standards
Secure Water Supply: since we get water from MO River and only take out a fraction
Safe Stormwater Mgmt: Have NPDES permits
Acreage of parkland: 37.9 v. standard of 20; almost double the standard, got bonus points for that
Connectivity to trails: 96.7% connected, standard is 90%
Citizen satisfaction with Parks: 77% used parks
Transportation safety: trendline over time points to zero fatalities by 2040
Weaknesses
We do not have targets for ambient light/noise/light pollution
Compact & Complete Communities – lack of density across the City hurt us here; couldn’t do more than 3 in GDAP
Housing – do not have articulated plan or data to show creation of affordable housing units
BE-5: did not have data about new development in infill/redevelopment areas for O1; O2 was about greenfield development (building new water/sewer mains and we have done a lot of that
Mode split is 80% drive alone, which is far above target of 60%

18. Score overview – Climate & energy
STAR Objective
Actual Score
Maximum Score
CE-1: Climate Adaptation
0.46 15
CE-2: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
19.64 20
CE-3: Greening the Energy Supply
7.85
CE-4: Industrial Sector Resource Efficiency
4.67 10
CE-5: Resource Efficient Buildings 12
CE-6: Resource Efficient Public Infrastructure
3.67
CE-7: Waste Minimization
TOTAL
63.3
100

19. SCORE ANALYSIS– Climate & energy
Strengths
Areas of Opportunity
CE-2: Reduction in citywide GHG emissions
CE-7: Solid waste shows progress towards a 100% reduction in total solid waste by 2050
CE-1: Better preparing for vulnerability and threats associated with climate change
CE-3: Encourage increased ownership of green vehicles
CE-4: Decrease Energy & Water Use in the Industrial Sector
CE-5: Increase Energy & Water Efficiency in Buildings
CE-6: Increase Energy & Water Efficiency in Public Buildings
Strengths
Achieved some credit for GHG reduction (8% reduction from )
41.87% decrease of solid waste between 2004 and 2015
Weaknesses
CE-1: Did not have anything for reducing climate vulnerability
CE-3: Ownership of green vehicles has not gone up over time
CE-4: Did not show progress for energy/water efficiency in industrial sector; did not have data
CE-5: Slight increase in green building stock, but nothing to show for energy/water efficiency of CW buildings
CE-6: Did not show progress for energy/water efficiency in public infrastructure

20. Score overview – Economy & jobs
STAR Objective
Actual Score
Maximum Score
EJ-1: Business Retention & Development
18.93 20
EJ-2: Green Market Development
10.65 15
EJ-3: Local Economy
6.59
EJ-4: Quality Jobs & Living Wages
4.26
EJ-5: Targeted Industry Development
14.47
EJ-6: Workforce Readiness
13.92
TOTAL
68.8
100

21. SCORE ANALYSIS– economy & jobs
Strengths
Areas of Opportunity
EJ-1: Increase in number of businesses and employment over time
EJ-2: Decrease GHG intensity over time
EJ-3: Increase in local bank deposits over time
EJ-5: Increase in number of businesses, total sales, and employment in AdvanceKC target sectors
EJ-6: Increase in trained workforce and workforce mobility metrics
EJ-2: Increase Green-Certified Building Stock & Green Vehicles
EJ-3: Adopt economic localization plan with targets for local consumption and export
EJ-4: Median household incomes have not increased over time (in real dollars)
EJ-4: Only 65.5% of households earn living wage
Strengths
EJ-1: 1000 businesses created in past 3 years (of data)
Unemployment rate has gone down
EJ-3: amount of bank deposits in local financial institutions has increased 7.5%
Slight increases in total number of businesses in target sectors (Professional Scientific & Technical Services, Arts Entertainment and Rec, and Health Care & Social Assistance
EJ-6: FEC data showed increases in employment placement and wage gains for program participants
EJ-6: <.5% increases in bachelor’s and graduate degrees (educational attainment)
Weaknesses
Ownership of green vehicles is stable
EJ-4: median household income has not increased over time
Living wage is $29,860, standard is 80% over that

22. Score overview – Education, arts & culture
STAR Objective
Actual Score
Maximum Score
EAC-1: Arts & Culture
14.42 15
EAC-2: Community Cohesion
EAC-3: Educational Opportunity & Attainment
11.57 20
EAC-4: Historic Preservation
8.96 10
EAC-5: Social & Cultural Diversity
9.4
TOTAL
59.4 70

23. SCORE ANALYSIS– Education, arts & culture
Strengths
Areas of Opportunity
EAC-1: Creative industries make up 5.12% of all KCMO businesses
EAC-2: Proximity of residents to community venues
EAC-4: KCMO has 21 historic districts and has increased local historic landmarks over time
EAC-5: KCMO has diverse community representation on boards and holds events in the community that celebrate diversity
EAC-3: Reading proficiency and graduation rates are improving but are still low
Strengths
EAC-1: 21.8% of metro residents visit museum annually
EAC-2: 97% of residents live within 1 mile of a community center, park, library, or museum. Standard is 75%, we got bonus points here
EAC-5: Of the Boards & Commissions that we maintain records of, they are 42% minority (30% black, 10% Hispanic) and 41% female; almost identical to their proportionate population
Weaknesses
Reading rate is 49%
Graduation rate exceeds standards (90%) for some places but not all

24. Score overview – EQUITY & Empowerment
STAR Objective
Actual Score
Maximum Score
EE-1: Civic Engagement
8.73 15
EE-2: Civil & Human Rights 5 10
EE-3: Environmental Justice
3.34
EE-4: Equitable Services & Access
2.33 20
EE-5: Human Services
5.44
EE-6: Poverty Prevention & Alleviation
18.2
TOTAL 43
100
Typically this is the worst scoring area

25. SCORE ANALYSIS– Equity & empowerment
Strengths
Areas of Opportunity
EE-1: KC ranks 8th among the 51 largest MSAs for volunteerism
EE-6: Reduction in poverty over time among African-Americans, males, and Hispanic/Latinos
EE-2: Resolution of Civil Rights complaints do not fall within the locally adopted time frame
EE-3: Setting and achieving targets for prioritized environmental justice sites
EE-4: Ensuring equitable access and proximity to community facilities, services, and infrastructure
EE-5: Reducing the percentage of people in priority populations who obtain priority human services
Strengths
EE-1: volunteerism – got bonus points here (32.3% of metro residents volunteer on an annual basis)
EE-6: 5.47% poverty reduction among blacks since 2010, 6% decrease in men since 2010, 5% decrease among Hispanics since 2010
Weaknesses
EE-2: we almost achieved this, but our rate is in the high 90s and not 100%
EE-3: we do not do this at this time
EE-4: This is extremely tough to calculate, there’s a chance we might’ve earned some points, but there was not sufficient staffing in the GIS team
EE-5: the data here was not accessible
EE-4: purpose is to ensure equitable access to community assets within and between neighborhoods and populations
For credit, must demonstrate increased access and proximity to public transit, public libraries, public schools, public spaces, healthy food, health and human services, digital access, high speed internet, urban tree canopy, and emergency response times
Within every demographic group, you had to create income quintiles and then compare results within those quintiles
EE-5: Human Services: ensure high quality human services programs are available and utilized to guarantee basic human needs so that all residents lead lives of dignity
Priority pops (homeless, elderly, children, mentally impaired, immigrants, low income, etc.)
Priortity services (healthcare, child care, counseling, housing assistance, workforce development, substance abuse, etc.)

26. Score overview – health & safety
STAR Objective
Actual Score
Maximum Score
HS-1: Active Living
7.1 15
HS-2: Community Health & Health System
12.03 20
HS-3: Emergency Prevention & Response
9.79
HS-4: Food Access & Nutrition
11.12
HS-5: Indoor Air Quality
2.96 5
HS-6: Natural & Human Hazards
5.43
HS-7: Safe Communities
13.89
TOTAL
62.3
100

27. SCORE ANALYSIS– HEALTH & Safety
Strengths
Areas of Opportunity
HS-3: Compliance with National Incident Management System (NIMS)
HS-4: Increase local fresh foods, increased access of low-income families to healthy food, increased proximity of residents to healthy food
HS-7: Low school violence rate citywide (2.367 per 1,000)
HS-1: Encourage physical activity among children and adults
HS-2: Improve morbidity/mortality, clinical care, and overall quality of health system
HS-5: Decrease the number of indoor air quality complaints
HS-6: Increase resilience to community-wide hazard threats
HS-7: Decrease the violent crime rate
Strengths
HS-2: PHAB helped us earn points
HS-4: acreage of land devoted to urban agriculture has gone from practically 0 to 85 acres in past ten years
HS-4: 81% of residents and 79% of children are food secure
HS-4: percentage of residents within ¼ of healthful retail food outlet has gone up .52% in the past 3 years
HS-7: school violence rate citywide is ¼ of STAR’s target
Weaknesses
HS-1: Physical activity among children and adults is below their standard
HS-2: Health outcomes are not a “Top US Performer” based on County Health Rankings
HS-5: Did not have data for IAQ
HS-7: Violent crime rate is far above the standard

28. Score overview – Natural systems
STAR Objective
Actual Score
Maximum Score
NS-1: Green Infrastructure
17.95 20
NS-2: Invasive Species
5.8 10
NS-3: Natural Resource Protection
8.27
NS-4: Outdoor Air Quality
13.59 15
NS-5: Water in the Environment
17.32
NS-6: Working Lands
8.87
TOTAL
71.8
100

29. SCORE ANALYSIS – natural systems
Strengths
Areas of Opportunity
NS-1: Proximity of population to green infrastructure (>85%)
NS-2: Demonstrated progress towards targets for integrated pest management plan (EAB)
NS-4: Decrease in Air Quality Index days above 100
NS-5: Amount of water withdrawn for human use does not exceed amount entering the system
NS-6: Increased the number of sustainable harvests over time
NS-3: Achieve targets for land preservation
NS-3: Achieve no-net-loss of wetlands, streams, and shoreline buffers
NS-3: Increase connectivity of regional natural systems
NS-5: Achieve rating based on EPA Biological Integrity reporting
NS-5: Demonstrate pollutant loadings are below Total Maximum Daily Load levels
Strengths
NS-1: virtually entire population is within ½ mile walk of green infrastructure features
NS-2: based on goal of treating 20,000 ash trees
NS-4: 20% fewer AQI days over 100 in the past 5 years
NS-6 – increase in local/organic/free range farms in the past 6 years (56% increase)
Weaknesses
NS-3: natural resource protection areas are not defined and/or not tracked
NS-5: Biological and chemical integrity pollutants are either not tracked or below standards, per WSD

30. overview – innovation & process
STAR Objective
Actual Score
Description
IP-1: Best Practices and Processes 10
Received credit for public engagement, as well as innovative planning and codes
IP-2: Exemplary Performance
Exemplary performance in volunteerism, acreage of parkland per capita, school violence rate, and proximity to community venues
IP-3: Local Innovation 25
Received credit for our score on the Arts Vibrancy Index
Created new Objective called “Smart & Connected Communities that detailed KCMO’s efforts in open data, smart city, and performance management
Received credit for the Mayor’s WE Initiative
Received credit for municipal reduction in GHG
Received credit for DB Demolition plan
Received credit for reducing investigation time for code enforcement violations
IP-4: Regional Priorities 5
Received credit for various climate adaption partnerships
The NCAR Arts Vibrancy Index incorporates four measures under three main rubrics: demand, supply, and public supply for arts/culture on a per capita basis. By linking arts data with community data, the NCAR can identify factors that effect the arts on a community-wide level. The performance level would be: Appear on Top 20 Arts Vibrant Communities (Large or Small)
Smart and Connected Communities include:
Increase percentage of City with access to public WiFi
Create digital roadmap, open data portal
Citizen satisfaction surveys
Dashboards
Smart City Advisory Board
Partner with external data stakeholders
Surplus Exchange
Digital Cities Ranking
WiFi in housing units
Municipal reduction in GHGs: 21% reduction in the amount of electricity used in municipal operations
Code enforcement: from 95% in 196 days to 6 days

31. Sustainability dashboard
kcmo.gov/greenstats

32. Lessons learned Importance of data Accessibility of data
Metrics were cross-applicable
Implementation in municipal operations versus community-wide
Importance and use of plans
-Having plans helped us get credit for a number of categories (Health, Climate Protection Plan), but we also lost points in housing, natural systems, economic localization
-Plans give structure to our efforts and make it so the data is more easily accessible

33. How does KC want to use our rating?
Incorporate into Business Plan goals and targets
Adopt metrics into KCStat
Continue to track metrics on the Dashboard
Assessment for how to improve score

34. QUESTIONS?