St. Martin's Environmental Assessment & Recommendations by St. Martin's Ev. Lutheran Church

St. Martinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Environmental Assessment & Recommendations St. Martinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Environmental Task Force January 12, 2009

St. Martin’s Environmental Assessment & Recommendations St. Martin’s Environmental Task Force

January 12, 2009

CONTENTS Background Template for Environmental Questions Recommendations Assessment Category I – Energy Category II – Water (Indoor) Category III – Landscape Category IV – Transportation Category V – Waste Conclusion Appendix A ‐ Resources Appendix B ‐ Additional Data

BACKGROUND Then God said, ”Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Genesis 1:26 The St. Martin’s Environmental Task Force (ETF) was created in April 2008. Council member Carmen Retzlaff proposed that this was an appropriate time for a broad overview of all of our environment‐related decisions and interests for several reasons, including: • The ELCA had just conducted the Living Earth Lenten Reflections focus in an e‐mail format • The ELCA was featuring the National Council of Churches focus materials on Earth Day on its website • St. Martin’s Vacation Bible School incorporated an environmental theme in 2008 • St. Martin’s had become a Green Choice energy consumer through the City of Austin • The synod and City of Austin conducted a fluorescent bulb campaign • Congregation members had expressed interest in non‐disposable eating ware • Congregation members had expressed landscaping concerns – plan that fits into an environmental overview, water consumption, etc. • Children and Youth ministries focus discussions include environmental stewardship education • St. Martin’s Stewardship discussed broadening the definition of stewardship to include stewardship of the earth’s resources ETF Assessment January 2009 -1-

Council approved the formation of the task force, and authorized Ms. Retzlaff to create it. She asked members with interest and expertise. The ETF includes the following members: • Carmen Retzlaff, chair and council liaison • Thomas Friedrich, secretary • Norman Hummell, liaison to Southwest Texas Synod environmental task force • Duke Browning • Christof Pasch • Anita Salmon • Christina Martin • Ted Hazen • John Howard The ETF reviewed and drew on the following ELCA resources: • Social Statement: Caring for Creation: Vision, Hope, and Justice • Environmental Audit Guide • “Awakening to God’s Call to Earthkeeping” study guide • (Other resources ‐ ELCA Advocacy) The ETF met regularly and developed a format for an assessment and report. John Howard consulted with St. Martin’s business manager Chris Baker about what had been done and what policies were already in place at St. Martin’s. The ETF took the lead on some initial environmental initiatives, including washing dishes at VBS to enable use of non‐disposable dishware and taking home recyclables. A kickoff event included an Energy Tour of St. Martin’s led by Norman Hummell on Earth Day Sunday. Mr. Hummell led participants on a tour of the building. The ETF also established a page on the St. Martin’s website to keep the congregation updated on environmental activities and to share resources. Norman Hummell became a member of the Southwestern Texas Synod’s Environmental Task Force, and St. Martin’s will participate in a fall Austin Conference environmental issues meeting. As the ETF was preparing an assessment and report, working toward a holistic approach, identifying key issues and processes, identifying potential improvements, and then prioritizing next steps, it was simultaneously faced with the need to address particular issues that arose. These included 1) the possibility of St. Martin’s becoming a collection site for CFL recycling, 2) supporting a fundraiser to buy non‐disposable dishes for VBS, and 3) whether to purchase plastic and glass recycling bins. The Task Force developed the following grid as a template for addressing such isolated issues. [The ETF voted to recommend that St. Martin’s not become a CFL collection site, to support the purchase of non‐disposable dinnerware for VBS, and to purchase plastic and glass recycling bins.] Because assessing the environmental policies and activities of our congregation will be an ongoing process, this grid can also be used to help make recommendations and decisions on issues that come up—those that are beyond the scope of this initial assessment, those that will need to be revisited, and new issues that will emerge. ETF Assessment January 2009 -2-

TEMPLATE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS The leading template for organizations to address their environmental footprint is an environmental management system, or EMS. This continual improvement approach uses the plan‐do‐check management model. 1. How does this approach fit with our environmental policy and our church’s mission? • As we have no official policy today, you could say that our policy is to comply with the law, not cause any significant environmental harm, and be good stewards per our Biblical mandate. • You also could assess particular issues against our mission and leadership role as a downtown church in Austin, Texas and in the ELCA. 2. What are the environmental issues and costs associated with following our current approach? • What materials, energy, and other resources went into producing the product? • What materials, energy, and other resources does its operation use? • Does it cause emissions to the air, water or land? • Does it generate wastes, and is treatment or disposal required? • Does it trigger any environmental laws or rules? • How much does it cost to buy, operate, maintain, clean, and dispose? • Recognize that some answers, particularly those regarding indirect impacts (e.g., how much energy went into making the product), simply may not be knowable. 3. What are the environmental issues and costs associated with adopting a different approach? • Ask the same questions, then compare the answers.

ETF Assessment January 2009 -3-

RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations are made on three levels: CHURCH—what we can do at St. Martin’s itself, the building, grounds, and school; CONGREGATION – what we as people who attend church and parents of day school children can do at home; and COMMUNITY—what we as a faith community can advocate for in our city, state, country and world. Community advocacy activities are expected to come later in the life of this work. At the church level, there is already much being done. The assessment parts of this report document some of those already‐ongoing efforts (e.g. the new sprinkler system being installed as part of 125th Anniversary sprucing‐up efforts that will conserve water). In addition, some of the recommendations here are intended to document and formalize policies that individual church staff and volunteers are already following, but might be lost if different people took over those tasks, or may not be being followed by everyone (e.g. green purchasing policies, turning on every other light in hallways on sunny days, etc.) Potential opportunities and changes in each category assessed were evaluated on three parameters: COST, BENEFIT, and EFFORT in order to prioritize recommended actions. Grids with estimates on these parameters were prepared by task force members with interest and expertise in each area and are included in this report. The recommendations in this report generally include those things that had the lowest (best) scores when taking into account cost, benefit and effort combined. The recommendations made in this report are largely things that can be done right away— either educational endeavors that require little or no monetary investment, or small purchases, or further research on larger capital expenditures or systems changes. Other opportunities for positive change should be considered by St. Martin’s over time. The first recommendation of the ETF overarches all of the following assessment areas. Recommendation 1. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that at the end of the life of this time‐and task‐limited Task Force (projected October 2008), a permanent Environmental Stewardship Committee be formed and made part of the St. Martin’s Committee structure, either as a committee or as a sub‐committee of the Stewardship Committee. The second is also overarching, an ongoing educational intervention to be done by the Environmental Stewardship Committee:

ETF Assessment January 2009 -4-

Recommendation 2. (CONGREGATION) The ETF recommends beginning an educational initiative that encourages St. Martin’s members to consider environmental stewardship in different areas each month. This could be modeled after the Action Plan of Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran in Austin, which is linked to the Synod Environmental Task Force plan. Each month will have a different focus, such as CFL use, water conservation, planting trees, recycling, xeriscaping, buying local, using public or self‐powered transportation, etc. We envision newsletter pieces, website promotion, e‐mail focus reminders, etc. Recommendation 3. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that St. Martinʹs develop a light use policy and post signage/stickers by light switches. Many individuals and groups in the congregation are using energy‐saving techniques of not turning on every light on sunny days (alternating), not using gym lights during daylight hours, etc. But it is at this point word of mouth, and if we all followed these easy guidelines, much energy could potentially be saved. This should be a brief written document (one page, with rationale and basic principles, primarily for new staff). Recommendation 4. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that the church request an energy audit from the City of Austin, and develop an endowment fund request to follow up on recommendations from that audit pertaining to weatherstripping, sealing, and solar screens on key sunlit windows. Audits have been done in the past, but there was no thorough follow‐ up on their recommendations due to costs. Recommendation 5. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that the church continue to replace regular light bulbs with CFLs as they are replaced and used up. Recommendation 6. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that church staff be trained in the use of the computer systems that control heating and cooling in the building. The church is now getting access to training on this system that has been a problem to obtain in the past. Recommendation 7. (CONGREGATION) The ETF recommends that one of the monthly congregation education foci be on encouraging congregants to install faucet aerators and low‐flow showerheads in their homes. These items are available for free from the City of Austin, Water Conservation Department, 625 E. 10th St., Ste 615, tel. 512‐974‐2199. Recommendation 8. (CONGREGATION) The ETF recommends that one of the monthly congregation education foci be on encouraging congregants to carpool or ride the bus to church (and other places). Provide information on bus routes and how to connect with your church neighbors.

ETF Assessment January 2009 -5-

Recommendation 9. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends developing a written policy for securing the greenest choice reasonably possible in transportation rental for church events. The church will develop guidelines for employees and volunteers securing transportation, including guidelines on asking rental agencies about alternative energy vehicles, etc. Recommendation 10. (COMMUNITY) The ETF recommends that St. Martinʹs work with downtown area churches to host in 2009 a downtown bike‐to‐church day as part of an ongoing downtown church transportation initiative. The ESC will explore connections with other downtown churches to advocate for Sunday morning city bus routes, etc. Recommendation 11. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that St. Martinʹs work with staff to educate on proper duplexing for copies, and write and post policy, as well as changing the default settings on the copying machines accordingly. Recommendation 12. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that St. Martinʹs conduct a pilot project to gauge the effectiveness of e‐mailing newsletters. Recommendation 13. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that St. Martinʹs develop written green purchasing guidelines. Chris Baker already uses formal and informal methods of this (including the New American Dream Greening Churches guidelines), but guidelines are not written down (to try to buy recycled content paper, paper supplies, rechargeable batteries, etc, when feasible—to at least price these options). Recommendation 14. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends developing an endowment request to purchase non‐disposable dishes and flatware (enough for a congregational meal). These supplies would go with/complement those already purchased for VBS. Recommendation 15. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that church gardens be mulched twice yearly, spring and fall, with about 3” of shredded hardwood mulch derived from a local and/or sustainable source. This should be made a normal annual grounds maintenance activity. Recommendation 16. (CHURCH) The ETF recommends that St. Martinʹs develop written landscape earth stewardship guidelines. This would include following minimal good stewardship practices when making landscape changes and decisions (keeping shade trees whenever possible, planting low water‐use plants, etc.). This would also include talking to current contracted companies and those hired in the future to assess their ability to use equipment and methods that minimize pollution, use integrated pest management, use methods that keep waste out of landfills, etc. (Again, some of these policies are being followed now, but not in any consistent manner.) ETF Assessment January 2009 -6-

ASSESSMENT The Environmental Task Force assessed St. Martin’s impact in each of the following five categories: Energy, Water, Landscape, Transportation, and Waste. The information here includes results from auditing St. Martin’s current practices and conditions with the help of Chris Baker and others, and a full set of opportunities for change. These opportunities are shown in grids with evaluation of effort, cost, and benefit. Effort, cost, and benefit have been evaluated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best (least effort, least cost, greatest benefit) and 10 being the worst (most effort, most cost, least benefit) and the numbers for each have been added for a total score. These evaluations are fairly speculative (assumptions have been made, some information remains unknown, and so on) and have not been completely calibrated across categories, but they do help with a general comparison of the various recommendations. The task force recommends that St. Martin’s take action at this time on those changes that will provide the greatest benefits with the least cost and effort, and these top recommendations are described in previous section. Other actions should be reevaluated in the future by the Environmental Stewardship Committee.

CATEGORY I - ENERGY (Lighting, HVAC, Kitchen Appliances, Other) Energy sources: The church uses electricity sold by Austin Energy. Since 2004, we have been a Green Choice Champion through Austin Energy’s Green Choice program, which helps to fund the city’s investment in various renewable electricity production projects. One benefit to signing up is paying a predictable rate; although the program initially cost us more than regular customers were paying, the recent high price of natural gas means we now are paying less than other customers. In 2008, the church resolved a dispute with Austin Energy so that now we pay the commercial rate for our electricity, instead of the higher residential rate that was previously charged. We also use natural gas for the kitchen oven/stove, the boiler, and the hot water heater. In the winter months, our bill is approximately $3,000; in summer months, it can drop as low as $700 month. We split the cost 50/50 with the school.

ETF Assessment January 2009 -7-

Actual energy usage: Actual usage numbers by month for the building from 2005 through mid‐2008 are located in Appendix B. The total monthly bill is a levelized (same every month, adjusted each year) $10,115, which we split 50/50 with the school. Our usage has been lower than the amount weʹre paying for, so weʹre building a credit and expect to have our monthly bill reduced next year. Interestingly, the school uses about 70% of the churchʹs space/time. Although many rooms are not used at particular times, our A/C currently cannot be controlled so as not to cool most unoccupied rooms. Infrastructure/equipment: Not surprisingly, lighting and heating/cooling are our biggest users of electricity, but we also have other users. • Lighting: The gym lights are older and less efficient, and nine other rooms and hallways still have original light fixtures (which are odd‐sized). As incandescent bulbs burn out, we have replaced them with CFLs. The gym has good natural lighting, and the new windows facing the courtyard let in lots of light. In 2004 or 2005, we completed a retrofit of the downstairs hallway lighting. • HVAC: We use a chiller system to cool most of the church, with rooftop systems providing cooling to only a few rooms. The chiller system was chosen when the church was built because it lasts longer than rooftop systems, but it does not allow for room‐ by‐room temperature control. The chiller essentially runs in 100% on or 100% off mode. An earlier investigation into options for reducing A/C use found that the air handlers could be shut down, but those are small loads compared to the chillers. Note that some hallways and rooms have thermostats, but those evidently do not have any ability to change temperature (it’s all centrally controlled). Note that the organ requires a constant cool temperature. A boiler is used for heating, with air handlers for both the chiller and the boiler. • Windows and doors: Most windows are old, single‐paned, and not well sealed. Most classrooms have blinds or curtains. We receive a good amount of natural lighting in the gym and the new office section with its large windows overlooking the courtyard (but those windows do not have any solar screening). Thom Pavlechko is preparing a request to the Council to remove some of the walls in the choir area to let in more natural lighting. • Insulation: 90% of the walls are cinder block and are not insulated. Our flat roof is not insulated.

ETF Assessment January 2009 -8-

•

Appliances and Office Equipment: The commercial kitchen dishwasher is extremely old. The soda machine now has a motion sensor to activate lighting (provided free by Austin Energy after an audit). There are three copy machines, for the church administration, the school administration, and the music program. Together, the church and school house approximately 20 computer monitors and CPUs in the building. Meters: One electric meter serves the entire church building. (Across the street, a second meter measures electricity usage by the lighting in the parking lot, and a third meter measures lighting and plumbing usage in the playground.) We thus cannot determine how much electricity is used in a particular room, for a particular function, on any particular day, or at any particular time (although some estimates probably could be made).

Practices: The church and school have adopted a host of energy‐saving practices over the years. Most of these are word‐of‐mouth practices and are not written into church policy or publicized throughout the building. • Lighting: When incandescent bulbs burn out, we replace them with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). When Mop & Hammer and the ladies work in the sanctuary, they use only the work lights as a matter of practice. The school‐area bathrooms are in constant use throughout the school day. Teachers and janitors do a good job, according to Chris Baker, of turning off the lights when they are not in the room. • HVAC: Mop & Hammer replaces all air filters monthly. • Computers: They are set to the lowest power save setting (auto sleep) and are powered down every evening. They are not turned off, however, in order to back up the files every evening and allow for receipt of Microsoft and virus protection upgrades. The computers are on power strips, as required by Austin fire code. • Ducts: The air ducts evidently have never been cleaned since originally installed (deemed too expensive, at an estimate from a few years ago of $10‐15,000). • Energy audits: Austin Energy has conducted two audits in the last few years. Both times they recommended that we focus on lighting and sealing windows and doors. However, not all of the changes recommended have been made.

ETF Assessment January 2009 -9-

CATEGORY I - ENERGY Opportunity

Effort

Cost

Benefit

Total

Establish written light use policy

Replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs

Train staff in operation of system

Mount solar screens on windows

Have new energy audit performed by Austin Energy, ask specific questions, act on recommendations for weatherstripping, sealing, and solar screens

Install solar panels on roof

Seal windows and doors

Clean/seal ducts

Replace original light fixtures in at least nine rooms

Install motion sensors or timers for selected lights

Replace light fixtures in at least nine rooms with dropped ceilings Replace older appliances with newer or Energy Star appliances

Replace A/C chiller and cooling tower with individual A/C units on roof Install green (vegetated) roof. Note: green roofs have negative impacts with regard to water because they decrease infiltration and may require irrigation, and are not recommended in Austin. Replace A/C chiller and cooling tower with like units

Task Force Recommended Action

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 10 -

CATEGORY II - WATER (Restrooms, Kitchens, Other Indoor Plumbing) Water sources: All water used is potable water provided by the City of Austin. Actual usage: Actual usage numbers by month for the building from 2005 through mid‐2008 are located in Appendix B. The average monthly cost is about $600/month (water only), without a regular pattern of highs and lows. We have a single water meter for the church building and property. We also have a meter for water usage by the playgroundʹs restrooms. We thus cannot determine how much water is used by a particular room or function or even how much is used on any particular day or at any particular time. Infrastructure/equipment: We have several functions and pieces of equipment that use substantial amounts of water. • Toilets: The bathrooms on the main floor have fairly new toilets. The upstairs and downstairs toilets are original fixtures. • Faucets: The main floor faucets, which are fairly new, previously had motion sensors, but the sensors were removed because they wasted too much water per usage and were not able to be calibrated to a low enough level. The upstairs and downstairs faucets are original fixtures. • Piping: The pipes are also likely to be original throughout. • Dishwasher: The kitchen does contain a commercial dishwasher for more efficient washing and additional sinks. • Drinking fountains: The amount of water used by drinking fountains is not known, although it is likely to be less than other fixtures or appliances. • Ice machine: The ice machine in the commercial kitchen was purchased in 2007 and is more efficient than the previous one. Practices: • Pipes: The janitors, Mop & Hammer, and the Facilities Superintendent are always on the lookout for leaks, which evidently are not hard to spot (can smell from the crawl space downstairs). The buildingʹs water quality has not been tested. • Audits: We have not conducted a water audit to identify leaks, inefficiencies, or cost savings. • Human usage: The kitchen dishwasher is used for the school and special events.

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 11 -

CATEGORY II - WATER Opportunity

* *

Effort

Cost

Benefit

Total

Install hand washing faucets that use no more than 1.0 gallons per minute (30‐50% water reduction)**

Install commercial low flow and/or dual flush toilets (20‐50% water reduction)**

Meter wastewater

Encourage congregation to install free faucet aerators (15‐20% water reduction)** Encourage congregation to install showerheads that use no more than 2.0 gallons per minute (15‐20% water reduction)** Encourage congregation to get (pass out?) flow rate bags for testing water output rates Install dishwasher that uses approx. 0.9‐1.2 gallons per rack dependent on type Install ice machine that creates flake ice and/or uses less than 20 gallons per hundred pounds of ice Install sensors for handwashing faucets to detect hands under faucets (10‐50% water reduction)** Join COA Evaporative Credit Program and add approved makeup meters, blowdown meters, and overflow sensors to cooling towers

Task Force Recommended Action

** Percentage reduction numbers are per ʺWater Efficient Equipment and Design: A Guide for Non‐Residential Construction and Developmentʺ, also known as ʺAustin Commercial Equipment Guideʺ

CATEGORY III - LANDSCAPE (Plants, irrigation, maintenance, stormwater, hardscape) Characteristics: The church building property is largely impervious cover, while the area across the street has open space with trees and lawn, as well as paved parking. Large trees do exist on the church grounds, some of which are protected by the city, and there are some planters and plant beds. Some of the landscape planting is native or well adapted to the local climate and does not need large amounts of water. However, much of the landscape is lawn, which typically needs higher maintenance as well as more water.

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 12 -

Infrastructure: • Trees: Many trees are large enough to provide significant shade, although the pavement areas are typically not shaded. • Irrigation: The landscape is irrigated with potable water from the City of Austin. We have a partial irrigation system, which does not work well. Mop & Hammer is replacing the system section by section and making it automatic. The project is to be completed by the 125th anniversary. • Stormwater infrastructure: Gutters direct rainwater away from the building. Any runoff from paved surfaces drains to the city storm sewer system. Practices: • Planning: We do not have a landscaping, shading, or pruning plan. We have received bids for comprehensive pruning and for landscape planning but they were considered too expensive. We recently had the trees along 15th Street pruned. The recent hail storm did $100,000 in property damage to the church but also blew down loose, old, and damaged tree limbs and ball moss. • Irrigation: The janitors currently water only one section of the property. The City of Austin has recently put in place new watering restrictions on automatic irrigation systems. • Maintenance: We pay our lawn mowing service $500/month for mowing, edging, trimming, blowing grass, and cleaning up the playground. They use gasoline for their equipment, and they use noisy blowers. All landscape waste is removed by the maintenance company, Terra Systems. • Audits: We have not conducted an irrigation system audit to identify leaks, inefficiencies, or cost savings.

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 13 -

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 14 -

CATEGORY IV - TRANSPORTATION (Congregation, School Families, Staff, Church and school activities/outings) Actual usage: We do not have details about our church’s transportation practices. Nearly all of our members and teachers live outside the downtown area and drive cars to church, most of which presumably use gasoline or diesel. Several teachers take the bus and some carpool. Chris Baker will survey the teachers by September. Infrastructure: We own one van (approximately eight years old) that we use solely for cargo purposes. It is housed in the garage or parking lot. Capital Metro bus routes with access to St. Martin’s include routes 3 and 19, which turn north on Rio Grande from 15th St., and return to 15th going south on Nueces. Of those, only the number 3 runs on Sundays. The UT shuttle routes ER and LA also run past the church on 15th St. The Dillo routes have recently changed and St. Martin’s is no longer served by any Dillos. Practices: When we need to rent a vehicle, we generally rent a diesel‐powered bus. We are not aware of a synod or downtown church transportation focus. The school caterer tries to use local, organic food sources. Most purchases are delivered by truck. One to two times per month, an employee must drive out to purchase supplied. The Facilities Superintendent may sometimes have to pick up specific parts or other equipment during the week. Bank deposits are made 1‐2 times a week.

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 15 -

CATEGORY V - WASTE (Paper Products, Plastic, Glass, Solid Waste, Carbon Balance) Actual usage: The waste in the church’s dumpster is picked up three times each week. The waste includes everything not recycled, such as bathroom papers, kitchen wastes, and class and office wastes. After big events, Chris Baker calls for a special pickup. The main contract is $240/month, and additional pickups are $50 each; the church and school split these costs 50/50. The church receives about $10 every couple of months for the collection of recyclable paper materials ($5 for 0‐3.99 tons, $15 for 4‐7.99 tons, and $20 for 8 or more tons). Infrastructure: • Dumpsters: The church has one waste dumpster, under contract for pick‐up with Central Texas Refuse, and one dumpster for paper recycling (see below). The waste dumpster is no longer locked, in order to make it easier for church trash to be disposed (important to remove it from the church to prevent rodents); we are not aware of illegal dumping in our dumpster. • Recycling: The church and school offices contain blue bins for recycling all papers (including cardboard and catalogues); the bins are not labeled. The church has worked with Abitibi since 2001 to recycle papers and corrugated cardboard (if flattened), and Abitibi provides a paper‐specific dumpster in our parking lot. Approximately 1.5 tons of paper is picked up each month, saving an estimated 4.6 cubic yards of landfill space. We are not aware of any instances where Abitibi reduced payments to the church because too much trash was in the recycling dumpster. Some neighbors also use the Abitibi paper/cardboard dumpster. We now have two sets of recycling bins for glass and plastics located in the fellowship hall and the parlor kitchen, and one recycling bin for cans next to the soda machine. These do not yet fill up rapidly and so some members of the task force have simply checked them and removed occasionally, but at some point a more formal system may need to be implemented. Practices: • Copiers: The office copiers and printers duplex, but they are not set to this as the default (many copies are by congregation members for handouts, and when they used duplexing they created too many unuseable papers). There is not a paper tray to hold already‐used papers.

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 16 -

•

Newsletters: The church maintains and regularly updates its website and emails weekly highlights to members. Our church bulletin has been reduced in size to one page (front and back). We do not offer an email option or mail opt‐out for the bulletin and other notices, largely because we still believe people are more likely to read such a lengthy document on paper and are more likely to share it with family members at home. We try to coordinate mailings to avoid duplicate notices. We do request to be taken off junk mail and catalogue lists (and have been somewhat successful). We offer recycling boxes in the narthex for church service bulletins. Office supplies: The church and school each have a central supply, to which surplus supplies are returned before new supplies are ordered. Chris uses the Center for a New American Dream’s green congregation purchasing guidance to try different products. She tried used recycled ink cartridges but found they did not last long enough to be economically viable. She priced recycled content paper previously and found it more expensive. Flatware and cups: The church provides reuseable cups and dishes for office staff but not teachers. The caterer uses washable trays and silverware. The church uses reuseable cups and dishes for church events where food is served (purchasing more). The school, however, still uses disposable flatware and cups due to inability to staff cleanup. They have considered using starch‐based flatware. Electronics: The church uses “Planet Green” to recycle phones and ink cartridges (about one box each spring). We give our used computers to Goodwill (after smashing the church computers’ hard drives). Paint: We store paint and solvents in the basement; we don’t know whether any of it still contains lead. Given the age of the building, it is likely that certain surfaces were painted with lead‐based paint. The church purchases its own paint (does not allow contractors to use their own paint); we do not know whether low volatile organic compound content or mildewcides are considered. Asbestos: The church contains asbestos, which was treated in the 1980s (encapsulated popcorn ceilings and mastic under the original VCT floors; removed from pipes). We maintain records of the treatment and locations and ensure any new work in affected areas is properly handled. Cleaning materials: When the drains need cleaning, the church calls a contractor; we do not keep drain‐cleaning chemicals at the church. Since 1998, the church has used concentrated, wall‐dispensed cleaners for floor, glass, and general purpose. The materials are housed in each of the 6 janitor’s closets. We have found this system (particularly the one in use since 2004) to be safer, effective at disinfecting and cleaning, easier to use, and cheaper. Insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides: We contract with Oliver’s Pest Control for monthly pest control and quarterly fire ant control (playground). The chemicals are organic and safe enough to allow children to return to their class immediately after application. ETF Assessment January 2009 - 17 -

•

Other hazardous materials: Potentially hazardous materials are stored only in the garage, near (and for) the chiller, and in the small playground’s shed. We do not have an inventory of our old, potentially hazardous materials. We throw away our light bulbs and some batteries; send paints, solvents, and the like to the city facility, and the HVAC contractor removes any used refrigerant. Only the church walkie‐talkies use a rechargeable system. A battery recycling bucket is located in the church office, and Chris takes as many used batteries as she can to Batteries Plus for recycling. Education: The school includes information about recycling opportunities in its back‐ to‐school flyer. Otherwise, the church provides very little information about waste or recycling to the congregation or school families.

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 18 -

CONCLUSION Environmental stewardship is an ongoing activity! The assessment here is only partial and momentary—designed to give us a place to start in an intentional environmental stewardship journey at St. Martin’s. We have already taken the first steps in more consciously acting in harmony with God’s creation, but much more research needs to be done, and will be ongoing. Many of the topics here will be more fully developed as this journey progresses. The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. Leviticus 25:23‐24

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 19 -

APPENDIX A: RESOURCES • • • • • • • • •

ELCA Social Statement on the Environment www.elca.org/What‐We‐Believe/Social‐Issues/Social‐ Statements/Environment.aspx ELCA Caring for Creation resources (includes “Awakening to God’s Call to Earthkeeping” Study Guide and Environmental Audit Guide www.elca.org/Our‐Faith‐In‐Action/Justice/Advocacy/Congregational‐ Resources/Caring‐For‐Creation.aspx City of Austin Water Conservation (education, rebates, free aerators, more) www.ci.austin.tx.us/watercon/ Center for a New American Dream (includes purchasing guides and tips) www.newdream.org School paper recycling program www.paperretriever.com Rechargeable battery recycling program www.rbrc.org Cell phone and printer cartridge recycling www.planetgreenrecycle.com Cell phone and printer cartridge recycling www.ecophones.com Texas Guide to Rainwater Harvesting www.metaefficient.com/pdf/RainHarv.pdf

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL DATA As attached documents: • City of Austin utility information January 2005 through September 2008 • Solar electric system proposal from SolarCommunity • Results from driving survey of St. Martin’s School employees

ETF Assessment January 2009 - 20 -

City of Austin 2005-current

atement Da KWH 1/4/2005 67400 2/2/2005 73600 3/2/2005 500 4/4/2005 500 5/3/2005 500 6/2/2005 500 7/5/2005 500 8/3/2005 500 9/2/2005 500 10/4/2005 500 11/2/2005 500 12/2/2005 500 1/4/2006 2/2/2006 3/2/2006 4/4/2006 5/3/2006 6/2/2006 7/5/2006 8/3/2006 8/31/2006 9/5/2006 10/4/2006 11/2/2006 12/4/2006

Rate SubTotal Demand 0.018 1,213.20 212 0.018 1,324.80 216 0.0355 17.75 70,900 0.0355 17.75 77,900 0.0355 17.75 77,900 0.0355 17.75 80,100 0.0355 17.75 106,100 0.0355 17.75 97,900 0.0355 17.75 104,300 0.0355 17.75 96,900 0.0355 17.75 76,300 0.0355 17.75 80,500

500 0.0355 500 0.0355 500 0.0355 500 0.0355 500 0.0355 500 0.0355 500 0.0355 500 0.0355 settlement payment 500 0.0355 500 0.0355 500 0.0355 500 0.0355

Rate SubTotal 12.65 2,681.80 12.65 2,732.40 0.0602 4,268.18 0.0602 4,689.58 0.0782 6,091.78 0.0782 6,263.82 0.0782 8,297.02 0.0782 7,655.78 0.0782 8,156.26 0.0782 7,577.58 0.0602 4,593.26 0.0602 4,846.10

KWH Fuel Charg 67,400 0.033 73,600 0.033 71,400 0.033 78,400 0.033 78,400 0.033 80,600 0.033 106,600 0.033 98,400 0.033 104,800 0.033 97,400 0.033 76,800 0.033 81,000 0.033

Customer Amount Charge E01 Adj Total w/ cc 2,224.20 6,119.20 2,428.80 6,486.00 2,356.20 6,648.13 2,587.20 7,300.53 2,587.20 8,702.73 2,659.80 8,947.37 3,517.80 11,838.57 3,247.20 10,926.73 3,458.40 11,638.41 3,214.20 10,815.53 2,534.40 7,151.41 2,673.00 7,542.85

Water WastewateSolid WasteDrainage 419.56 507.88 17.10 16.07 318.15 451.27 17.10 16.07 398.18 507.88 17.10 16.07 507.69 538.99 17.10 16.07 486.63 538.99 17.10 16.07 496.35 538.99 17.10 16.07 656.87 538.99 17.10 16.07 694.34 538.99 17.10 16.07 715.16 538.99 17.10 16.07 507.66 538.99 17.10 16.07 858.62 580.76 17.10 16.07 729.55 580.76 17.10 16.07

Total Bill 7,079.81 7,288.59 7,587.36 8,380.38 9,761.52 10,015.88 13,067.60 12,193.23 12,925.73 11,895.35 8,623.96 8,886.33

17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75

72,100 65,700 75,900 82,900 90,900 103,500 106,100 118,300

0.0602 0.0602 0.0602 0.0602 0.0782 0.0782 0.0782 0.0782

4,340.42 3,955.14 4,569.18 4,990.58 7,108.38 8,093.70 8,297.02 9,251.06

72,600 66,200 76,400 83,400 91,400 104,000 106,600 118,800

0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033

2,395.80 2,184.60 2,521.20 2,752.20 3,016.20 3,432.00 3,517.80 3,920.40

6,759.97 6,163.49 7,114.13 7,766.53 10,148.33 11,549.45 6466.16 18,304.73 13,195.21

640.66 533.12 600.05 615.26 588.22 653.11 608.66 645.95

580.76 580.76 580.76 580.76 721.60 721.60 721.60 721.60

17.10 17.10 17.10 17.10 17.10 17.10 17.10 17.10

16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07

17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75

112,300 100,300 87,300 83,900

0.0782 0.0782 0.0602 0.0602

8,781.86 7,843.46 5,255.46 5,050.78

112,800 100,800 87,800 84,400

0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033

3,722.40 3,326.40 2,897.40 2,785.20

12,528.01 11,193.61 8,176.61 7,859.73

1,036.91 661.51 508.39 498.27

721.60 721.60 796.38 780.65

17.10 17.10 17.10 17.10

16.07 14,319.69 16.07 12,609.89 16.07 9,514.55 16.07 9,171.82

7,020.93 7,095.49 6,648.13 7,691.97 9,280.97 11,349.29 10,771.05 11,927.53 11,883.05 11,037.93 8,307.09 8,437.57

459.53 457.09 478.03 560.39 558.65 661.25 496.45 607.43 613.19 604.74 612.38 666.34

724.58 720.34 756.64 708.85 708.85 708.85 708.85 708.85 708.85 708.85 810.65 810.65

17.10 17.10 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1

7,766.53 8,120.69 7,047.80 7,067.80 8,536.02 8,893.10 9,615.77 7,423.79 8,954.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

530.26 550.29 596.79 521.57 587.72 604.4 717.45 758 661.02

810.65 810.65 810.65 865.4 868.86 868.86 868.86 868.86 868.86

17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.1

1/3/2007 2/2/2007 3/2/2007 4/3/2007 5/2/2007 6/4/2007 7/3/2007 8/2/2007 9/5/2007 10/3/2007 11/2/2007 12/4/2007

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355 0.0355

17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75

74,900 75,700 70900 82100 83100 101700 96500 106900 106500 98900 88700 90100

0.0602 0.0602 0.0602 0.0602 0.0782 0.0782 0.0782 0.0782 0.0782 0.0782 0.0602 0.0602

4,508.98 4,557.14 4,268.18 4,942.42 6,498.42 7,952.94 7,546.30 8,359.58 8,328.30 7,733.98 5,339.74 5,424.02

75,400 76,200 71400 82600 83600 102200 97000 107400 107000 99400 89200 90600

0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033

2,488.20 2,514.60 2,356.20 2,725.80 2,758.80 3,372.60 3,201.00 3,544.20 3,531.00 3,280.20 2,943.60 2,989.80

1/4/2008 2/4/2008 3/4/2008 4/2/2008 5/2/2008 6/3/2008 7/8/2008 8/4/2008 9/3/2008

500 500 86600 86000 103000 105600 133800 90600 98000

0.0355 0.0355 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018

17.75 17.75 1,558.80 1,548.00 1,854.00 1,900.80 2,408.40 1,630.80 1,764.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

82900 86700 208 212 234 250 199 199.8 282

0.0602 0.0602 12.65 12.65 14.03 14.03 14.03 14.03 14.03

4,990.58 5,219.34 2,631.20 2,681.80 3,283.02 3,507.50 2,791.97 2,803.19 3,956.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

83400 87200 86600 86000 103000 105600 133800 90600 98000

0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033

2,752.20 2,877.60 2,857.80 2,838.00 3,399.00 3,484.80 4,415.40 2,989.80 3,234.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6.00 6.00

8,014.56 7,310.54 8,328.11 8,995.72 11,491.32 12,957.33 19,668.16 14,595.93

Paid Difference 8,040.00 960.19 8,040.00 751.41 8,040.00 452.64 8,040.00 -340.38 8,645.00 -1,116.52 8,645.00 -1,370.88 8,645.00 -4,422.60 8,645.00 -3,548.23 8,645.00 -4,280.73 8,645.00 -3,250.35 8,645.00 21.04 8,645.00 -241.33

Levelized Balance 13,543.92 12,792.51 12,339.87 12,680.25 14,401.77 15,772.65 20,195.25 23,652.43 28,024.21 31,274.56 31,253.52 31,494.85

Levelized Deficit 5,503.92 4,752.51 4,299.87 4,640.25 5,756.77 7,127.65 11,550.25 15,007.43 19,379.21 22,629.56 22,608.52 22,849.85

8,645.00 8,645.00 8,645.00 8,645.00 11,585.00 11,585.00 11,585.00 11,585.00 6,466.16 11,585.00 11,585.00 11,585.00 11,585.00

630.44 1,334.46 316.89 -350.72 93.68 -1,372.33 -8,083.16 -3,010.93

30,864.41 29,529.95 29,213.06 29,563.78 32,410.10 33,782.43 41,865.59 44,876.52

22,219.41 20,884.95 20,568.06 20,918.78 20,825.10 22,197.43 30,280.59 33,291.52

-2,734.69 -1,024.89 2,070.45 2,413.18

47,611.21 42,169.94 40,099.49 37,686.31

36,026.21 30,584.94 28,514.49 26,101.31

16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 16.07 18.12 18.12

8,238.21 11,585.00 8,306.09 11,585.00 7,915.97 11585 8,994.38 11585 10,581.64 12445 12,752.56 12445 12,009.52 12445 13,276.98 12445 13,238.26 12445 12,384.69 12445 9,765.34 12445 9,949.78 12445

3,346.79 3,278.91 3,669.03 2,590.62 1,863.36 -307.56 435.48 -831.98 -793.26 60.31 2,679.66 2,495.22

34,339.52 31,060.61 27,391.58 24,800.96 23,797.60 24,105.16 23,669.68 24,501.66 25,294.92 25,234.61 22,554.95 20,059.73

22,754.52 19,475.61 15,806.58 13,215.96 11,352.60 11,660.16 11,224.68 12,056.66 12,849.92 12,789.61 10,109.95 7,614.73

18.12 18.12 18.12 18.12 18.12 18.12 18.12 18.12 18.12

9,142.66 9,516.85 8,490.46 8,489.99 10,027.82 10,401.58 11,237.30 9,085.87 10,519.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12445 3,302.34 12445 2,928.15 12445 3,954.54 12445 3,955.01 10115 87.18 10115 -286.58 10115 -1,122.30 10115 1,029.13 10115 -404.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

16,757.39 13,829.24 9,874.70 5,919.69 3,502.51 3,789.09 4,911.39 3,882.26 4,286.82

4,312.39 1,384.24 -2,570.30 -6,525.31 -6,612.49 -6,325.91 -5,203.61 -6,232.74 -5,828.18

Driving Survey 2008 St. Martin’s School employees Results: 33 surveys sent out 16 surveys returned

Of the 16 surveys returned Method of transportation to school: • 11 drive • 4 take the bus • 1 carpools Roundtrip commute of the 11 drivers: • 2 people - approximately 5 miles or less • 2 people - approximately 15 miles • 2 people - approximately 30 miles • 3 people - approximately 45 miles • 2 people - exceeding 60 miles Gas mileage of vehicles for the 11 drivers • 3 don’t know what kind of gas mileage they get • 1 person gets approx. 10 mpg • 6 people get in the 20-25 mpg range • 1 person gets 32 mpg Knowledge of bus routes for the 11 drivers: • 3 of the drivers don’t know if a bus route exists around them • 2 of the drivers do have bus routes near them • 6 of the drivers do not have bus routes near them Reasons for driving instead of taking the bus: • Of the 2 drivers that have bus routes near them (but choose not to use them), they need the flexibility of a car for errands, etc.