[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: NLC Conference

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt




Colleagues – As you know, I attended the National League of Cities (NLC) fall conference a couple of weeks ago.  The key events for me were chairing the final meeting of the year of the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy
 Committee (EENR) and then representing that committee at NLC’s Resolutions Committee and then at the full membership business meeting.  I also attended a number of sessions and other meetings.
 
The yearly schedule for the NLC policy committees begins in the spring at the conference in DC, at which the key topics for the year are determined.  For EENR this year the main topic was climate change resiliency and adaptation – which
 turned out to be in perfect sync with the Obama administration’s later decision to make that a priority.  We also worked with the Transportation Committee on updating their resolution on a comprehensive national surface transportation plan.  The EENR steering
 committee then met two more times, most recently in Pinecrest, Florida where we focused entirely on the climate change issues (in a location chosen, obviously, because it is ground-zero in terms of the impacts of sea-level rise).
 
At those EENR meetings the committee discussed changes both to NLC policy (a formal document specifying standing policy decisions) and to yearly NLC resolutions (which focus on timely issues that are active in Congress and/or that require
 lobbying or informational efforts by NLC).  At the recent fall conference, EENR then made final its recommendations; this year that included some changes to policy wording on climate change to make it more forceful and current, and also a new resolution on
 resiliency and adaptation.  We also recommended renewing the resolution on fracking that was so controversial last year and led to a long and very unusual discussion/fight at the membership business meeting.  Thankfully, for the first time in three years of
 business meetings (at each of which I was EENR’s spokesperson) none of our policy or resolution changes were challenged.
 
I’ve attached the new resolution which, you’ll note, is not terribly forceful but also makes clear that climate change is an undebatable cause of extreme weather events.  As with the fracking resolution, it’s important to note that NLC
 represents cities across the US with rather varying opinions on these controversial topics, so the wording sometimes needs to be carefully crafted.  That said, NLC policy, and this resolution, are quite clear about climate change and its impacts.  And the
 main goal of this new resolution is to ensure that NLC has a strong voice in any administration efforts in this realm.  (The entire NLC policy and all of the resolutions are available at nlc.org.)
 
A final note on EENR: I’ve served as vice-chair for two years and now chair for the past year, which is the limit.  I’ve applied to remain on the EENR steering committee for next year and certainly will be reappointed.  The four meetings
 are not inexpensive to attend due to travel and hotel expenses, but I hope that council will continue to support this effort.  In fact, I think it would be worthwhile to consider having another councilmember become active at NLC, hopefully getting on a policy
 committee like transportation, which has traditionally not been as active or progressive as EENR.  I also reapplied as a member of the University Communities Council, which is a more informal group that meets only at the spring and fall conferences to discuss
 issues of mutual interest.  A number of friends who now serve on the board asked me to run for the NLC board of directors this year but I decided against it since I was, of course, running for council.  I might consider doing so, however, next year.
 
As for the conference itself, I generally find the fall conference to be more interesting than the spring DC conference since the fall meeting has sessions on a wider variety of topics (and an exhibition hall) while the DC meeting is mostly
 focused on congressional and administration speakers and topics.  For anyone thinking of attending at some point, the conference starts with a set of (somewhat costly) training seminars and (free) mobile workshops.  Since I flew out just in time for the EENR
 session I didn’t get to go on any of the mobile tours, although several seemed very interesting given that this was held in Seattle.
 
One particularly good session I attended was entitled Extreme Weather Events and Adaptive Infrastructure, which included presentations from the EPA and three cities, and then some break-out discussions.  There are a couple of plans we should
 probably look at: the EPA’s document, which we might want to offer comments on, and Eugene, Oregon’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan.  And there is a working group called the Water Utility Climate Alliance that we might want to contact; it includes about a
 dozen larger cities, including Denver, so Boulder may not be a good fit – but we still might want to connect with them to get ideas, best practices, etc.  As it turns out, the current chair of that Alliance is the manager of the climate resiliency group for
 the Seattle utilities, and he’s a friend I met when I served as NLC’s representative to the EPA’s working group on climate impacts on water utilities; I chatted with him and he’s certainly interested in having Boulder be involved in some way with the Alliance.
 
I also attended a session on mobile vending, which discussed how three cities have approached this fast-growing sector in various ways.  I know we’ve investigated this fairly extensively and implemented some (interim?) regulations, but
 as usual Seattle’s regs seemed most relevant and worth a look.
 
There was a somewhat interesting session on railroad issues that quite a few of us from Colorado attended since one half of the discussion was on train horn noise and safety issues.  Nothing terribly new here other than that there are numerous
 cities facing the same problems, many of them more concerned about safety – huge trains carrying oil or toxics – than about horn noise.
 
A session on engaging residents via data and technology had some relevant presentations.  I know that we’ve much improved our web site and access to city services, including via apps, but I must say that it continues to seem to me that
 other cities are way, way ahead of us.  And a session on creating transportation infrastructure to promote walking and biking make it clear that Boulder is, in this case, way ahead of the curve, and that even some seemingly unlikely cities (like Oklahoma City)
 are eagerly pursuing this.
 
Regarding relations with local universities, I attended a session that described a program from the University of Oregon that creates a formal program – the Sustainable City Year Program – that engages various faculty and students in assisting
 a city with their specific sustainability goals.  This has now been done with several Oregon cities and universities, and they are interested in getting similar programs started elsewhere.  I think this would be rather too formal for us – and too expensive,
 as the facilitators and university are paid for their services – but perhaps there are some concepts we could modify as we try to increase our collaborative efforts with CU.
 
Finally -- at least of what I can remember – I attended a session for communities that have signed onto Resilient Communities for America, which we did some months ago since it clearly aligned with our policies.  You can find more information
 at www.resilientamerica.org
 
And, of course, there was the usual good schmoozing – both with the many attendees from Colorado (including almost the entire Fort Collins council and their CM, with whom I spoke quite a bit), as well as my EENR colleagues and other folks
 on various policy committees and the NLC board.
 
The exhibition space was, as usual, filled with vaguely interesting stuff that is more relevant to city managers and transportation/utility staff than councilmembers, but sometimes provides some new ideas to bring back home.  I spent quite
 some time discussing Seattle’s food/agriculture policy since I know that will be on our agenda next year; I brought back a number of documents (which Suzanne currently has) and I think Seattle’s program can be informative to us since they share many of the
 same concerns and problems as they try to encourage more local agriculture.  There were also a few vendors selling software that purports to make it easier for citizens to get involved in the city’s budget process; whether we want to do that or not is a good
 question, and I can’t say I saw anything that seemed terribly inspiring, but there is of course a huge set of products in the constituent relationship space and, as noted above, while we’ve greatly improved in Boulder it sure does seem as if there’s much more
 potential.
 
--Matt
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EENR resolution resilient communities.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 13392 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20131202/c6a272d2/attachment.obj