Upload
nguyenliem
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
SpurringEntrepreneurshipandInnovationinStormwaterMarkets1
AlisaValderrama
NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil
August2016
Introduction
InJuly2014,thePhiladelphiaWaterDepartment(PWD)launchedaninnovativecompetitivegrantprogramtoencouragethedevelopmentofgreeninfrastructureonprivateproperty.Greeninfrastructurepractices—whichincludetreetrenches,raingardens,greenroofs,andporouspavement—restorethelandscape’sabilitytoretainstormwateronornearwhereitfalls,keepingpollutedrunoffoutofmunicipalsystemsandoutofwaterways,rivers,andoceans.Philadelphia’sprogram,calledtheGreenedAcreRetrofitProgram(GARP),encouragescontractorsordesign/constructionfirmstocompeteforlimitedpublicgrantfundingbyaggregatingandbringingtoPWDthelowest-costretrofitopportunitiesavailableonprivateland.TheavailabilityofpublicdollarsthroughGARPisintendedtocreateacompetitivegreeninfrastructuremarketthatcanhelpPWDsourcelow-coststormwatermanagement,whilealsogeneratingapotentiallynewlineofbusinessforengineering/design/constructionfirms.PrivatepropertyownersinPhiladelphiaalsobenefitfromGARP,asitsfundingprovidesameansforprivatepropertyownerstoreducetheimperviousareaontheirparcelsandtherebyreducetheirmonthlystormwatermanagementfees.
Today,twoyearsafterthelaunchofGARP,PWDisinterestedinunderstandinghowtheProgramcouldbemodifiedtoencouragealargernumberofvendorstosubmitGARPapplicationsandhowGARPcouldstimulateinnovativeapproachestostormwatermanagement,forexample,morevegetatedstormwaterpracticesratherthansub-surfacedetention.
TheNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC),whichhelpedPWDenvisiontheGARPstructure,andtheSustainableBusinessNetworkofGreaterPhiladelphia(SBN),whichhoststheGreenStormwaterInfrastructurePartnersgroup,arebothveryfamiliarwithGARPandwell-positionedtohelpPWDanswertheseimportantquestionsthroughoutreachtolocalserviceproviders.Overthecourseofapproximatelysixweeks,NRDCandSBNinterviewedapproximatelytwentylocalfirmstounderstandtheirperceptionsofGARPandtohearfirst-handwhatchangestotheprogramstructurewouldmakeit
1ReportpreparedfortheWilliamPennFoundationbyAlisaValderrama,SeniorPolicyAnalyst,TheNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil(NRDC),withassistancefromAnnaShipp(SustainableBusinessNetworkofGreaterPhiladelphia)andRogerBaneman(NRDC).InterviewswereconductedbyAlisaValderramaandAnnaShippoftheSBN).FundingforthisreportwasprovidedbytheWilliamPennFoundation.
2
easierforthemtosubmitGARPapplicationsandprepareinnovativeprojectplans.2Weinterviewedarangeofdesign,build,engineering,andmaintenancefirms,allofwhomhadexperiencewithgreenstormwaterinfrastructureinsomecapacity.Someofthefirmsinterviewedweremajorfirmsoperatingintheregion;othersweresmalltomediumsizedfirmslocaltothearea.WhilesomeofthefirmsweinterviewedhadparticipatedinGARP’ssisterprogram,theStormwaterManagementIncentivesProgram(SMIP),noneofthefirmsweinterviewedhadparticipatedinGARP.ThisreporthighlightsthefindingsfromourinterviewsofthesefirmsandsynthesizesseveralrecommendationsforPWD’sconsideration.
2.ThelistofvendorsandtheinterviewquestionswerecollaborativelygeneratedbyPWD,SBN,andNRDC.ThelistoffirmsinterviewedisprovidedinAppendix1.TheinterviewquestionsareprovidedinAppendixII.
HowIntervieweesDefinedTheirFirms
CivilEngineer
Design/build
Monitoring/maintenance
Multi-service(lanscape/design/build/civilengineering)
Other("sitework,utilities")
3
SummaryofRecommendations
Challenge RecommendationforPWDDifficultforfirmstoreachoutto/assesspropertyownerinterestinGARP
ü Developaclearinghouseofpropertyownersinterestedinstormwaterretrofits
GARP’scurrentgrantdisbursementstructureisnotsuitedforvendors(engineeringanddesignfirms)businessmodels
ü DevelopaphasedpaymentstructureforGARPthatrelievessomeoftheupfrontfinancialburdenandrisktovendors
Thecost/acrePWDoffersthroughGARPdoesnotcovertheworkthatGARPrequiresofvendors.
ü IncreasetheamountPWDofferspergreenedacrethroughGARPtomeetorexceedthatwhichisofferedthroughSMIP.
ü Consideratieredfundingapproachthatincentivizes/provideslargergrantdollaramountsforvegetatedpractices.
Difficultyinaggregatingtenacresgiventhepropertytypes/sizeofpropertiesinPhiladelphia’scombinedsewershed
ü Allowforflexibilityintheacreagerequiredforapproval.
ü Consideratieredfundingapproachthat
incentivizes/provideslargerdollargrantamountsforlargerareasmanaged.
FirmSize(NumberofFullTimeEmployees)
1to10
11to50
51to99
100 +
4
VendorfirmsneedmoreinformationaboutPWD’sgrantprograms(SMIPandGARP)andtherequirementstoparticipateinGARPinparticular
ü ProvidemoreinformationaboutGARPtopotentialvendorsviathewebsite,casestudies,webinars,and/orworkshops/seminars.
ü ConsideramergerofSMIPandGARPto
createonesingleflexibleprogram.
ü ConsiderspeakingtopropertyownerstoheartheirperspectiveonbothSMIPandGARP,andhostingworkshopstoheardirectlyhowtheprogramcouldbetterengagethem.
InterviewFindings
Mostinterviewees’responsescanbeunderstoodasadiscomfortwiththerisk/rewardpropositionpresentedbytheGARP.FirmsstruggledtoseehowthepotentialpayoffprovidedbyGARPwassufficientforthefirmstotakeonthecostandriskofpreparingGARPapplications,whichrequireaminimumofapproximatelytenacres’worthofimperviousareamanaged.Asdetailedbelow,firmscommonlycitedchallengesaccessinginformationrelatedtopropertyownershipandowneroutreach,andcitedthemismatchbetweenthereimbursementofferedbytheGARPandthemodelofthetraditionalfee-for-servicestructureofmostdesign/build/engineeringfirms.
1.ChallengesaccessingpropertyownersandassessingownerinterestinGARP
GARP,incontrasttoitspredecessor,theStormwaterManagementIncentiveProgram(SMIP),isdesignedtoputvendors“inthedrivers’seat”ofretrofitprojects.UnderGARP,vendorscanlocateandreachouttopotentialpropertyowners,developstormwaterretrofitprojectplansonbehalfofthesepropertyowners,andsubmittheseplansdirectlytoPWDintheformofaGARPapplication.Onceanapplicationisapproved,theGARPfundsflowdirectlytothevendor;thepropertyownerisonlyajoindertothegrantagreement.TheideaofputtingvendorsincontroloftheGARPapplicationprocesswasintendedtoleveragethefactthatthevendorsaretheoneswhomostimmediatelystandtoprofitfromGARP–thereforeitisthevendorswhoshouldbemostmotivatedtolocateownerswithsuitableGARPproperties.WhilepropertyownersalsobenefitfinanciallyfromGARP,theirbenefitismorespreadoutovertime,asitaccruesovertimeintheformofreducedstormwaterfeesoncetheymanagethestormwaterfromtheimperviousareaontheirproperties.
However,theGARPmodelassumesthatvendors’businessmodelscanaccommodateasalesandcustomeracquisitionrole.Ourinterviewssuggestthatmanyfirmsareeitherunableorunwillingtoengageinasales/lead-generatingrole:
5
“Wehavenorealestateexpertisesowewouldnotbeabletoaffordtodoallthebackgroundresearchtoevenbegintoidentifyareaswherethistypeof[GIretrofit]projectcouldbefeasible.”
“…informationcostsaretoohighformarketparticipantstofindoneanother…”
“IfwehaveanexistingclientwithalargepropertywemightpresentGARPasanoption,butit’sraretofindsomeonewithtenacres.Alternatively,wecouldpursuesomeone,butthatisalsochallenging.”
AtleastonefirmwespokewithwasawarethatPWDprovidesa“parcelviewer”atwww.phillystormwater.org.Thissiteprovidesdetailsonspecificparcelboundaries,ownername(asprovidedbypropertyassessor)andpropertysizeandimperviousarea.However,mostfirmsstruggledtounderstandhowtheircompanycouldfulfillthe“sales”rolethatGARPeffectivelyrequiresonceanappropriatesite(s)islocated.
“Wedon’twanttocallownerscold.Wedon’thavesalesstaff;werespondtoinvitationstobid.It’ssimpleanditkeepsusbusy.”
“Weneedapathwaytoowners.”
“Thebiggestchallenge[toparticipateintheGARP]istheupfrontlegworkandstaffing...it’salotofworktocontactpropertyownersanddotheupfrontplanningtogettotenacres.”
“…AmIgoingtoneedtohiresomeonetogooutandknockondoors?Wedon’thaveasalesperson.”
RecommendationtoremedythechallengeofidentifyingpropertyownersinterestedinGARP
• Intervieweessuggestedthatanonlineplatformcouldhelpthemconnectwithpropertyownersinneedofservicesor,conversely,provideavenueforownerstoconnectwithfirmsthatcanprovideretrofitservicesandsubmitGARPgrantsontheirbehalf.Allintervieweeswhowereaskedagreedthatanonlinecustomerconnectionplatformwouldbeveryuseful:
“Ifweknewwhichpropertyownerswereinterestedthatwouldbegreat…”
“…Anytypeofdatabaseofinterestedownerswouldbehelpful.”
“Ownermapsarealreadyavailableincludingstormwaterfee.Sofindingownersiseasy.Butactualfollow-upandcontactingiswhatistough.”
“Aclearinghousewouldbeveryhelpful…likegangbusters!”
6
2.Engineeringanddesignfirmsbelievethattheirfirms’profitmodelsarepoorlysuitedtoGARP
ThecomponentsofaGARPapplicationincludealistofparticipatingproperties,contactinformationforeachproperty,andsignedlettersofintentfromeachparticipatingpropertyowner.Inaddition,applicantsmustsubmitaconceptplan—includingtheimportantfeaturesofthesite(s),suchastopography,todemonstratewherewaterisflowingonthesite(s).Theconceptplanmustalsoindicatethelocationofallplannedstormwatermanagementinstallationsandlocationofanynewutilitiesthatwouldbeneededtoconveystormwater.Afullengineeringdrawingisnotneeded,buttheapplicationmustgobeyonda“desktopanalysis”doneonacomputer.Somevalidationoftheconceptplanfromasitevisitisnecessary.
Acommonthemeinourinterviewswashearingfromvendorsthattheir“feeforservice”modelisill-suitedtotheGARPmodel.Allexceptoneofthefirmsweinterviewedarefee-for-servicefirms,whoseprofitstructureisbasedonbillingofclientsatanhourlyrate.ThestepsinvolvedinsubmittingaGARPapplicationrequirefirmstospendmanyhoursoftheirtimelocatingappropriateGARPsites,contactingowners,andthenfinallypreparingsiteconceptplansandobtainingowneragreementtotheplan.WhileGARPdoesreimbursethese“pre-development”costsoncetheapplicationissuccessful,everyfirmwespokewithindicatedthatthelagbetweenprojectinitiation(e.g.,identifyingowners)andgettingpaidbyPWDwasthesinglebiggestchallengetotheirparticipationinGARP.TheonlytypeoffirmthatisstructuredtosucceedunderthecurrentGARPstructure,intervieweesindicated,wouldbea“developer”—afirmthatisaccustomedtotakingondebtattheoutsetofaprojectandcouldgetcomfortablewithwaitingtoearnaprofit.
“Wearenotanaggregatorordeveloper—we’reaserviceprovider…we’vebeenconsideringstartingasistercompanythatcouldapplyforGARP.”
“Grantsaretoomuchworkandtoomuchoverheadifwearegettingworkotherwise.Notworthit.”
“Wehavethedesignteamandmaybewehaveinterestedclients,butit’sthetimebetweenthe‘interest’andthe‘work’…that’sthejam.”
“WeknowGARPapplicationshaveahighsuccessrate,butgettingthereistheproblem.”
“…allthesestepscantakeasmuchassixmonthsoftimeandpossiblyhundredsofhours--beforegettingacheck.”
“Therewardisdirectinvoicing[withGARP],butit’snotworththework;we’retalkingfullbillableweekstogetalltheownersinline.IcandooneSMIPatatimeandmakeahigherrateperprojectandit’sasaferbet.”
“…in[this]scenario,thereisnoclientandthereforenowaytoreceiveanyreimbursementforourservice.Itislikeweareaskedtobeworkingforeveryoneelseprobono.”
“Doinganexistingfeaturesanalysisfortenacresmightcostbetween$8-10k.”
7
“Wecouldspend$15-20kofourowntimeandsurveytheareaanddosomeengineeringtocomeupwithaplan…onlytofindoutthatPWDwon’tsupportitortheownerwon’tsign.”
“GARPisaskingustoactmoreadevelopmententity,notanentitythatneedstogetpaidbythehour.”
“Alow-endconceptfortenacreswouldcost$3-5,000.”
“…it’shardtoestimatewhattheupfrontcostswouldactuallybe.”
Interviewees(noneofwhichhadpreparedaGARPapplication)estimatedthattheywouldlikelyspendanaverageof$15-$20,000inbillablehourspreparingaGARPapplication.AllagreedthatthiscostwasprohibitivetotheirparticipationinGARP.Somefirmserroneouslybelievethatanengineeringsurveyofthesitewouldalsobeneeded,whichtheyestimatedcouldcostasmuchas$50,000fortenacres.
Whenaskedhowmuchtheymightbewillingtospend,inbillablehours,todevelopaGARPapplication,firmsindicatedthattheymightbewillingtospendapproximatelyafewthousand(~$1,500-$2,000)upfront.
Atleastonevendorindicatedthataggregatingtenacres’worthofsitespresentedaproblemforbuildingownersaswellasserviceproviders:
“Propertyowners[whowanttomoveforwardwitharetrofit]don’twanttowaitaroundtogetbundledwithothersandhavetheirtimetabledictatedbyotherentities.”
“…areownerswillingtomakethetimecommitmenttoexplorethepossibility[ofGARP]?Theperspectiveofthebuildingownershouldbeconsideredaswellastheaggregator.”
“…wechargeownersforourdesigns.Butclientsdon’twanttopayfor[GARP]designsbecausetheydon’tknowiftheGARPapplicationwillbesuccessful.It’sallnewandriskandfront-endinvestmentthatclientsaren’thappyabout.ItwouldbehelpfultoknowtheacceptancerateofGARPapplications.Thenclientsmightbemorelikelytopayfordesign.”
Bridgecapitalisnottheanswer
WithsomanyfirmsindicatingthattheupfrontcapitalinvestmentwasthemajorbarriertotheirabilitytoparticipateinGARP,weaskedwhetherloworno-costcapital“bridge”financingwouldbehelpful.TheresponsewasuniversalthatbridgecapitalwouldnothelpthesefirmstoparticipateinGARP.Nofirmweaskedwouldbewillingtotakeondebt,evenatzerointerest,tosubmitaGARPapplication.Itwouldbetantamount,theyindicated,todoingafreedesign,intheeventthattheprojectfellthroughandthefirmhadtore-paythebridgeloan.
8
“…for[our]traditionallandscapedesignwork,ifwedothedesignandaclientdecidestogowithus,we’llabsorbthefee,ifnot,theclientpaysfordesign.”
“…bridgefundingwouldnotbehelpfulbecausethereistoomuchuncertaintyabouttheproject.Thereisother,morecertain,workwecouldbedoing.”
“Weneedascenariowhereeveniftheprojectdoesnotmoveforwardwedon’tneedtogivethemoneyback.”
“…[WouldItakealoanifIhad]togivethemoneyback?Nope.”
“Wecouldnotparticipateifwehadtogivethemoneybackifadealfallsthrough.Itwouldneverbeworthtakingthatrisk.Ontheprivatesidewewouldnevertakethatrisk.”
“It’snotafinanceproblem;it’saprogramstructureproblem.”
“Nofirmwillworkonaloanbasis.”
“[Ourfirm]isnotinsuredtobeadesign-buildfirm.Infact,fewfirmsareinsuredthisway.Wewouldneedacontractortodothebuild;sothe[GARP]wouldneedtoberestructuredtocoverthecostofdesignasa“phaseone,”andconstructioncoveredasa“phasetwo.”Butthe$90kneedstocomeuptoo.AtleastmakeitevenwithSMIP.”
Recommendationtohelptraditionalpay-for-servicefirmstoparticipateinGARP
• CreateanimprovedGARPapplicationprocessthatwouldreducethefinancialriskforvendorsthatwouldliketoparticipateinGARP.Firmsnearlyallagreedthataphasedapproachtotheapplicationprocess,whichacknowledgesthedistinct“pre-development,”“design,”and“construction”phasesofaproject,andprovidesreimbursementforfirmsearlierintheGARPapplicationprocesswouldbeveryhelpful,andmoreattractivethanabridgeloan.(Seediagrambelow.)This‘phased’approachcouldhaveseveralvariations,buttheessentialideaistoenabletheapplicanttogetpaidforthehoursof“pre-development”work(e.g.,owneridentification,outreach,andprojectconceptplan)beforeadvancingtotheengineeringandconstructionphasesofaGARPproject.
“[GARP]isahigh-riskpropositionfrom[my]standpoint.Iftherewasawaytogetaportionofthegrantpaidupfronttherewouldbebetterconditions.”
“Engineeringfirmscannotsurviveiftheydon’tmakemoney.Wecandonatesomebuttimeismoney.Ifwewerepaidtodevelopanapplicationandworkwithalandowner,thatwouldchangethings.”
9
“…requirelessdesignupfront.[Letus]dodesignbasedonGISandreadilyavailabledataandprepareaminimumconceptualsubmission.”“…[PWDshouldprovide]…interimfundingforabasemap.[Weshouldbeableto]cometoPWDwithabasemapandaletterofinterestfromapropertyowner,andbasedonthatgetfunding[thatwouldhelpustogetto]thenextstep.”
CurrentandProposedGARPStructures
1. CurrentGARPStructure:
VendorsMustAssumeFinancialRisksofProjectuntilApplicationisApproved
ü Customeridentificationandoutreachü Initialsitevisit(s)ü Sitecharacterizationandsurveyü Conceptdevelopmentandpreliminaryprojectestimateü SubmitGARPapplication
ü Engineeringdesignü Constructiondocumentscompletedü Constructionbeginsü Constructioncompletionandprojectverification
2. Proposed3-phaseGARPStructure:
PWDSharesFinancialRisksofProjectwithVendors
ü Customer identification and outreach ü Initial site visit(s)
Costsincurredduringthisphasearefundedbyvendors
CostsincurredduringthisphasearefundedbytheGARPgrant,whichalsoreimbursescostsincurredduringPhase1.
Phase1:Pre-development
Phase2:Design&Construction
CostsincurredreimbursedbyGARPgrant
Phase1:Pre-development
IfGARPapplicationisnotsuccessfulatthispointthevendormustshoulderthepre-developmentcosts
10
ü Produce proposal and cost estimate for engineering services and any pre-development work completed
Vendor submits GARP application for reimbursement of pre-development work
ü Engineering design ü Construction documents completed and construction cost estimate produced
for each site ü Submit GARP application for construction services based on cost estimates
ü Construction ü Construction completion and project verification
3.Firmsbelievethataggregatingtenacresisinfeasible
Mostfirmsagreedthatwhileeconomiesaretrofitonalargersitewillgenerallybecheaperpersquarefootthanasmallersite,thesameeconomiesofscaledidnotapplytonon-contiguoussites,aswouldbethecasewithnearlyallGARPprojects.Moreover,firmsdidnotseehowtheycouldeasilygetmanypropertyownerscoordinated.Theyfeltthatmostthesitesinthecombinedsewerareawerelessthanoneacre,andthuswouldrequirethemtoreachoutandacquireatleasttendiscreteprojectstobundletogether.SomerespondentssuggestedmergingaspectsofSMIPandGARPtocombinethevendor-ledaspectsofGARPwithsmaller(nosizeminimumthresholdunderSMIP)projectsize.
“IfIhadfiveproperties[equalingatotaloftenacres]inthecombinedsewerareaI’dgoforGARP;itmakessensefromacontractingperspective,butIjusthaven’tseenthosesituations.”
“It’spossiblethatIcouldcombineSMIPprojectsbuttheyareall[happening]ondifferenttimelines,sofinding[tenacres’worth]ofpropertiesthatarereadyatthesametimeistricky”
“Theten-acre[requirement]isn’tprovidingtheeconomyofscaletomakethe$80-$90k/acrethreshold…IamalsounsureifPWDwouldbeflexiblewithacresifpresentedwithanopportunitytofundaproject[ofslightlylessthantenacres.]”
“…because[myfirm]isintouchwithalotofsmallerproperties,itmakessensetogodirectlyformultipleSMIPgrantversusgettingmorepropertiestogetherforGARP.Tenacresisalottogettowhenpropertiesareoneacre.”
Phase2:Design
CostsincurredfundedbyGARPgrant
CostsincurredfundedbyGARPgrant
Phase3:Construction
11
“Therearenotreallyalargeenoughnumberof[large]sitestomakefirmsthinkthereisareallineofbusinesshere.”
OneintervieweesuggestedthatPWDcouldmoreeasilyachievelarger-scalegreenedacreprojectsifitwouldallowprojectdeveloperstoco-minglepublicandprivaterunoff:
“…thiswouldcreateefficiencieswithstorageandtie-ins,whichsavescostsandenableseconomiesofscale.Ifasiteisopen…wecouldeasilygettwentypercentmorecaptureatmanyofthesesites….”
Recommendationtohelpfirmsachievetenacreprojects:
• Anincentivestructurethatprovidesbonuses(orwhichoffershigherdollarvaluepersquarefootofimperviousareamanaged)forlarger“portfolios”ofretrofitprojects.
4.IntervieweesbelievethattheGARPfundinglevelistoolow
Firmsuniversallyindicatedthatthe$90k/greenedacreofferedbyGARPwasinsufficienttocoverthecostsofa“greenedacre”retrofitproject.ParticularlyconsideringthelessriskyandmoreprofitablegreeninfrastructureprojectsavailablethroughPWD’spublicprojectsoreventhroughSMIPgrants,firmssaidthattherewasnostrongreasontoturnawayfrom“safer”andmorelucrativeprojectstotrytoputtogetheraGARPapplicationatthecurrentfundinglevel.Whenaskedwhatwouldberequiredtoencourageabove-groundvegetated(ratherthansub-surface)practices,whichwouldprovidemoreco-benefitsforcommunities,theanswerwas,thatitwasjustamatterofPWDofferingmoreperacreofimperviousareamanaged.
“EvenwithSMIP,wherePWDoffers$100kanacre,it’stight.$80-90kanacre[underGARP]isnotenoughespeciallywhenit’smorework.”
“…realisticallywewouldneed$200k+pergreenedacre”
“…[atthecurrentgrantlevel]Ican’tmakemoney,evenifit’sadreamsite.”
“Ipayallmysub-contractorsfirst,thenIpaymyself.Ihavetokeepmyrelationshipswithmysubs.Afterpayingthem,GARPdoesnotleaveenoughforme.”
ThereisnoincentivetodoGARPoverSMIP.IfGARPpaidmore,say$125kanacre...”
“Itwouldbeanillogicalbusinessmodelforustotryanddoaggregationofsites,coordinateallthepropertyowners,havethemallsignmaintenanceagreements,andthenstilldoalloftheanalysisandplansourselves.Economically,Idon’tseehowwere-coupthecostsofallthelegworkinvolved.”
12
“Thereisnoflexibilityoncostpergreenedacredependingonsiteconstraints.Someareeasy,somearemorecomplex—maybePWDneedstoputtogetheraslidingscalebasedonsiteconstraints…”
“…$150k[pergreenedacre]wouldbeveryhelpfultofirmsandit’sstillahugewinforthecitycomparedtothecostofpublicprojects.ThentherewillbecompetitionandmarketforceswillworkinPWD’sfavor—costswillbedrivendown.”
“PWDshouldexploreascaledfundingsystemandadjusttheirgrantstoprovidemoregrantdollarsforpracticesthattheywanttosee”
“Offer$150kforthepreferred[vegetated]solution,andtieritsothat$90kisofferedforsub-surface…”
“FundinglevelofGARPistheproblem.Traditionalfirmssimplycannotgetcostsdownto[$90k/acre].IntheD.C.program,reimbursementsforcompletedprojectsaremuchhigher,backoftheenvelopenumberslookmuchbetter.”
RecommendationonthefundinglevelforGARP
• ConsiderraisingGARPfundinglevelstomakeitequaltoSMIPataminimumbutalsoconsiderahigherbaselineforGARPgiventhetimerequiredtoaggregateproperties,suchasaminimumof$150kpergreenedacre.
• Tocreateanincentiveforabove-groundorvegetatedpractices(seeTable3.2-4:SMPHierarchyinPWD’sStormwaterManagementGuidanceManualV3.0),atieredgrantprogramcouldofferapremiumor“bonus”forgreeninfrastructurepracticesthatprovideco-benefitssuchasimprovedaesthetics,improvedairquality,orreducedurbanheatimpact.
5.FirmsseemedsurprisinglypoorlyinformedaboutGARP—evenmajorlocalplayersdidnothavestronggraspoftheprogrambasics
ThereweremanycontradictorystatementsmadebydifferentfirmsthatindicatedalowlevelofknowledgeaboutfundamentalcharacteristicsofGARP.Commonmisconceptionsincludedthebeliefthatafullengineeringreviewwasneededaspartoftheapplication,orthatthetenacreminimumwasastrictthreshold,orthatGARPwouldonlyreimburseconstructioncosts.
“SomecasestudyinformationonpastGARPprojectswouldbehelpful.Itwouldbenicetoseehowothercontractorshavebeensuccessfulwiththeprogram…getmoreinsightintotheprocess.”
“…whataboutworkshopsforcontractors…?”
13
“Thereisnotalotofinformationorpubliclyaccessibleinformationaboutthe[GARP]—justtheonepager.”
“WewouldlikemoreinformationfromPWD—indicating,forexample,thetypesofprojectsthathavebeenapproved,toexplainhowGARPworks.Thenourclientsmightbemoreintoit.”
“Websiteisconfusing.Doesitneedtobeaten-acreparcel?”
RecommendationstoinformpotentialGARPparticipants
• IncludemoreinformationontheGARPwebsiteaboutthespecificrequirementsforwhatfirmsneedtosubmitandprovidecasestudiesshowingdifferentexamplesofsuccessfulGARPapplications.
• PWD,workingwithlocalpartnerssuchasSBN,ortheBuildingOwnersandManagersAssociation(BOMA),couldhostwebinarsshowcasingdetailedcasestudiesofcompletedGARPprojects,withafocusonthestep-by-stepofhowtheprojectswereoriginatedandsubmitted.
• PWDshouldconsidermergingtheSMIPandGARPprogramsintoone,larger,andmoreflexibleprogramthatrewardsaggregationbutdoesnotrequireit,andenableseitherthevendororthepropertyownertosubmitanapplication.Thiswouldeliminatecompetitionbetweengrantprogramsandsimplifytheoptionsforvendors.
14
AppendixI:ParticipatingFirms
AKRF
BohlerEngineering,PA,LLC
EngineeringandLandPlanners
IMHydro
MaserConsulting
MichaelBakerInternational
NTMEngineering
OptiRC
PEEREnvironmental
Pennoni
PennsylvaniaHorticulturalSociety(PHS)
RodriguezConsulting,LLC
Roofmeadow
Seravalli,Inc.
ShearonEnvironmentalDesignCompany
Stantec
TheRBAGroup
UnitedAmericanBuilders
15
AppendixII:Interviewquestions
BackgroundQuestions
FirstName,LastName,Title,Firm,Yearfounded,Numberoffull-timeemployees,approximateannualrevenue,Corebusiness,CoreGSI-relatedservice,CompanyHQaddress,locationoflocalBranch(es).
GARP-specificquestions:
1. What,ifany,workhasyourcompanydoneforPWD/withPWDfunding(i.e.,prime/subcontractorvs.grantrecipient,other)
2. DoyouknowaboutGARP?Ifso,howdidyoulearnaboutit?a. Hasyourfirmconsideredparticipating?Why/Whynot?
3. What,ifany,changescouldbettersupportyourfirmtoparticipate?a. Ifoperatingcapitalisachallenge,wouldaccesstobridgefunding(grant,loan)be
helpful?i. Onwhatterms?Whatwouldrepaymenttermsneedtolooklike?
b. Ifnot,whatotherchangeswouldhelpmakeGARPworkbetterforyourfirm?4. HowmuchdoyouthinkyourfirmwouldspendinordertoacquireaGARPgrant?
a. Howwouldyou/doyouvaluethestafftimethatwouldbeneededtoseekandacquireclients[Encouragethemtoelaborateasmuchastheycan]
5. WhatprofitdoyoucurrentlymakeonprojectsthataresimilartoGARP?6. Howbigdoesthemarketneedtobeinorderforyoutobelievethatit'sworthwhiletoadaptto
GARP?"a. Whereintheprocessisthemainchallengeforyourfirm?[Encouragethemtoelaborate
asmuchastheycan] 7. Whatadditionaltoolsorresourceswouldbeuseful?