! !

Executive Summary

The 2030 Challenge is an initiative launched in 2006 by the Architecture 2030 organization to drastically reduce energy and water use in the built environment and vehicle emissions in cities across the United States. 2030 Districts® are part of this initiative, developed by Architecture 2030 to address energy, water, and vehicle emissions by the year 2030. Five cities have established 2030 Districts: Seattle, WA; Cleveland, OH, Pittsburgh, PA; Los Angeles, CA and the latest addition is Denver, CO. Additional information on the goals for the 2030 District® and background information is included in this report in the “Existing 2030 Districts®” section.

Currently, the cities of Ann Arbor and Detroit are in the process of launching two additional districts to operate in the state of Michigan. The launch is initially planned to occur in the second quarter of 2014. The specific scope for the 2030 District®: Detroit + Ann Arbor MAP project established and agreed upon by the Weekend MBA MAP Team and Clean Energy Coalition, sponsors of the MAP project, is to propose a launch plan with three critical elements:

1. Organizational structure, including governance model; 2. Outreach guidance to engage building owners, professional stakeholders, and respective

communities; 3. Exploration of funding options in order to recommend a sustainable funding plan.

The research and recommendations presented in this report are the results of primary interviews conducted with various stakeholders including property owners, public officials, financial service providers, higher education, nonprofits and community organizations. Secondary sources examined include journal articles and periodicals. The 2030 District®: Detroit + Ann Arbor project also incorporated themes and business strategies gained through lectures and course load of the Weekend MBA program. The research conducted on the existing districts was imperative to understanding their successes and potential pitfalls. The best practices and lessons learned from this research are outlined in the “Existing 2030 Districts®” section of this report. The MAP team then conducted interviews and attended 2030 District® Exploratory meetings in order to assess the local market and define the local value proposition. The local value proposition has been summarized into four categories: aggregated reporting & analytics, awareness & educational tools, avenue for sharing best practices, and collective voice & purchasing power. The MAP team’s recommendation is to host the District organization as a project under an existing nonprofit. The advantages to this arrangement clearly outweigh the disadvantages. The two factors that carry by far the most weight in this analysis are:

• The ability to leverage host resources for both administration and implementation of District tasks

• Negative attitudes in both Detroit and Ann Arbor toward creation of a new nonprofit, reflected by advice received on several occasions from stakeholders in both cities

Regarding the decision on whether or not to combine the advisory committees for the Ann Arbor and Detroit initiatives, the MAP team recommends starting with a combined committee initially, to minimize overhead and maintain close collaboration. As the Districts evolve and grow, the

!

Page!2!of!65!!

team expects District financial resources and complexity of required tasks to increase. Local variation between the cities will become more important. As these issues become more prevalent, a transition to separate committees is recommended. Each Committee may elect its own Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer positions. 2030 District Staff and the Advisory Committees may establish Task Forces as needed to execute projects related to Grants, Finance, Marketing/Outreach, Research/Sustainability Concepts, Policy and Metrics. The recommended Task Forces are intended to cover the full set of tasks facing the District. Of course, other task forces may be proposed and evaluated at this stage. They may be created incrementally, some may not be needed at all, and others could be combined or decomposed further to meet the needs of the Sister Districts. The recommended organizational structure is a phased approach featuring an initial, interim, and steady state. Theses phases are outlined in the “Organizational Structure” section. How and when the 2030 District should transfer from one state to the next cannot specifically be determined at this time. Business strategy, however, can help guide the 2030 District from one stage to the next and help determine and evaluate milestones. Suggested guidelines around these milestones are also highlighted in this report under the “milestone definition for changing phases” section. As part of the market outreach guidance, the MAP team provided an STP (segmentation, targeting and positioning) analysis. The potential stakeholders were segmented by geographic, partner type and classification attributes. This exercise is important because certain aspects of the local value proposition appeal to each segment and by understanding this, the District can more effectively focus its outreach efforts. The MAP team also recommends developing an strong on-boarding process in order to keep new members engaged and to hold onto early momentum. This report will also focus on the following options for creating a funding model for the 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor:

1. Grants, Sponsorship and Foundational support 2. Fee for service model 3. Membership dues

It is recommended that the “Sister Districts” should leverage shared resources, but approach certain fundraising and other actions individually. Through researching, analyzing, and compiling this report, it became very clear that there is a clear need to be addressed in both Detroit and Ann Arbor in regards to organizing and informing business owners, professional stakeholders, and the community around issues of energy efficiency. This report is designed to provide insight and recommendations to address these needs. The next 3-6 months are imperative to the success of this endeavor. The interest and need are present and now is the time to act.

!

Page!3!of!65!!

2030 Districts®: Detroit and Ann Arbor - Final Report 2014 - Weekend MBA MAP Team

Abhishek Sinha, Alex Thorpe, Hend Khatib, and Matt Ogdahl

!

Page!4!of!65!!

Table of Contents MAP Project Overview&.........................................................................................................................&5!

2030 Background&...............................................................................................................................................&5!Objectives&............................................................................................................................................................&6!Methodology&.......................................................................................................................................................&7!

Existing 2030 Districts®&.......................................................................................................................&7!List of Existing and Emerging 2030 Districts®&..........................................................................................&7!Key Findings from current 2030 Districts® operations and best practices&.........................................&7!Existing 2030 District® Business Demographics&.....................................................................................&10!Summary of Best Practices and Lessons Learned&..................................................................................&10!

Best Practices!...................................................................................................................................................................!10!Lessons Learned!.............................................................................................................................................................!11!

Local Market Evaluation – Detroit and Ann Arbor&....................................................................&11!Expectations of Property Owners&...............................................................................................................&13!Expectations of Professional and Community Stakeholders&................................................................&14!Value from Professional and Community Stakeholders&........................................................................&14!Local Value Proposition&................................................................................................................................&16!

Aggregated Reporting & Analytics:!.........................................................................................................................!17!Awareness and Educational Tools:!..........................................................................................................................!17!Avenue for sharing best practices:!............................................................................................................................!18!Collective Voice and Purchasing Power:!...............................................................................................................!18!

Launch Plan&..........................................................................................................................................&18!Organizational Structure&..............................................................................................................................&18!

Analysis of options!........................................................................................................................................................!20!Phased Approach!............................................................................................................................................................!25!Alterative Steady State!.................................................................................................................................................!30!Milestone definition for changing phases!..............................................................................................................!31!Spin4off!Strategy!...........................................................................................................................................................!32!Choosing a Host Organization!...................................................................................................................................!33!Definitions of Roles & Responsibilities!.................................................................................................................!34!

Market Outreach&............................................................................................................................................&35!Mission, Goals and Objectives!..................................................................................................................................!35!Segmentation, Targeting and Positioning!..............................................................................................................!36!Promotion!..........................................................................................................................................................................!39!Strong On-boarding Process!.......................................................................................................................................!40!Persuasion tactics!...........................................................................................................................................................!40!

Funding Model&................................................................................................................................................&41!Grants, Foundations and Sponsorship!.....................................................................................................................!41!Fee for Service and Commission Based Model!...................................................................................................!43!Distribution of Funds!....................................................................................................................................................!44!Funding Phases!................................................................................................................................................................!44!

Next Steps&.........................................................................................................................................................&45!

Conclusion&.............................................................................................................................................&46!Appendix&................................................................................................................................................&48!Citation&...................................................................................................................................................&65!

!

Page!5!of!65!!

MAP Project Overview 2030 Background The 2030 Challenge is an initiative launched in 2006 by the Architecture 2030 organization to drastically reduce energy and water use in the built environment and vehicle emissions in cities across the United States. 2030 Districts® are part of this initiative, developed by Architecture 2030 to address energy, water, and vehicle emissions by the year 2030. The goals set by the 2030 District® are to reduce emissions in existing buildings by 50%, and require new construction to be energy neutral by the year 2030, with an immediate 60% reduction below the national average. Five cities have established 2030 Districts: Seattle, WA; Cleveland, OH, Pittsburgh, PA; Los Angeles, CA and the latest addition in December 2013, Denver, CO. Additional information on the goals for the 2030 District® and background information is included in this report in the “Existing 2030 Districts®” section of this report. Through unique public-private partnerships, property owners and managers are coming together with local governments, businesses, and community stakeholders to provide a business model for urban sustainability through collaboration, leveraged financing, and shared resources.1 Together, they are developing and implementing creative strategies, best practices, and verification methods for measuring progress towards a common goal. Established in Seattle in 2011, 2030 Districts are at the forefront of regional and national grassroots efforts to create strong environmental partnerships, coalitions, and collaboration around ambitious, measurable and achievable goals.2 Based on the success of the established districts and the potential of the 2030 concept, bringing the challenge to the city of Detroit and Ann Arbor was inevitable. Initiated in the summer of 2013, the target for the Detroit and Ann Arbor Sister Districts was to turn into an emerging district by March 2014, and into an established 2030 district within the following 90 to 120 days. With its mission to assemble like-minded individuals and organizations, the exploratory committees for Detroit and Ann Arbor were established in late 2013. Periodic meetings were setup to bring to the table key players who would be critical in the eventual launch of the 2030 districts of Detroit and Ann Arbor. These included Property Owners and Managers, Professional and Service Stakeholders and Community Stakeholders. The objectives of these meetings were to research and discuss the prerequisites for the establishment of the sister districts and evaluate the local value proposition and success criteria for the districts. With the objective of establishing the 2030 districts in Detroit and Ann Arbor, a MAP (Multidisciplinary Action Project) team of the University of Michigan Ross School of Business was engaged to assist with creating the launch and operational plan for the new organization. This plan includes the following key components, as shown in Figure 1:

1. Organizational structure including governance model 2. Outreach plan to engage members and partners 3. Sustainable funding plan

!

Page!6!of!65!!

Objectives The objective of this report is to provide a comprehensive launch and operational plan for the establishment of 2030 District ®: Detroit + Ann Arbor based on the research and analysis performed during the MAP project. This plan includes recommendations for initial, interim and steady-state organizational structure and governance model, an outreach plan to engage founding and future members and partners, and a strategy to procure startup capital and a achieve a sustainable funding model.

The report is divided into three main parts: Organizational Structure and Governance Model; Member and Partner Outreach Strategy; and Sustainable Funding Plan. Each part covers the following:

• Current structure and approach of existing 2030 Districts • Analysis of feasibility of the approach in the context of Detroit and Ann Arbor • Aggregated feedback from the member and partner community of their expectations • Identification of available options and their analysis • A candid recommendation for the most effective and efficient option

An effort to answer some key questions has been made in this report with respect to each of the objectives. Challenges faced by 2030 District of Detroit and Ann Arbor have been addressed regarding the design of an organizational structure, incorporating a Sister Districts concept. Having no precedence at any existing 2030 districts, the concept of Sister Districts has its own advantages and constraints that are explained in this report while focusing on the value they bring for the property owners within the districts. These challenges and constraints relate to the setup of the governance model and advisory boards, distribution of grants between the Sister Districts, sharing of best practices, performance reporting of the districts and outreach plan formulation. The report also helps answer the question of which functions and resources within the organization can be shared between Detroit and Ann Arbor and which ones would need to be kept separate to achieve the right balance of cohesiveness and flexibility. Figure 1

Organizational Structure

Market & Outreach

Plan

Sustainable Funding Model

MAP Started(January 10, 2014)

Research & Analysis

(Jan, Feb & Mar 2014)

We are here(April 2014)

MAP Deliverables for District Launch

MAP Deliverables for District Launch

!

Page!7!of!65!!

Methodology Using primary and secondary sources, the 2030 District®: Detroit + Ann Arbor Weekend MBA MAP Team interviewed Detroit and Ann Arbor business owners, professional service providers, and community stakeholders. Interviews were conducted either in person or by phone by one or multiple members of the 2030 MAP Team. In addition, the 2030 MAP Team participated in community meetings and asked questions in group settings. In addition to individual stakeholders in Detroit and Ann Arbor, interviews were also conducted with professional involved with other established districts and experts familiar with 2030 Districts. The MAP team listened to the opinions of the interviewees in order to elicit ideas and the responses were compiled and analyzed by the MAP Team. Once data analysis was complete, the MAP Team translated the data into meaningful information and visuals. During the whole interview, analysis, and reporting process, the team applied key concepts, frameworks, and tools learned from the Ross MBA program.

Existing 2030 Districts® Below!are!listed!the!existing!Districts!as!well!as!the!Emerging!Districts.!!It!is!important!to!note!these!groups!because!they!serve!as!a!great!resource!for!the!2030!District®:!Detroit!+!Ann!Arbor,!specifically!in!understanding!best!practices!and!lessons!learned.!!The!research!conducted!on!the!existing!Districts!provided!a!solid!foundation!for!approaching!our!secondary!research!and!recommendations.!!&

List of Existing and Emerging 2030 Districts® Currently, five cities have established 2030 districts across the country:

• Seattle, WA • Cleveland, OH • Pittsburgh, PA • Los Angeles, CA • Denver, CO.

Districts currently designated as “Emerging 2030 Districts” include:

• Ann Arbor, MI • Dallas, TX • Detroit, MI • San Antonio, TX • Stamford, CT

Key Findings from current 2030 Districts® operations and best practices Existing district research focuses primarily on the four longest established districts: Seattle, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles. Substantive information was not available for Denver

!

Page!8!of!65!!

due to the recent launch of the district. The findings are a result of primary interviews as well as independent research conducted by MAP team members. The table below, Table 1, summarizes the key data points collected from the research on the Existing Districts.

!

Page!9!of!65!!

Table 1

City Statistics Organizational Structure Market Outreach Funding Model

Seattle

• Estd: September, 2011• 133 buildings & 38 million sq ft• 46 Property Owners• 36 Professional Stakeholders• 18 Community Stakeholders

• 501 c3 registered• Board of directors: 9 PO, 6 CS, 6 PS• Full-time Executive Director• Program Director, Project Manager, Director of Research• Task Forces

• Local org connection: USGBC, BOMA and others• Periodic property owners focused meetings• Member Education lunch sessions and liaison outreach• Special events, social media, word of mouth, committees and task forces

• Tiered Annual Sponsorship: ($40,500 p.a.)• Local and National Grants: ($400,000 total)• Corporate SponsorsFee for Service

Cleveland

• Estd: May, 2012• 10.7 million sq ft• 10 Property Owners• 6 Professional Stakeholders• 7 Community Stakeholders

• 501 c3 registered• Board of directors• 3 full time staff• 5 sub-committees• Advisors

• Onboarding welcome kit• Open houses, community events• FAQs and educational sessions

• $175,000 grant from the Kresge Foundation• DOE grant with Lawrence Berkley National Labs• No formal sponsors

Pittsburgh

• Estd: August, 2012• 100 building & 35 million sq ft• 42 Property Owners• 7 Professional Stakeholders• 23 Community Stakeholders

• Hosted on local chapter of USGBC• Full-time Executive Director• Bi-monthly partner meetings

• Newsletters, webinars, tours• AIA Pittsburgh provides AIA+2030 Pro Series• Full-time Property Specialist to recruit & train

• Local & National foundation grants - $235,000• Corporate funding - $55,000

Los Angeles

• Estd: March, 2013• 6.5 million sq ft• 2 Property Owners• 6 Professional Stakeholders• 6 Community Stakeholders

• Hosted under an existing 501c3• Volunteer driven – college & university students• Private sector led

• Open houses and community activities• Spread the value proposition• Potential not fully utilized

• Not funded by grants and is volunteer led• In-kind model specifically with time• Professional affiliate funds @ $89,000

!

Page!10!of!65!!

Existing 2030 District® Business Demographics Figure 2

3 Based on research on about 60 buildings in Seattle, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, Figure 2 shows the classifications of building demographics. Office, retail and residential spaces account for around two thirds of the building businesses. The majority of the buildings belong to offices, specifically housing Service sector (banking, insurance, legal and healthcare) and Blue-chip Technology companies. The retail-oriented buildings include both name brands like Starbucks, Kohl’s and Tiffany’s, as well as local small-business coffee shops, restaurants and boutique stores. Apartment and loft styled multi-storied homes included mostly high-rise luxury residences. Details on the buildings and their classification can be found in Appendix – Exhibit G.

Summary of Best Practices and Lessons Learned The research conducted on existing districts was imperative to understanding their successes and potential pitfalls facing an emerging or newly established district. Despite being in different parts of the country, existing districts provided consistent and important feedback. The most common best practices and lessons learned from Seattle, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles are summarized below:

Best Practices

• Volunteers & interns are important but oversight of paid staff is critical • Start simple, but flexible for organic growth • Umbrella organization has benefits • Professional affiliate paid membership and sponsorship • Online building owner sign-up and communication • Periodic open houses, meetings and reporting

!

Page!11!of!65!!

Lessons Learned

• Local value proposition based on member’s needs • All communications should be from a single source within the district • “Outreach” is critical for both onboarding members and exploring funds • Members and associations like BOMA should be involved in “Outreach” • District should be a conduit to connect building owners & professionals • Local political support goes a long way • Founding partners are critical

Local Market Evaluation – Detroit and Ann Arbor

Detroit4 is widely spread across 139 square miles, with Downtown Detroit sizing at 1.4 square miles, midtown Detroit at 2.1 square miles and other close peripheral localities like the New Center and Riverfront. In this area of over seven square miles, which defines the preliminary boundary of 2030 District of City of Detroit, there exist over 30 skyscraper buildings with over 20 floors. Some of these buildings are fairly new and renovated like the One Detroit Center, Greektown Casino Hotel and Renaissance Center Towers while some are of great historical significance like Cadillac Tower, Penobscot Building, Guardian Building and Buhl Building. Apart from these high-rise buildings, there are a lot of other medium and small buildings, stadiums and parking structures that fall within the purview of the district. The businesses occupying these buildings are mostly in the field of automotive, service oriented like banks, offices and legal and government operations.

Ann Arbor5, on the other hand is a relatively smaller city at about 28 square miles with fewer high-rises and skyscrapers than Detroit. The building demographic mostly consists of University of Michigan buildings and other commercial and residential constructions. Businesses occupying the real estate are for the most part either educational or service-oriented.

With such prime real estate and the potential for making a significant impact on the consumption of energy and water and emission of CO2 from transportation, Detroit and Ann Arbor are outstanding candidates for the establishment of a 2030 district.

Due to substantial differences in the socio-economic situation of the two cities, the tactical approach for the outreach and engagement of the members and partners as well as the exploration and outreach for funding would need to be tailored for each. Table 2 details some of the differences between the cities. The maps in Figure 3 illustrate the boundaries of the respective Districts in Detroit and Ann Arbor.

!

Page!12!of!65!!

Table 2

Figure 3 6

!

Page!13!of!65!!

The analysis of Detroit and Ann Arbor is based on research of existing infrastructure and business environment, conversations we had with the local business, community and professional stakeholders and the information received from the local property owners. This analysis answers the following questions:

• What are the expectations of the city including property owners, professional and service stakeholders and community stakeholders from the 2030 District, and how can it help them achieve their goals of sustainability while achieving the overall targets of the 2030 District initiative?

• What value does each of the stakeholders bring to the table for the success of 2030 District?

• Defining the local value proposition of the 2030 District for the City of Detroit and Ann Arbor.

The following is a summary of feedback received from property owners on the prospect of joining a 2030 district. During the interview process, the MAP team attempted to gauge interest and attitudes toward the concept, and to establish what specific benefits would be considered most valuable to property owners and managers. The team’s overall impressions of property owner interest were favorable, and the team was able to elicit candid and thoughtful responses.

Expectations of Property Owners

• Quantification of the savings not just with reduced consumption but also with respect to overall costs, maintenance, wear and tear and any potential tax incentives.

• Sharing of the energy efficiency and modernization work that has already been done and the best practices involved.

• Benchmarking of the district and its individual members to create peer groups for comparative analysis.

• Community outreach to connect the community such that the 2030 District becomes a hub for local business to educate and learn from each other.

• Establishment of a real-time dashboard of the districts performance. • Building owner, employee and tenant education for energy efficiency, water conservation

and CO2 emission reduction. • Establishment of protocols and processes with contacts in case any building or property

owner wants to perform renovations. • Assistance connecting with appropriate financers and help getting incentives for

upgrades. • Collective voice of the district to help with getting important legislations passed as well

as expedited permits from the city offices. • Assistance procuring valuable and innovative tools, software and R&D packages with a

collective buying power to help with the improvements and metrics tracking. • 2030 District should not be a face for service providers trying to just market their

products and ideas to the property owners. These ideas should be vetted through the 2030 District before presented as an opportunity to the members.

!

Page!14!of!65!!

• 2030 District organization should help the interested property owners in vetting the contractors and service providers and maintain their professional background for future reference.

• Understanding of issues related to over-committing to this initiative and reservations amongst local business community related to lost opportunity costs during the periods of upgrades, and help remediate or substantiate it with a better understanding of the benefits.

The MAP team also interviewed Professional and Community Stakeholders to assess their expectations of the District. Their responses are summarized below.

Expectations of Professional and Community Stakeholders

• Building and property owners are the most important ingredient for the success of the 2030 District.

• 2030 District will be focal point for the different professional and community stakeholders to bring their ideas and vision for shaping the district and hence it would encompass the best practices and lessons learned of the participating organizations.

• 2030 District would be the medium to promote and educate the community about ways to efficient usage of water and energy as well as help with transportation challenges to reduce CO2 emissions.

• The District would be a collective voice and a major driving force for important legislations in the city and the state.

• 2030 District with its advisory board composition of at least 40% building and property owners, 20% professional stakeholders and 20% community stakeholders would be ideal to promote the ideas and visions of the participants and hence direct the individual task forces in that direction.

• 2030 District should be an effective and efficient organization bringing together the individual technology organizations under a single umbrella to present before the local business community while reducing or removing the various hurdles for both building owners and the efficiency technology companies.

• With the growth of the district and recognition of the 2030 District brand value, the District should be a voice in local ordinances and practices of energy, demolition and reconstruction and vacant land utilization.

Value from Professional and Community Stakeholders

Based on an analysis performed by the MAP team on the composition of property owners, professional stakeholders and community stakeholders of Detroit and Ann Arbor, Figure 4 and Table 3 illustrate the composition and expertise capabilities of the stakeholders. Table 4 lists some of the key Detroit and Ann Arbor based professional and community stakeholders and the value and expertise each one brings to the 2030 District of Detroit and Ann Arbor. A more exhaustive list of all identified professional, service and community stakeholders is available in Appendix – Exhibit F.

!

Page!15!of!65!!

Figure 4: Local Organizations Pie Chart Table 3: Ann Arbor & Detroit Stakeholder Expertise

Table 4: Key Ann Arbor and Detroit Stakeholders

Organization Location Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

A3C Collaborative Architecture Ann Arbor

Services and Property Owner

Architecture; Sustainable design; Renewable energy; Facility & Operational Assessments; Energy Audits; Building Certifications; LEED; Permitting

AIA Detroit Detroit Community Partner Architecture; Sustainable design; Permitting

AIA Huron Valley Ann Arbor Community Partner Architecture; Sustainable design; Permitting

Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) Ann Arbor Community Partner

Clean energy technologies; Financing; Commercial energy assessments; Energy efficiency; Outreach & education; Program management; Guide & convene; Critical stakeholders and achieve strategic goals

Comerica Bank Detroit Services Property Owner

Financing; Building owner with efficiency expertise; Trusted advisor to many area business owners; Connectivity to potential new members

DEGC (Detroit Economic Growth Corporation) Detroit

Community Partner Property Owner Financing; Policy; Permitting; Planning; Project management

Detroit Future City Detroit Community Partner

Planning; Policy; Land use; Outreach; Convener and making connections with funders & community stakeholders; Project management and coordination; Assist with identifying resources; Civic engagement capacity

!

Page!16!of!65!!

Organization Location Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

ecoWORKS Detroit Community Partner

Green consulting; Sustainable design; Energy assessments and tracking; Contacts with energy efficiency & renewable contractors

Next Energy Detroit Community Partner

Energy efficiency & alternate energy technologies; Hosts convening energy technology incubator; Technology vetting; Connections with funders in Detroit

Robert Prud'homme Design Detroit Services Architecture; Building design; Energy & resource efficiency

USGBC-DRC Detroit Community Partner Services

Green building; LEED certification; Education; National network; Link to educational resources for sustainable buildings; Members with expertise in building audits, retrofits and efficiency; Possible link to grants for district; Possible staff

U.S. Construction Restoration Detroit

Services Property Owner

Mentoring and education; Engineering & design; Contact service; Federal inspections, real estate and applications

Zachary and Assoc. Detroit Property Owner Building owner; Workshops; Technical assistance; Case studies

Local Value Proposition

Buy-in at the local level is imperative to the success of the potential districts. In order to understand the local value the districts can provide, the MAP team spoke with the following stakeholders in Detroit and Ann Arbor:

Detroit

Ann Arbor

Building & Property Owners

Building & Property Owners Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

First Martin

Comerica Bank

Jones Lang LaSalle Zachary and Associates

Oxford Companies

Washtenaw Community College

Professional Stakeholders

Professional Stakeholders AIA Detroit COTE

Clean Energy Coalition (CEC)

Comerica Bank

Comerica Bank EcoWorks

MAVD

Ford Land

Smithgroup JJR Next Energy

!

Page!17!of!65!!

Detroit

Ann Arbor

Community Stakeholders

Community Stakeholders Clean Energy Coalition (CEC)

Ann Arbor City Council

Comerica Bank

Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) Detroit Future City

Comerica Bank

EcoWorks Robert Prud'homme Design USGBC-DRC U.S. Construction Restoration Based on data collected from the Building and Property Owners in Detroit and Ann Arbor and

the information gathered from conversations with Professional and Community stakeholders, the value proposition of the 2030 Districts in Detroit and Ann Arbor can be classified into four categories as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Value Proposition

Aggregated Reporting & Analytics: One of the key requirements from almost all of the building owners and stakeholders was the idea of having a centralized reporting mechanism for performance metrics at an aggregated level, and the ability to gauge individual members’ performance relative to the district’s performance. There are several initiatives within the Detroit region to promote and perform the energy and water efficiency works, however there exists a lack of retrospective analysis on the results of these efforts and the quantification of the savings. This value is essential for the district building owners to measure their investments.

Awareness and Educational Tools: Building and property owners are not always conscious of the various affordable and efficient technologies available in the market. They mostly rely on the service providers for recommendations, which is a potential ‘moral hazard’ situation in which sometimes the property owners feel pressured due to a ‘hard sell’ by the provider. This is a key

!

Page!18!of!65!!

avenue to explore and exploit the value of 2030 District. With its widespread knowledge and expertise, the District 2030 should provide the required awareness and education to its members to promote the energy and water efficiency and conservation message without burdening or overwhelming its members.

Avenue for sharing best practices: The 2030 District comprises local property owners, professional and community stakeholders, and provides connectivity with the national 2030 Districts. This presents a unique opportunity for sharing best practices not just within the local community but across the nation. This value can be realized by bringing in data, metrics and other subjective practices to a central repository of the district and by sharing them to promote the objectives.

Collective Voice and Purchasing Power: With the congregation of influential property owners and managers, professional stakeholders and community partners, 2030 District provides a substantial voice and power to initiate, promote, coordinate and execute local and regional ordinances and legislations that can help the overall cause of the 2030 vision and make the processes more streamlined. This common platform can also be utilized to negotiate and procure the best deals for any tools and services from outside by leveraging economies of scale and mass transactions.

Launch Plan Organizational Structure A brief discussion of the theory and concepts of organizational design will enable a better understanding of the approach taken to the design of the 2030 District organization. The following analysis addresses key concepts and recent research, and explores how they relate specifically to the Sister Districts. Henry Mintzberg defined two “fundamental and opposing requirements” in any organizational design: specialization and coordination.7 Specialization, or the decomposition of work into discrete tasks, enables increased efficiency in performing the overall activity. The classic example of this is the assembly line, where tasks are decomposed to a very low level, resulting in a highly efficient overall process. Coordination of tasks and subtasks, on the other hand, requires more effort as specialization increases. A tradeoff arises in any organization between increased efficiency in performing the work, gained from breaking down tasks, and the associated increase in complexity associated with managing the various tasks toward a common goal. In other words, the overall goal of organizational design is to strike the right balance between efficiency and effort required to coordinate tasks in alignment with strategy. In general, a more dynamic environment shifts the optimal balance away from specialization toward broader job descriptions. This idea is illustrated in Figure 6. The green lines represent possible design solutions for an organization in three different environments: normal, static, and dynamic.

!

Page!19!of!65!!

Figure 6: Specialization vs. Coordination

Intuitively, this makes sense because as key factors change rapidly, team members are put into unanticipated situations and must adapt, expanding their responsibilities and skillsets. Conversely, in a static environment such as a manufacturing plant, the coordination of tasks can be implemented in a controlled, highly repeatable way. Thus, job descriptions may be quite narrow in a relatively static environment. The environment in which the 2030 District must operate will presumably be quite dynamic. Key characteristics that could contribute to instability include applicable policy, political and financial climate in the two cities, technology, demographics, etc. As such, specialization is expected to fall toward the low end of the spectrum, with relatively broad job descriptions and key personnel potentially playing multiple roles. A related consideration is the degree of centralization of decision-making authority. Highly centralized decision rights allow tight adherence to strategy, while decentralization enables quicker decisions, which may not be aligned as closely with strategic goals. These relationships are illustrated in Figure 7.

Task%Specialization

Coordina

tion%Effort

HighLow

High

Low

!

Page!20!of!65!!

Figure 7: Centralization vs. Strategy, Decision-making Speed

In general, decision-making speed is hampered by the need for information to flow upward. In practice, in addition to the time penalty inherent to information flow, distortion of information sometimes occurs as it travels up the organization. This can lead to decisions being made based on flawed information. A generally accepted rule of thumb is to delegate decisions down to the lowest level where the necessary information is held. The idea is to minimize the amount of information required to flow upward – which in turn requires good communication of goals and strategy to lower levels of the organization. Note that this rule of delegating decisions to the lowest possible level holds for strategic decisions. However, it’s important to make the distinction between strategic decisions and decisions related to problem-solving. Recent studies on solving extremely complex problems indicate that centralized decision-making at the front-line, problem-solving level of the organization (where the work is actually being performed) actually serves to speed up the problem-solving process.8 This is due to complex interactions between tasks, and limited knowledge of individuals and smaller teams. Teams tend to get “wrapped around the axle” in the absence of centralized decision making at lower levels, which delays the solution. So some degree of front-line centralized control, i.e., within a small team or task force, is required when dealing with complex, interrelated problems.9 This centralization can be accomplished by appointing a team lead, for example, to keep team members working toward a common solution.

Analysis of options There is no doubt that different organizational designs can potentially work well in different situations; there is no universally “correct” design. The “right” mix of specialization vs. coordination and centralization vs. delegation for a particular organization depends on a variety of factors. These factors include (but are not limited to) the nature of the work (complex vs. relatively simple, collaborative vs. independent), stability or volatility of the operating environment, skill levels of various team members and managers, and whether team members share a common vision – a concept that applies particularly well to the District organization. 10Grant defines four methods or mechanisms which organizations use to coordinate tasks:

• Price – influences coordination between an organization and the market, or between divisions or entities within the organization.

Centralization

Strategic.Alignment

HighLow

High

Low

Centralization

Decision.Speed

HighLow

High

Low

!

Page!21!of!65!!

• Rules and directives – employment contracts, bylaws, memoranda of understanding. • Mutual adjustments – simply the mutual adjustment of individuals as they perform

related tasks in concert. Particularly relevant when shared core values exist among teams.

• Routines – where coordination based on mutual adjustment or directives becomes institutionalized. Especially useful where tasks are repetitive.

Perhaps the most important of these coordination mechanisms to the district is mutual adjustment. Here, individuals coordinate amongst themselves without necessarily being directed to do so by upper management. They come together naturally around a common vision, feeding off each other’s efforts. This mechanism is typically prevalent in volunteer organizations. The MAP team has observed that mutual adjustment plays a large role in the Detroit and Ann Arbor initiative currently. An important consideration in designing the district organization is to allow these ad-hoc adjustments to continue play a large role. This coordination mechanism is more important than rules or routines in this setting, and almost certainly more of a factor than price. Its importance is due to the collaborative nature of the work, coupled with the already quite high degree of shared values of conservation, responsibility and collaboration among the team. This provides the districts a huge benefit, which must be leveraged in order to succeed. Thus it is very important to foster mutual adjustment through the design of the organization, and to avoid stifling it. A structure that is overly rigid or formal should therefore be avoided, while communication outside predefined channels should be encouraged. The concept of hierarchy in organizational design is also important. Grant points out that there are two competing views of hierarchy, one narrow and the other more broad, and more useful in the context of organizational design. In the narrow sense, hierarchy is a sort of bureaucratic architecture by which authority is imposed from the apex of the organization down to the front lines. This form of hierarchy is more accurately labeled administrative hierarchy.11 However, in the broader sense, hierarchy is simply the decomposition of systems into subsystems. Grant argues that in this context, hierarchy in organizations is both inevitable and beneficial. The key question then becomes not whether a hierarchical design should be used, but rather how the subsystems should relate to one another. A key advantage to hierarchy in the broader sense is the efficiency gained in communication. Consider the “self-organized” team where coordination is achieved solely by mutual adjustment, in Figure 8.12 Ten communication pathways exist in this system.

!

Page!22!of!65!!

Figure 8: Self-organized Communication Pathways

Alternatively, suppose the same team is organized into a hierarchy with one manager and four reports, as in Figure 9. The number of communication pathways is reduced from ten to four. In a larger organization, the efficiency gain is even more dramatic. Figure 9: Hierarchy Communication Pathways

Hierarchy can enable more efficient communication among teams. In addition, Mihm et al. have shown that hierarchy has other benefits in complex problem-solving situations. Implementing hierarchy and some degree of centralized decision-making can speed up the problem-solving process.13 They also show that when designing an organization to solve complex problems, the “front-line” management, that is, at the level closest to where the work is being performed, is most critical. The design of “middle management,” above the level where intensive problem-solving is occurring, is much less important.14 Another advantage of defining a loose hierarchy of modules or teams is that modular systems that are decomposed into subsystems are better able to evolve and adapt to changes in the

!

Page!23!of!65!!

environment than unitary, non-hierarchical systems.15 A loosely coupled modular system, where each subsystem has the ability to operate independently to some degree, has greater adaptability than a tightly coupled modular system, where subsystems are highly dependent on one another. Several factors can be assessed in order to indicate whether a tight, formal structure or relatively loose, informal structure may be preferable. These factors are listed in Table 5 below, with an assessment relative to the District organization.16

Table 5: Factors indicating tight or loose coupling Factor District Loose/Tight Stage of development Early Loose Prior relationships among members

High Loose

Prior member experience working together

High Loose

Motivation to be a member High Loose Number of tasks / broadness of purpose

High Tight

Organization size Large Tight Leadership experience High Loose Urgency for action High Tight As shown in Table 5, five of the eight factors as applied to the District indicate a looser, less formal structure is preferable. These factors combined with the increased adaptability enabled by a loosely coupled structure seem to indicate that such a structure should be strongly considered. Architecture 2030 guidance on establishing a District organization calls for either formation of a standalone nonprofit organization or integration into an existing nonprofit, which would function as a host of the Districts. This is a critical decision facing the Sister Districts, one that will deeply affect their operation. Pros and cons of the two options are listed below. Standalone 501(c)3

Advantages: • Flexibility in decisions, resource use, structure – could be more agile as a result • Dedicated Board of Directors • Prioritization - District issues are always the focus • Autonomy, i.e., no need to seek permission from outside groups to act

Disadvantages: • Formation from scratch likely to be costly and complex • Higher administrative effort and overhead expense during operation • Advice received from both cities against forming “yet another nonprofit” • Would need to seek experienced employees

Hosted under existing organization

Advantages: • Can leverage host org for administration, allowing 2030 District staff to focus on

strategy & outreach

!

Page!24!of!65!!

• Experienced employees available immediately • Can leverage host resources to perform project tasks under 2030 District Staff

supervision • Efficient operation due to established processes for some tasks • Faster, less expensive setup • Less paperwork with State of Michigan • Ability to leverage market recognition of host • Advisory board can function as District Board of Directors

Disadvantages: • No dedicated Board of Directors; use host’s Board • Potential difficulty establishing identity within host organization; may be “just

another project” • Other projects may take priority for host resources • Host liability issues

The MAP team’s recommendation is to host the District organization as a project under an existing nonprofit. The advantages to this arrangement clearly outweigh the disadvantages. The two factors that carry by far the most weight in this analysis are:

• The ability to leverage host resources for both administration and implementation of District tasks

• Negative attitudes in both Detroit and Ann Arbor toward creation of a new nonprofit, reflected by advice received on several occasions from stakeholders in both cities

A second critical decision regarding the design of the District organization is whether to establish a joint advisory board for the two cities, or to have separate advisory boards for Ann Arbor and Detroit. The establishment of a board of directors is a requirement levied on all Districts by Architecture 2030. The composition of the board must be at least 40% property owners or managers, 20% professional stakeholders and 20% community stakeholders. The advisory board, whether joint or dual, satisfies the requirements for a board of directors while providing a better fit under a host organization than a full-up board of directors. Pros and cons of the joint vs. dual structure for the advisory board are examined below. Joint Detroit & Ann Arbor Advisory Board

Advantages • Enables closer collaboration between Detroit & Ann Arbor stakeholders • Best practices can be shared firsthand • No redundant meetings for members of both committees • Economy of scale - less overhead and coordination required

Disadvantages • Potential uneven representation due to size disparity • May be less decisive, more difficult to obtain consensus • Greater potential for conflict may slow down decisions • Logistic complexity / more travel for most members (CO2 emissions)

!

Page!25!of!65!!

Separate Detroit & Ann Arbor Advisory Boards Advantages

• Less potential for conflict • Leaner structure enables faster decision making • Simpler composition • Logistically simpler, for most members less travel required

Disadvantages • Redundant meetings for members of both committees • Greater effort required to share best practices between cities • Potential for inconsistent decisions between 2 cities, may require extra

coordination • No economy of scale – requires greater coordination effort

The MAP team’s recommendation is to start with a combined board initially, to minimize overhead and maintain close collaboration from the outset. As the Districts evolve and grow, the team expects District financial resources and complexity of required tasks to increase. Local variation between the cities will become more important. As these issues become more prevalent, a transition to separate boards is recommended to enable the organization to keep pace with local issues.

Phased Approach It follows from this analysis that the design of an organization should evolve over time, since the factors and conditions that influence the design are not fixed. The MAP team recommends a phased approach to the design that attempts to account for the anticipated trajectory of the Sister Districts. The intent is that these recommendations will be used as guidelines, and that the actual design will be continuously re-evaluated as conditions change. The goal of the MAP team is to provide 2030 District team members with the tools needed to (a) sense changes relevant to the organization’s design and assess whether the current design is still appropriate; (b) determine when the current design is inadequate and propose a modification to the design; and (c) implement a smooth, timely transition to a more appropriate design.17

Initial As the Sister Districts make the transition from Emerging to Established as recognized by Architecture 2030, the organization must have an established structure in place. Funding will no doubt be limited in this first phase, and the Districts will be focused on the most basic tasks required to begin work. The recommended structure in this initial phase is shown in Figure 10.

!

Page!26!of!65!!

Figure 10: Initial Organizational Structure

2030 District Executive Director

2030 District Advisory Committee

Parent Org ED

2030 District Project POC

Parent Organization

!!As discussed previously, under this scenario the District takes its place as a project under the host organization. The host provides support and administrative services, as well as the resources to execute project-related tasks under the supervision of the 2030 District Executive Director (ED). As this relationship is established, a focal within the host is assigned to the project as a Point of Contact (POC), to streamline communications between the Sister Districts and the host. All requests made to the host should go through the POC if possible, to avoid confusion and duplication of effort. The current Detroit and Ann Arbor Exploratory Committees transition into the Advisory Committee role. The 2030 District Executive Director oversees the operation of the Districts and coordinates with the Advisory Committee to set strategy, goals and objectives and design and delegate tasks. The MAP team anticipates that this initial structure will be adequate to allow the Districts to secure initial funding.

Interim Once the Sister Districts are established and sufficient funding is available, the MAP team recommends expanding the organization as shown in Figure 11.

!

Page!27!of!65!!

Figure 11: Interim Organizational Structure

Relationship Mgr A2 Data Engineer

2030 District Executive Director

2030 District Advisory Committee

Relationship Mgr Det

Parent Org ED

2030 District Project POC

Advisory 2030 Staff

Parent Organization

TreasurerChair Vice Chair Secretary

!During the Interim phase, the District Advisory Committee elects a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer. This enables the Committee to better serve the Sister Districts as the scope of work increases and task breakdown and delegation within the Committee becomes more critical. Paid 2030 District staff positions are added as funding becomes available. This expansion is progressive and does not need to be implemented in one motion. The Data Engineer may be an internship to begin with, as the main initial task will likely be coordinating data capture for building metrics. Relationship Manager Positions for the two cities are filled as funding allows, to focus on the specific issues facing each city and assist the ED in making sure best practices are shared between them.

Steady State As the Sister Districts organization matures, with stable funding and staffing, the District organization may be expanded further. The recommended expansion is shown in Figure 12, although variations on this theme may be designed and evaluated by District staff and committee members.

!

Page!28!of!65!!

Figure 12: Steady-state Organizational Structure

A2 Relationship Mgr Data EngineerA2 Advisory Committee

Program Director

Detroit Advisory Committee

Metrics

Finance

Policy

Nat’l & Regional

Dues

Rebates/Incentives

R&D/Sustainability Concepts

Data

Tools

Grants

Local

Marketing/Outreach

Detroit Relationship Mgr

Parent Org ED

2030 District ProjectGrants PolicyR&D/Sustainability Concepts

Property Owners

Sm Business

Finance

Energy

CO2 Analysis

Building Automation

State

Local

Loans

Grant Distribution

Federal

Advisory

Water

2030 Staff

Task Forces

Focus Areas

Parent Organization

!At this stage, the MAP team recommends splitting the 2030 District Advisory Committee into Detroit and Ann Arbor Advisory Committees. Although not shown in the figure, each Committee may elect its own Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer positions. 2030 District Staff and the Advisory Committees may establish Task Forces as needed to execute projects related to Grants, Finance, Marketing/Outreach, Research/Sustainability Concepts, Policy and Metrics. The Task Forces recommended here are intended to cover the full set of tasks facing the District. Of course, other task forces may be proposed and evaluated at this stage. They may be created incrementally, some may not be needed at all, and others could be combined or decomposed further to meet the needs of the Sister Districts. The Task Forces may be further decomposed into Focus Areas as shown in Figure 12. The recommended Focus Areas are presented in more detail below. Grants Task Force

• May leverage grant writing capability of host organization • Local Focus Area

o Focuses on funding available at local level, to be pursued separately for each city by Ann Arbor or Detroit staff

• National & Regional Focus Area

!

Page!29!of!65!!

o Focuses on funding that is applicable to both cities o Approaches funding sources as Sister Districts

Finance Task Force • May leverage Finance department of host organization • Grant Distribution Focus Area

o Needs to consider allocation of national and regional awards between cities • Loans Focus Area • Rebates/Incentives Focus Area

Marketing/Outreach Task Force • Focus Areas should align with segmentation analysis proposed in the Segmentation,

Targeting and Positioning discussion • Manages Sister Districts image • Website and social media • Property Owners Focus Area

o Focuses on the needs of property owners o Handles outreach to BOMA and IREM

• Small Business Focus Area o Tailor approach to suit small business perspective

R&D/Sustainability Concepts Task Force • Research into emerging sustainability technologies, tools • Can leverage research division of host • May consider financial instruments • Energy Focus Area • Water Focus Area • CO2 / GHG emissions Focus Area

o Focuses on transportation concepts Policy Task Force

• Leverages combined influence of both cities to influence policy • Leverages host and other organizations’ experience on policy issues • Keeps the Sister Districts informed on relevant policy changes • Building codes, ordinances, etc. • Local Focus Area

o Focuses on policy issues specific to Detroit or Ann Arbor • State Focus Area

o Utilizes shared Sister District resources • Federal Focus Area

o Utilizes shared Sister District resources Metrics Task Force

• Headed by Data Engineer, to ensure common approach between Detroit and Ann Arbor • Leverages work done by other districts • Data Focus Area

o Manages collection, storage and format of data on buildings’ energy and water use

o Manages transportation data • Tools Focus Area

!

Page!30!of!65!!

o Leads evaluation and selection of reporting and analysis tools o Implements Portfolio Manager and dashboard across Sister Districts

• Analysis Focus Area o Implements analytics tools and processes to find trends in data, provide feedback

on effectiveness of various measures o Provides Marketing & Outreach Task Force with statistics on progress and

effectiveness of initiatives • Building Automation Focus Area

o Implements automation technology across Sister Districts

Alterative Steady State There are many nonprofit organizations that have been heavily involved with the Districts in both Detroit and Ann Arbor. Each of these organizations brings a unique set of core competencies to the table. In an effort to leverage the strongest capabilities of multiple organizations, the 2030 District organization may be established under two organizations: one “outward facing” to represent the Sister Districts to the public and outside organizations, and assist with marketing and outreach; and one “inward facing” to assist with administrative tasks and execution of projects and initiatives across the Sister Districts. An example of a design with two hosts is illustrated in Figure 13.

!

Page!31!of!65!!

Figure 13: Alternative Steady-state Organizational Structure

A2 Relationship Mgr Data EngineerA2 Advisory Committee

2030 District Executive Director

Detroit Advisory Committee

Metrics

Finance

Policy

Nat’l & Regional

Dues

Rebates/Incentives

R&D/Sustainability Concepts

Data

Tools

Grants

Local

Marketing/Outreach

Detroit Relationship Mgr

Parent Org ED

2030 District Project HR

Property Owners

Sm Business

Finance

Energy

CO2 Analysis

Building Automation

State

Local

Loans

Grant Distribution

Federal

Advisory

Water

2030 Staff

Task Forces

Focus Areas

Inward Facing Organization

Marketing

Parent Org ED

2030 District ProjectGrants

Outward Facing Organization

!The relationship between the three organizations represented in Figure 13 could be a partnership, or a combination of partnership and paid contract. For example, the Sister Districts could form a partnership with the outward facing organization, while contracting administrative and project execution services from the inward facing organization. These relationships and responsibilities may be defined in a Memorandum of Understanding between the three organizations.

Milestone definition for changing phases As discussed, the recommended organizational structure is a phased approach featuring an initial, interim, and steady state. How and when the 2030 District should transfer from one state to the next cannot specifically be determined at this time. Business strategy, however, can help guide the 2030 District from one stage to the next and help determine and evaluate milestones. Included in this section are general guidelines and milestone definitions designed to help direct 2030 District leadership.

!

Page!32!of!65!!

The initial organizational structure housed in an existing 501(c)3 nonprofit provides the shelter necessary for the 2030 District to transition from an emerging to existing 2030 District by focusing the attention of the Executive Director on core issues rather than operational concerns. The host organization handles financial, human resource, and legal concerns thus freeing district staff time. The period of time spent in the initial structure depends on the ability of the 2030 District Executive Director to on-board members and secure funding. The timing could be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years based on funding secured. This period should be spent focusing on marketing and fundraising and staff should be encouraged to shed any non-core activities, depending on volunteers to help stand the District up. Depending on the success of the Executive Director during this time to obtain funding, there may emerge the necessary funds to hire either a Detroit or Ann Arbor Project manager. The determining factor for which city should have a project manager will depend on which city the Executive Director spends the majority of their time. If the Executive Director is based in Detroit, the first project manager should be hired in Ann Arbor. This hiring will diversify community outreach and engage a predominately new group of stakeholders (outside of the joint stakeholders who have a presence in Detroit and Ann Arbor). If funding is not immediately available, there are other ways of achieving this diverse presence. Volunteers, contracted staff, and interns are all possibilities given the proper oversight by the Executive Director. This would be considered an interim state: the 2030 District is up and running, but lacks secured funds to hire additional full-time staff. The period of an interim state could be anywhere from 1-2 years. One there is a sustainable presence in both Detroit and Ann Arbor, the 2030 District can transition from the interim to steady state. Volunteers and interns are still utilized, but the Districts have grown to a size no longer manageable by volunteers. The Executive Director now spends time engaging national foundations, overseeing staff, and determining direction. The Executive Director becomes less involved in day-to-day focusing almost completely on the big picture. A steady state will emerge when the Board of Directors and the Executive Director have secured long-term foundational support that helps ensure the 2030 District can outlast any slow periods or economic downturns. Because of the hosted structure of the 2030 District, the journey from initial to steady state can be pursued strategically rather than imperatively. There should be a slow and deliberate emphasis to achieve a steady state.

Spin%off(Strategy(There is a possibility that the Sister Districts will outgrow the parent organization(s), physically or organizationally. If the host arrangement becomes cumbersome, the Sister Districts could spin off and form independent nonprofit organization. Under this scenario, the Advisory Committees can assume the role of a top-level Board of Directors, as shown in Figure 14.

!

Page!33!of!65!!

Figure 14: Spinoff Organizational Structure

A2 Relationship Mgr Data Engineer

2030 District Executive Director

2030 District Board of Directors

MetricsPolicy

Nat’l & Regional

Dues

Rebates/Incentives

R&D/Sustainability Concepts

Data

Tools

Grants

Local

Marketing/Outreach

Detroit Relationship Mgr

Property Owners

Sm Business

Finance

Energy

CO2 Analysis

Building Automation

State

Local

Loans

Grant Distribution

Federal

Water

2030 Staff

Task Forces

Focus Areas

Advisory

!

Choosing a Host Organization Appendix D shows an example matrix that can be used to help assess relative strengths of potential host organizations. The MAP team defined the following capabilities as relevant to the evaluation:

• Aligned with 2030 District goals • Is 501 (c) 3 • Active during Exploratory & Emerging phase • Experience executing complex programs/program management capability • Administrative capability • Existing organizational structure • Ann Arbor & Detroit presence • Fund raising experience • Revenue generation experience/capability • Years in operation • Incubation and spin-off experience/capability • Influence in policy • Dedicated in-house Marketing Department

!Each of these capabilities was assigned a weight from 1-5 to reflect the relative importance to the District. The team’s analysis, performed in MS Excel, included Clean Energy Coalition (CEC),

!

Page!34!of!65!!

US Green Building Coalition, Detroit Regional Chapter (USGBC-DRC) and NextEnergy. Other organizations may be easily added by extending the table. Scores were assigned for the capabilities on a scale of 1-10 for each organization. The result obtained by the MAP team reflects a level of understanding of the organizations that is severely limited by the scope of its interactions with each. The scores given in the appendix are less important than the process. The MAP team intends for the concept to be adopted and improved by the insight of those with close contact and experience with each organization. In addition, the weighting of the capabilities can be adjusted, other capabilities added to the matrix, and existing capabilities removed as determined by District team members. A useful exercise to help select the host organization would be to agree on a set of parameters and distribute the table, with the scores removed, to a group of knowledgeable individuals (such as the Exploratory Committees). Participants could then adjust the weighting of the parameters and assign scores to the organizations based on their own perceptions and understanding. The results could then be compiled by summing the totals for each organization (using excel formulas) to obtain a cumulative scorecard incorporating the assessments of all the participants.

Definitions of Roles & Responsibilities !The roles and responsibilities of staff members reflect the necessary attributes of a successful 2030 District. The one required staff member established by the 2030 District is an Executive Director. The additional staff members (Detroit and Ann Arbor Project Managers and a Data Engineer) were identified as important staff members needed in order to help ensure the success of the Detroit and Ann Arbor Districts. The inclusion of these staff members are a result of the overall importance of having a presence in both cities as well as a Data Engineer able to enter utility and demographic data necessary for benchmarking. Table 6 below lists each staff member, defines the role, and establishes each staffer’s responsibilities.

!

Page!35!of!65!!

Table06:0Roles0and0Responsibilities0

0!Market Outreach

Mission, Goals and Objectives The mission, goals and objectives of the 2030 District in Ann Arbor and Detroit need to be clearly defined in order to ensure that the messaging around the initiative is consistent. The MAP team’s understanding of each of these items are outlined below:

Mission Create long-term private/public partnerships and collaboration around measurable goals to reduce environmental impacts of building construction and operations.

Goals

Energy Use:

• New building: 60% reduction below National Average, reaching carbon neutral by 2030

Title Role Responsibility!!!!!!!Similar!to!roll!of!CEO!in!corporate!settings !!!!!!!Meet!with!BOD!on!a!regular!basis

!!!!!!!Liaison!between!staff!and!BOD!!!!!!!Provide!strategic!guidance,!contacts,!and!resources

!!!!!!!Oversees!all!departments !!!!!!!Set!fundraising!goals

!!!!!!!Less!involved!in!dayAtoAday!activities !!!!!!!Cultivate!long!term,!strategic!partnerships

!!!!!!!Link!between!Detroit!stakeholders!and!2030!District!staff

!!!!!!!Lead!dayAtoAday!activities!in!Detroit

!!!!!!!Community!liaison !!!!!!!Engage!potential!members!!!!!!!Subject!knowledge!expert !!!!!!!Help!identify!funding!sources!!!!!!!Local!value!driver !!!!!!!Organize!events!and!meetings

!!!!!!!Local!point!person!!!!!!!Report!back!to!Executive!Director!progress!and!issues

!!!!!!!Work!in!tandem!with!Ann!Arbor!counterpart!!!!!!!Link!between!Detroit!stakeholders!and!2030!District!staff

!!!!!!!Lead!dayAtoAday!activities!in!Detroit

!!!!!!!Community!liaison !!!!!!!Engage!potential!members!!!!!!!Subject!knowledge!expert !!!!!!!Help!identify!funding!sources!!!!!!!Local!value!driver !!!!!!!Organize!events!and!meetings

!!!!!!!Local!point!person!!!!!!!Report!back!to!Executive!Director!progress!and!issues!!!!!!!Work!in!tandem!with!Detroit!counterpart

!!!!!!!Metrics!expert!for!2030!District !!!!!!!Benchmark!2030!District!buildings!!!!!!!Technical!adviser !!!!!!!Report!on!benchmarking

!!!!!!!Liaison!to!utility!corporation!(to!obtain!utility!data)!!!!!!!Quantify!and!illustrate!changes!in!consumption!over!time

Executive2Director2of2Detroit2and2Ann2Arbor220302Districts

Detroit2Relationship2Manager

Ann2Arbor2Relationship2Manager

Data2Engineer

!

Page!36!of!65!!

• Existing building: minimum 10% reduction below National average by 2015, reaching 50% reduction by 2030

Water Use:

• New building: Immediate 50% reduction below current District average • Existing building: Minimum 10% reduction below District average by 2015, 50%

reduction by 2030

CO2 of Auto and Freight:

• New building: Immediate 50% reduction below current District average • Existing: 10% reduction below current District average by 2015, reaching 50% reduction

by 2030

Objectives

• Identify the host 501 (c) 3 and sign the District charter to establish the 2030 Districts of Ann Arbor and Detroit

• Identify the Advisory Board Composition • Identify the task forces • Create and outreach plan for owner participation in Detroit • Create an on-boarding procedure and register building owners with district tools • Create communication protocols with District members - meetings, web portal, blogs • Benchmarking of district against goals

Segmentation, Targeting and Positioning (STP)

Segmentation The District must segment the potential stakeholders because stakeholders are heterogeneous and thus value is relative, so different aspects of the value proposition will appeal to different stakeholders. Understanding the different segments will enable the District to tailor the market outreach and positioning to that specific segment. To develop this STP analysis, the MAP team leveraged the lectures and teachings from Professor John Branch’s WMBA 504 Marketing Management course. Figure 15 below illustrates an initial understanding of the different segments within the District.

!

Page!37!of!65!!

Figure 15: Segmentation of District Stakeholders

The drivers for the segmentation are:

• Geography – Ann Arbor and Detroit • Partner Type – Property Owner, Professional Stakeholder and Community Stakeholder • Classifications of the partners – like commercial, residential and government property

owners

Targeting

While all partner types will be crucial to the District, the current focus of outreach efforts should be on the property owners. Property owners are the foundation of the District and without them the initiative will not be successful. By focusing all the resources and efforts initially on the property owners, the District can ensure that the organization will have a solid base. After a critical mass of property owners has signed on, it makes sense to focus energy on outreach to professional stakeholders. Based on research conducted by the MAP Team, a critical mass of community stakeholder has been reached so that focus there should be on keeping the community stakeholders engaged (and not necessarily focusing on increasing the number of stakeholders signed onto the initiative). The targeting strategy is illustrated in Figure 16.

Professional Associations such as BOMA, Building Owners and Managers Association, will be crucial to the success of the 2030 District in Detroit and Ann Arbor. The recommended approach

!

Page!38!of!65!!

for working with BOMA is to view the organization as a partner and listen to their ideas regarding the value proposition and how this initiative can be most valuable to building owners. It would be ideal for BOMA to designate a liaison who can work specifically with the 2030 District and help provide ideas on how to reach out to building owners and managers. It is also suggested that the Executive Director of the 2030 District in Detroit and Ann Arbor reach out to all Existing Districts to understand their approach to engaging BOMA.

Figure 16: Targeting District Stakeholders

Positioning Positioning outlines how consumers perceive an organization and how consumers understand the value proposition. The Map Team’s suggestion is that the District position itself as a “Unique private/public partnership that brings together property owners, local governments, businesses and community stakeholders to work towards a common goal of reducing the environmental impact from building construction and operations.” This positioning is realized through the value proposition as outlined in Figure 17.

Retail Office

Educational

/ MedicalHotel

PropertyOwners

Community Stakeholders

Professional Stakeholders

BOMA IREM

!

Page!39!of!65!!

Figure 17: Positioning of District Offering

Promotion Promotion essentially outlines the steps around market outreach and how to bring the message of the organization to potential stakeholders. Outlined are the key steps around promotion and provided suggested options for some of the steps. These steps are meant to serve as a guideline for the District to consider as it finalizes its market outreach plans. The promotion guideline steps outlined below were taken from lectures from Professor John Branch’s WMBA 504 Marketing Management course.

1. Identify Target Audience

• 3 main segments: Property Owners/Managers, Services Stakeholders, Community Stakeholders

• Compile list of building owners required to reach critical mass

2. Define Promotion Objectives

• Example: Build brand awareness of District 2030

• Example: Increase membership by xx% from May 2014 to August 2014 3. Determine Promotion Budget

• Appropriate allocation of funding towards market outreach efforts 4. Evaluate Promotion Factors

• Push strategy initially until brand awareness is evident

• Pull strategy as District membership expands 5. Define Promotion Mix

• Outreach through personal connections

• Outreach through established associations through BOMA and

!

Page!40!of!65!!

• Attend meetings and conferences that would have potential stakeholders

• Open houses/social events (outreach and fundraising)

• E-mail campaigns 6. Develop Promotion Tools

• Talking points - value proposition

• Leverage 2030 District toolkit 7. Evaluate Promotion Effectiveness

• Develop benchmark to determine effectiveness of promotion methods – such as benchmark against how many members join vs. goals

Strong On-boarding Process • Assign dedicated relationship manager for District – single-point of contact for members

• Provide Welcome Kit

• Help members understand Energy Use Intensity (EUI) • Complete initial needs assessment

• Collect Portfolio Manager related information on energy use and review data with members once they have completed questionnaires

• Educate members about specific ways to get involved with the District

• Create platform for members to stay connected

• Blog

• Facebook page • Recurring meetings and events

Persuasion tactics In order to persuade members to join this initiative, “The Six Universal Forms of Influence” can be employed during the pitch. Table 7 below illustrates specific examples of how these forms of influence can be leveraged.18 Table 7: Universal Forms of Influence Principle Meaning Use in 2030 District®

Scarcity Opportunities seem attractive when people feel like they could miss out

Explaining to the property owners the opportunities of the value proposition

Authority Feel obligation and trust towards experts The presenter should be an expert in 2030 District concepts and

!

Page!41!of!65!!

value proposition

Commitment Understand the need to be consistent Make sure that the pitch is followed up with a thank you note and proper paperwork support during the gestation period

Social Proof “safety in numbers” and “power of crowd”

Making sure that references from existing property owners are included in the pitch

Liking The power of influence of people we like or are seen as similar

When possible, the pitch should be given by someone the target knows personally

Reciprocity Develop a culture of support and trust When possible, the pitch should be given by someone who has a past connection with the target

Funding Model

To establish the sister 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor it is critical to have sufficient seed capital and a sustainable source of revenue to support the day to day operations of the District. Based on the defined role of the 2030 District, in order to operate, the District needs to hire a dedicated Executive Director. In addition to fund the full time employees, a sustainable funding model is also important to organize and coordinate the day to day operations of the district including market outreach, administrative tasks, incentivize the members and many more. Hence the identification of sufficient and sustainable funding model should be considered a prerequisite to launching the 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor, even though not a mandate by the national initiative.

2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor have the following options to create a funding model for the District:

4. Grants, Sponsorship and Foundational support 5. Fee for service model 6. Membership dues

The above options have been listed in the chronological order of their implementation, the details of which have been covered in later section.

Grants, Foundations and Sponsorship

To start the District, it is essential to have seed capital and the most effective way to organize this funding is through Grants, Sponsorship and Foundational support. In addition to providing the startup capital, these grants and sponsorships are also key to connect with the community and create a sense of partnership with the grant and sponsorship provider towards a common goal.

!

Page!42!of!65!!

Such a partnership model also enables the District to look for any future funding requirements from these sources.

Grants With the goals of the District being reduction of energy and water consumption and CO2 emission, it is imperative to tap into the National and State Level Department of Energy Grants. These Grants are designed to support initiatives like 2030 District to support the goals of energy and water conservation and improving the air quality in the urban areas by reducing the emission of CO2 and other harmful contaminants into the atmosphere. Following is the list of some of the Grants at the national and state level that the District should focus on procuring:

• U.S. Department of Energy – Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program Projects19

• U.S. Department of Transportation - Clean Fuels Grant Program (5308) 20 • State of Michigan - Energy Efficiency Building Retrofits Grant 21

Foundations

Another tangible option for funding the District is with support from Foundations. These philanthropic and visionary foundations have targeted funds devoted to a certain cause and hence it is important to identify and approach the right foundation with appropriate pitch. The 2030 District’s network protocol along with our market outreach concepts should be used when reaching out to these foundations. Following are some of the possible foundations that the MAP team discovered during their analysis.

• Kresge Foundation • Detroit Lions – Community Development Grant 22 • Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation • Rotary Club of Ann Arbor

Sponsorship

Sponsorship is key to the success of the District as it provides a unique win-win opportunity for both the District as well as the sponsor. By ways of promotional expenses, the sponsors get access to members within the District. These ways could be in the form of Sponsor’s logo on the District website, on the handouts and the District stationary as well as in the form of authorized contact list of the participating members. The sponsors pay a negotiated amount to get their organization listed. These sponsors need not be a stakeholder within the District and could be involved purely from a financial perspective.

The sponsorship model can be devised in terms of tiers or metals, e.g., Tier 1, 2, and 3 sponsorship or Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze sponsorship. Each tier will have its own level of benefits and associated sponsorship value.

Table 8 illustrates a pro-forma sponsorship model. Actual numbers and benefits should be decided by the District executives and the Advisory Board.

!

Page!43!of!65!!

Table 8: Example Sponsorship Tiers

Sponsor Type Annual Amount Benefits

Platinum $50,000

• Company name, logo and hyperlink will be added to District Website masthead

• Company logo and name will be published on the District's stationary as a sponsor

• Company logo and hyperlink would be available on every page of the website

Gold $20,000 • Company name, logo and hyperlink will be added

"Our Sponsors" page at the top

Silver $10,000 • Company name and website will be added to "Our

Sponsors" page Bronze $5,000 • Company name will be added to "Our Sponsors" page

Fee for Service and Commission Based Model

The Fee for Service and Commission Based model is designed to be implemented when the District is operational and is executing projects with the Members with the help of Professional stakeholders and Service Providers. In such a situation, an arrangement needs to be negotiated between the District and the entity for reimbursement based on services provided to the members. The options for such arrangements could be a flat fee or a percentage of charges. The choice of arrangement varies from partner to partner and between situations. Figure 18 shows the potential workflow between the District and its partners.

Figure 18: Fee for Service Workflow

Fee for service and Commission Based Model

Build

ing &

Prop

erty

Owne

rsPr

ofess

ional

Stak

ehold

ersPr

ovide

rs &

Contr

actor

s20

30 D

istric

t

Provide service to the building

owners

Provide service to the building

owners

Receives the service

Reimburses for the service

Receives the service

Reimburses for the service

Finance / Consulting Service

Receives the service

Nomi

nal

fee forse

rvice

Negotiated percentage of charge

Negotiated percentage of charge

Commision

Commission

!

Page!44!of!65!!

Distribution of Funds In addition to procuring the funds, it is also important to distribute the funds evenly between the Sister Districts of Detroit and Ann Arbor for optimal utilization. If not done accurately, there is a possibility of inefficient use of the funds for a particular district at the cost of the other hence resulting in subsidization of the fund. This situation is unique to the 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor as they are the first Sister Districts to be created under a single umbrella and management to gain synergies in operation. Hence to succeed with funds distribution, the MAP team analyzed multiple drivers for distributing the funds between the cities and eventually came to the consensus that “Square Footage of District Members” is the most appropriate driver to split the common funds. Hence, the following protocol should be followed with the funds:

• Funds acquired or generated within the city should be allocated to the particular District – like local sponsor, grant, foundation, provider fee or membership dues

• Funds acquired or generated from National, State or cross-district sources should be allocated based on the “Square Footage” of the buildings that are a part of the District

o Example: if Detroit’s size is 12 million square feet while Ann Arbor’s size is 4 million square feet, a National grant of $1,000,000 should be allocated in the proportion of 75% to Detroit and 25% to Ann Arbor. Hence $750,000 would be allocated to Detroit and $250,000 would go to Ann Arbor

o The salary and expenses of the common employees between the District like Executive Director, Data Engineer, Web Administrator etc. should also be accounted in the same proportion to avoid cost subsidization of one District by the other

Funding Phases

With multiple funding models outlined above, not all of them can be implemented with the launch of the District and should be carefully planned and executed to be most effective. Table 9 shows the chronological order of the execution of the various funding models and the prerequisites before executing them.

Table 9: Order of Funding Model Execution

Sequence( Funding(Model( When( Prerequisite(1" Grants" Before"becoming""Established"" District's"host"organization"is"identified"2" Foundations" Before"becoming""Established"" District's"host"organization"is"identified"

3" Sponsorship"Before"or"after"becoming""Established""

District's"organizational"model"is"established"and"Executive"Director"is"identified"and"hired"

4"

Fee"for"service"and"Commission"based" After"becoming""Established""

District"is"operational"and"about"to"execute"project"with"partners"and"members"

5" Membership"dues" After"becoming""Established""Value"of"the"2030"District"is"realized"for"the"members"K"at"least"2"years"

!

Page!45!of!65!!

Next Steps

Based on the recommendations provided in the previous sections with regards to the Organizational Structure, Market Outreach and Funding Model following are the logical next steps. These next steps are critical to the successful launch of the 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor and move the initiative from “Emerging” to “Established” phase.

• Create a checklist of the items that are required and need to be fulfilled to establish the 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor

• Identify and partner up with the appropriate “Host” 501 (c) 3 organization and create a memorandum of understanding which includes the details of hierarchy, cost allocation and organizational support

• Register the 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor with the State of Michigan as a D.B.A. (Doing Business As) in order to reach out to the potential Foundations and Sponsors for funds

• Identify and engage at least five, if not more, property owners to sign-up and become the founding members of the 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor

• Create a formal and legal document to engage the Professional and Community stakeholders to be a part of the District and identify their roles and responsibilities

• Appoint Interim Project Managers for Detroit and Ann Arbor with the responsibility of reaching out for funding. Funding is critical to establish the District

• Create an operation plan detailing out the day to day roles and responsibilities of the full-time employees, advisory board and the task forces

• Identify and create the Advisory Board with a minimal composition of 40% Property Owners, 20% Professional Stakeholders and 20% Community Stakeholders.

• A ranking employee of the “Host” organization should also be a part of the Advisory Board to make sure that any administrative needs of the District are catered to

• Create the following Task Forces to act as focused groups to achieve their goals. Task force members can be from the exploratory committee

o Marketing task force o Funding task force

• Once the funding arrangement completes, hire and Executive Director • Reach out to Existing Districts to understand how they engaged BOMA in the initiative • Procure an intern for benchmarking the 2030 Districts® of Detroit and Ann Arbor • Sign the 2030 District® charter to officially become an “Established 2030 District”

Figure 19 shows an example checklist as mentioned in the first bullet above.

!

Page!46!of!65!!

Figure 19: Sample Checklist

Identify the host 501 (c) 3

Sign the district charter

Register as D.B.A in MI

Onboard 5 Building Owners

Established 2030 District

District Benchmarking

Establish task forces(Outreach, Funding, Tech...)

Create an operational plan

Seed funding / grant

Advisory board setup

!

Conclusion !The information included in this report provide findings and a launch plan for 2030 Districts® – Detroit and Ann Arbor. A launch plan would not be effective without first conducting due diligence on existing 2030 District’s formation, best practices, and lessons learned. Despite the geographical diverseness of existing 2030 Districts®, commonalities exist which provided the foundation of the MAP Team’s recommendations. While no written guide can fully determine future success, primary interviews, existing 2030 District research, and the application of MBA coursework combined to provide a powerful approach to launching Detroit and Ann Arbor 2030 Districts®. Because of the juxtaposition of the two cities, Detroit and Ann Arbor face an uncharted predicament and an innovative opportunity. In considering a prospective organizational structure, market outreach approach, and funding options, special consideration must be evaluated in order to minimize potential conflicts between Detroit and Ann Arbor. This reality raises questions on how to construct an organizational structure that takes advantage of shared resources while maximizing outreach. In great detail, the report addresses organizational structure and provides an analysis of different organizational options, a phased structure approach, milestone definitions, spin-off strategy and a definition of roles and responsibilities. Special consideration of the organizational structure has lead the MAP Team to recommend a shared Board of Directors between Detroit and Ann Arbor. In addition, in order to maximize productivity while focusing on a core competency, it is the Team’s recommendation that the 2030 Detroit and Ann Arbor Districts be rolled into an existing nonprofit. This organizational structure sheds the day-to-day responsibilities of payroll, accounting, and other internal departments in order to focus on market outreach and securing sustainable funding. The first step of the organizational structure is to recruit and hire and full-time Executive Director to oversee the Districts. Tasks can be delegated to volunteers as long as there is direct oversight from paid staff in order to help ensure that activities coincide with the goals of the 2030 Districts.

!

Page!47!of!65!!

Regarding market outreach, the two cities are very different despite their proximity resulting in a difference in the approach of the local value proposition. Despite differences in the local value proposition, it is imperative that both cities embody the overarching mission, goals, and objectives of the 2030 Districts. Segmenting, targeting, and positioning the 2030 Districts provide a more focused approach to outreach. For example, Detroit has been through a lot as a city including a bankruptcy would demand a clear action plan to address 2030 District goals. Ann Arbor on the other hand, has maintained a level of prosperity because of the strong university presence of the University of Michigan. This reality allows Ann Arbor to be a little more cautious and academic in addressing 2030 District goals. Finally, a nonprofit’s success is directly linked to the organization’s ability to secure funding. Foundational support is imperative to the 2030 District’s success and securing that funding can be time consuming and confusing for those without grant writing and reporting experience. The report also considers a fee for service model as well as membership dues, but it is important that these options are executed at the appropriate time. Through researching, analyzing, and compiling this report, it became very clear that there is a clear need to be addressed in both Detroit and Ann Arbor in regards to organizing and informing business owners, professional stakeholders, and the community around issues of energy efficiency. This report is designed to provide insight and recommendations to address these needs. The next 3-6 months are imperative to the success of this endeavor. The interest and need are present and now is the time to act.

!!!!!!!!!

!

!

Page!48!of!65!!

Appendix Exhibit A: Potential Job Posting for Executive Director Position Wanted: Executive Director for the Detroit and Ann Arbor 2030 District Initiative 2030 Districts is an initiative called for by Architecture 2030 organization in the “2030 Challenge for Planning” to meet its energy, water and vehicle emission targets across United States. 2030 District® is a national initiative developed by Architecture 2030 to address energy, water, and vehicle emissions by the year 2030. The goals set by the 2030 District® are to reduce emissions in existing buildings by 50% by the year 2030 and requires new construction to be energy neutral. Five cities have established 2030 Districts: Seattle, WA; Cleveland, OH, Pittsburgh, PA; Los Angeles, CA and the latest addition in December 2013, Denver, CO. Through the unique public-private partnerships, property owners and managers are coming together with local governments, businesses, and community stakeholders to provide a business model for urban sustainability through collaboration, leveraged financing, and shared resources. The Detroit and Ann Arbor 2030 District Initiative is currently seeking an Executive Director who shares the initiatives mission and incorporates sustainability into their daily lives. The ideal candidate will be a strong strategic thinker with experience in LEED certification, community and professional organizing, Energy Star benchmarking, fundraising, nonprofit management, and have a proven track record of managing geographically dispersed volunteers and staff. This candidate will not only have experience in the field of community organizing and sustainability, but will also possess a passion for innovative strategies in a nonprofit setting. The Executive Director will have experience in budgeting, planning and execution, working under a Board of Directors, and management. The Executive Director would be expected to: • Analyze large data sets, identifying trends, and utilize the EPA’s Portfolio Manager. • Effectively communicate in written and verbal format • Excel at working on cross-functional teams of experts from a variety of technical areas • Ability to lead and actively participate in community forums with diverse stakeholders • Identify potential funding sources, write grant proposals, and report back to funders The Detroit and Ann Arbor 2030 District is committed to creating a diverse environment and is proud to be an equal opportunity employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, religion, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, national origin, genetics, disability, age, or veteran.

!

Page!49!of!65!!

Exhibit B: Interview Questions from Property Manager Interviews

Building Owner Questionnaire General:

1. How many buildings are owned / managed by the property owner in the city of Detroit / Ann Arbor and how many of them are beyond the boundaries of the city?

2. How old are these buildings and properties? 3. What is the approximate square footage of all buildings combined and average square

footage with minimum and maximum? 4. What is the distribution of building types, i.e., retail, manufacturing, multifamily housing,

etc.? 5. Are the tenant businesses locally owned or national / regional chains? 6. Do the building owners belong to any of the local associations like the Chamber of

Commerce, etc.? Utilities – Electric, Heat, Water:

7. Do the tenants pay for the utilities like heat, electricity, water and sewage or does the building owner / property manager pays these or is there a cost sharing arrangement?

8. When was the last major renovation for these buildings and what was the magnitude and costs involved?

9. During these renovations (if any), were there any architects who were consulted with respect to energy saving methodologies?

10. Are there any green initiatives currently being followed by the building owners or the businesses that occupy the building?

11. How was the project funded for the renovation / retrofitting? Was it paid upfront or a loan was taken?

12. Were there any steps taken post-renovation to assess the savings from these renovations by comparing them against the previous usage as well as against comparable building within their company, city or nationwide?

Parking and Transportation:

13. What is the parking mechanism within these buildings? Are they included in the tenants lease contracts?

14. If there are parking facilities, do they have marked parking space for tenants? 15. Do the parking spaces have marked parking space for registered carpoolers, MichiVan,

hybrid / electric cars? 16. Do the parking spaces have installed the Electric Vehicle Charging Stations? 17. How far is the nearest bust stop for local and SMART buses? 18. Approximately, for the tenants and businesses that operate in their buildings, do their

employees live within the city of Detroit / Ann Arbor, or they commute from suburbs using personal mode of transportation.

If there was a non-profit organization within the city of Detroit and Ann Arbor that can help the building owners / property managers with the following which would eventually help the buildings cut down on their energy and water consumption and CO2 emissions from transportation that would focus on:

!

Page!50!of!65!!

! Assessment of current building performance. ! Anonymous benchmarking against local peer buildings. ! Training and ongoing support through educational workshops on tools and

best practices. ! Innovative software platforms to track and analysis performance. ! In-kind member professional services and contributions, including project

scoping and feasibility. ! Influence on local policy issues, including incentives. ! Connecting the building owners to organizations that can provide low cost

funding for energy conservation projects.

19. What are your thoughts about this initiative and do you see any value in this? 20. Would you be interested in participating in such an organization as a member? 21. If not, why not? 22. If you were to participate in this organization, what would be your expectations? 23. If you were to invest in energy conservation project, what is your expected or required

breakeven duration? 24. If yes, then would you be willing to pay annual membership dues? 25. If so, what value would you expect in return? E.g., if the dues were $1,000 per year,

would you expect to save more than that in utility bills every year with the consulting and energy efficiency education, etc.

Exhibit C: Pro-forma of Expenses for the 2030 District

!

Proforma'Annual'Expenses'for'the'2030'District'in'Ann'Arbor'and'Detroit'(initial'year)Expense'Item Annual Notes

Executive'Director'Salary $104,000 Base'salary'of'$80,000'*1.3'(adj'to'include'benefits)'with'benefits*Program'Manager'(Ann'Arbor)'Salary $65,000 Base'salary'of'$50,000'*1.3'(adj'to'include'benefits)'with'benefits*

Program'Manager'(Detroit)'Salary $65,000 Base'salary'of'$50,000'*1.3'(adj'to'include'benefits)'with'benefits*Data'Engineer'Salary $65,000 Base'salary'of'$50,000'*1.3'(adj'to'include'benefits)'with'benefits*Total'Salary'Expenses $299,000

Office'Expenses $20,000 Cost'center'expense'(allocation'as'agreed'upon'with'host'org)

Marketing'Expenses $20,000

Total'Estimate'Expenses'in'Initial'Year $339,000

* "…(basic salary, employment taxes and benefits) are typically in the 1.25 to 1.4 times base salary range"Source:'http://web.mit.edu/eWclub/hadzima/howWmuchWdoesWanWemployeeWcost.html

!

Page!51!of!65!!

Exhibit D: Sample Matrix Used for Host Org Selection!!

Capability( Weight((1%5)(

Organization(Score((1%10)(

CEC( USGBC%DRC( NextEnergy(Score( Cumml.( Score( Cumml.( Score( Cumml.(

Aligned"with"2030"District"goals" 5" 10" 50" 10" 50" 10" 50"Is"501"(c)"3" 4" 10" 40" 10" 40" 10" 40"Active"during"Exploratory"&"Emerging"phase" 3" 9" 27" 9" 27" 9" 27"Experience"executing"complex"programs/program"management"capability" 5" 8" 40" 3" 15" 9" 45"Administrative"capability" 4" 7" 28" 3" 12" 9" 36"

Existing"organizational"structure" 4" 5" 20" 0" 0" 10" 40"Ann"Arbor"&"Detroit"presence" 3" 5" 15" 6" 18" 7" 21"Fund"raising"experience" 4" 9" 36" 0" 0" 8" 32"Revenue"generation"experience/capability" 5" 9" 45" 3" 15" 8" 40"Years"in"operation" 2" 5" 10" 5" 10" 5" 10"Incubation"and"spinKoff"experience/capability" 3" 3" 9" 0" 0" 8" 24"Influence"in"policy" 4" 7" 28" 9" 36" 8" 32"Dedicated"inKhouse"Marketing"Department" 3" 6" 18" 2" 6" 6" 18"Total(Score( "" "" 366" "" 229" "" 415"!

!

Page!52!of!65!!

Exhibit E: Market Outreach PDF

Example of Market Outreach Talking Points – 2030 District in Ann Arbor and Detroit

Would you like to be involved in a unique private-public partnership that brings together property owners, local governments, businesses and community stakeholders to work towards a common goal of reducing the environmental impact from building construction and operations?

What is a 2030 District®? • 2030 Districts® are private public

partnerships forming throughout America to meet the energy, water, and vehicle reduction emissions targets for existing and new building set forth by Architecture 2030 in the 2030 Challenge for Planning and Buildings

• A 2030 District® offers building owners, property managers and developers the tools to achieve reduced energy, water and transportation (CO2) emissions

• Districts are already set up in Seattle, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles. Emerging 2030 Districts are Ann Arbor, Detroit, Dallas, San Antonio and Stamford

2030 District® goals: By the year 2030, • Existing buildings: 50% reduction in energy

and water use, and transportation emissions

• New construction will be carbon neutral

What is the commitment? Participation is free! Building owners commit to: • Supporting the 2030 District® goals • Sharing best practices and building usage

data • Participating in programs What are the benefits for Members?

Buildings are targeted because: • Buildings account for nearly half of all

energy consumed • 75% of all electricity produced is used to

operate buildings. • Nearly 50% of CO2 emissions come from

buildings • Building growth is expected in Detroit • A healthy building sector is important to a

healthy economy

Interested in learning more? Contact xxx@email.com

!

Page!53!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

A3C Collaborative Architecture Ann Arbor

Jan Culbertson Sharon Sargo Lissa Spitz

Services Property Owner

Architecture Sustainable design Renewable energy Facility & Operational Assessments Energy Audits Building Certifications LEED Permitting

AA Energy Commission Ann Arbor Wayne Appleyard Mark Clevey Community Partner

Policy Financing Outreach

AA Energy Office Ann Arbor Nate Geisler Community Partner

Policy Financing Outreach Project Management

AA Environmental Coordinator Ann Arbor Matt Naud Community Partner Property Owner

Transportation Water Policy

AA Sustainability Coordinator Ann Arbor Jamie Kidwell Community Partner

Energy Planning Policy

AIA Detroit Detroit Peggy Matta Bob Prud'homme Community Partner

Architecture Sustainable design Permitting

AIA Detroit COTE Detroit Diane Van Buren Community Partner

Architecture Sustainable design Permitting Contact with AIA Detroit Membership Shared workshop and education Visibility with architectural community Contact with building owners

AIA Huron Valley Ann Arbor

Bonnie Bona John Beeson Tamara Burns Jan Culbertson Justin Ferguson Community Partner

Architecture Sustainable design Permitting

AIA Michigan Detroit Peggy Matta Community Partner Architecture

!

Page!54!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

Tamara Burns Sustainable design Permitting

AIA Michigan COTE Detroit Peggy Matta Community Partner

Architecture Sustainable design Permitting

Albert Kahn Ann Arbor Detroit Jeffrey Gaines Services

Architecture Engineering Planning Design Project management Facility management

American Concrete Institute

Kevin Mlutkowski Community Partner

Engineering Contractors Permitting

Ann Arbor DDA Ann Arbor

Dave Konkle Susan Pollay Sandi Smith

Property Owner Community Partner

Planning Transportation

Architecture 2030 National Edward Mazria Vincent Martinez Parent Org

Financing Outreach Organization Marketing Planning

ASHRAE Detroit Jim Newman Community Partner

HVAC Refrigeration R&D

BOMA Ann Arbor Detroit

Jim Newman Janet Langlois Property Owner Real estate

Catalyst Partners Ann Arbor John Beeson Services

Architecture Sustainable design Restoration Engineering Construction LEED

Centric Design Studio Detroit Saundra Little Services

Architecture Building Information Modeling (BIM) LEED Sustainable design

!

Page!55!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

City of Detroit, City Council Detroit

Policy Planning

City of Detroit, Planning Detroit Gregory F. Moots Marcell R. Todd, Jr.

Community Partner Property Owner

Policy Planning

Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) Ann Arbor Bonnie Bona Jenny Oorbeck Community Partner

Clean energy technologies Financing Commercial energy assessments Energy efficiency Outreach & education Program management Guide & convene critical stakeholders and achieve strategic goals

Comerica Bank Detroit Scott Beckerman David J. Wible

Services Property Owner

Financing Building owner with efficiency expertise Trusted advisor to many area business owners Connectivity to potential new members

Community Redevelopment Group of SE Michigan Detroit Arzel Foster

Services Property Owner Community Partner

Contractor & architect Ann Arbor Larry Hill Services Architecture Contractor

Dearborn, Sustainability Manager Dearborn Dave Norwood Community Partner Policy Planning

Dearborn, Planning Department Dearborn

Policy Planning

DEGC (Detroit Economic Growth Corporation) Detroit

Denise Colona Andrea Haas Sandi Smith Tracie Tillinger

Community Partner Property Owner

Financing Policy Permitting Planning Project management

Detroit Future City Detroit

Heidi Alcock Kenneth Cockrel Christopher Dorle Community Partner

Planning Policy Land use Outreach

!

Page!56!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

Convener and making connections with funders & community stakeholders Project management and coordination Assist with identifying resources Civic engagement capacity

Detroit Salt Co. Detroit George Davis Property Owner

DTE Energy Detroit Jason Zogg Property Owner Services ESCO

DWEJ Detroit Kimberly Hill Jennifer Hill Community Partner

Policy Outreach R&D

Ecotelligent Homes Detroit Darren Mossman Services

Energy audits Green building Building Information Modeling (BIM)

ecoWORKS Detroit

Alessandra Carreon Joel Howrani Heeres Dan Pratt Community Partner

Green consulting Sustainable design Energy assessments and tracking Contacts with energy efficiency & renewable contractors

Envision Energy Solutions Detroit Gary Gray Services Consulting Sustainable design

Envision 2050 Detroit Gary Gray Services

Farbman Group Detroit

Scott Harrison Michael Kalil John Line Property Owner Real estate

Ford Land Detroit Dearborn Patrick Smithbauer

Property Owner (Dearborn) Services (Detroit)

Engineering & architecture Green Design & application Co-founder of DRC-USGBC Contact with Wayne State University for research

Google Ann Arbor Ann Arbor Louisa White Property Owner Design Engineering

Greening of Detroit Detroit Mike Madej David Plank

Community Partner Services Contractor

!

Page!57!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

Hannah-Neuman/Smith Detroit Charles McLean Property Owner

Architecture Engineering Planning Design Project management Facility management

Hopkins Burns Ann Arbor Detroit

Tamara Burns Eugene C. Hopkins Services

Architecture Sustainable design Engineering Preservation

Horizon Engineering Ann Arbor Detroit Glenn Cattell Services

Consulting Sustainable design Construction

International Facility Management Association (IFMA) Detroit Jim Newman Property Owner

Facility management Planning R&D

Kelly-Tinker Architects (Archiopolis Architects LLC) Ann Arbor Bob Tinker Services

Architecture Sustainable design Green building Energy efficiency Renewable energy

Kerrytown Shops Ann Arbor Andrew O'Neal Property Owner

Lawrence Technological University Ann Arbor Detroit Janice K. Means Community Partner

Engineering Architecture

Marketing for Green Detroit Bennie Hayden Services

Marketing Sustainable business Consulting Water management

MAVD Ann Arbor Mark Melchi Property Owner

Real estate Property management Project management

MHMC Detroit Ibrahim & Lubna Almadrahi Property Owner

!

Page!58!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

Michigan DEQ Ann Arbor Detroit Michael Young Community Partner

Planning Policy Permitting Outreach Water management

Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC)

Marketing Business development Financing

Michigan Energy Office Lansing Community Partner Community Partner

Sustainable energy Transportation Building sciences Financing

Michigan Interfaith Power & Light Ann Arbor Detroit Julie Lyons Bricker Community Partner ESCO

Michigan Saves Lansing

Community Partner Financing

Michigan Suburbs Alliance Detroit Jennifer Young Community Partner Sustainable design Outreach

Michigan Urban Farming Institute Ann Arbor Detroit Darin McLeskey Community Partner Farming

NCB Capital Impact

Ian Wiesner Community Partner Services Financing

Next Energy Detroit

Gina Shrader ginas@nextenergy.org Josh Burgeman joshb@nextenergy.org Community Partner

Energy efficiency & alternate energy technologies Hosts convening energy technology incubator Technology vetting Connections with funders in Detroit

Newman Consulting Detroit Jim Newman Services

LEED Energy audits Consulting

!

Page!59!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings

NOMA Detroit Saundra Little Community Partner Services

Architecture Outreach

Park Avenue Lighting Ann Arbor Joseph Maynard Services LED lighting systems

PM Environmental Detroit Connie Lilley Services Consulting Engineering

PTR Solar Detroit Lynn Wiggins Property Owner Energy Solar

Pure Eco Environmental Solutions Ann Arbor Detroit Ryan Oswald Services

Energy Energy audits LEED Sustainable design Water management Waste management

Renovo Power Systems Ann Arbor Detroit Shane LaHousse Services

Energy renewable energy

Robert Prud'homme Design Detroit Bob Prud'homme Services

Architecture Building design Energy & resource efficiency

Rossetti Detroit Ramon Corpuz Services Community Partner

Architecture Design

Sachse Construction Detroit Noah Wolfson Property Owner

LEED Green building Construction

SEMREO Detroit Sue McAlpine Jennifer Young Community Partner

Energy conservation Financing

Shaffron Companies Ann Arbor Ed Shaffran Property Owner Shelborne Development Detroit Kathy Makino Property Owner

Smith Group JJR Ann Arbor Detroit Neal Billetdeaux Services

Architecture Engineering Sustainable design Green building

!

Page!60!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings Summit Commercial Detroit Jerome Eagger Property Owner

Sunstructures Architects Ann Arbor Wayne Appleyard Services

Architecture Ecology Energy Green building Alternative energy Sustainable design Project management

Sustainable Community Farms Detroit Michelle Jackson Community Partner Farming

THRIVE Ann Arbor Matthew Grocoff Services

Energy Green building LEED

Trillium Real Estate Ann Arbor Sandi Smith Services Real Estate Transportation Riders United (TRU) Detroit Bob Prud'homme Community Partner Transportation UM Architecture Ann Arbor Justin Ferguson Community Partner Green building

UM Taubman College of Architecture & Urban Planning Ann Arbor Doug Kelbaugh Community Partner Green building UM Engineering BlueLab Ann Arbor Devki Desai Community Partner Sustainable design

USGBC-DRC Detroit

Peggy Matta Ramon Corpuz Terrence German Connie Lilley Bob Mattler Jim Newman Bob Prud'homme Todd Sykes

Community Partner Services

Green building LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification Education National network Link to educational resources for sustainable buildings Members with expertise in building audits, retrofits and efficiency Possible link to grants for district Possible staff

U.S. Construction Restoration Detroit Arzel Foster Services Property Owner

Mentoring and education Engineering & design Contact service Federal inspections, real estate and applications

!

Page!61!of!65!!

Exhibit F: Organization Location Contact(s) Partner Type Expertise / Offerings Warren Conner Development Coalition Detroit Eric McAfee Community Partner Outreach

Wayne State University Detroit Daryl Pierson Property Owner Community Partner

West Grand Boulevard Collaborative Detroit Deborah Dorsey Community Partner Outreach West Huron Properties Ann Arbor Cathy Kimmell Property Owner

Zachary and Assoc. Detroit

Diane Van Buren Alexander Zachary Erngst Zachary Property Owner

Building owner Workshops Technical assistance Case studies

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Page!62!of!65!!

Exhibit1G:1(Source:12030district.org)1!S No Name Classification Type Business City

1 1521 2nd Avenue Leased High Rise Retail, Apartment Seattle 2 Bellwether Housing Leased Multiple Apartments Seattle

3 Bentall Kennedy Leased High Rise Apartments Seattle

4 Capitol Hill Housing Leased Multiple Apartments Seattle

5 CBRE, Inc Leased Multiple Office, Retail Seattle

6 City of Seattle Personal Use Multiple Government Seattle

7 Clise Properties Leased Multiple Retail, Hotel, Medical, Parking Seattle 8 CommonWealth Partners Leased High Rise Office, Retail Seattle

9 Fairmont Olympic Hotel Personal Use High Rise Hotel Seattle

10 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Personal Use High Rise Medical Seattle 11 The General Services Administration (GSA) Personal Use Government Government Seattle

12 Horizon House Leased High Rise Apartments Seattle

13 Hunters Capital Leased Multiple Office, Retail Seattle

14 Jonathan Rose Company Leased Multiple Retail, Apartment Seattle 15 JSH Properties Leased Multiple Retail Seattle

16 City of Cleveland Personal Use Multiple Government Cleveland

17 Cleveland Public Library Personal Use Multiple Government Cleveland 18 St Vincent Charity Medical Center Personal Use High Rise Medical Cleveland

19 Cuyahoga Community College Personal Use Single Education Cleveland

20 Geis Companies Leased Multiple Office Cleveland

21 Forest City Enterprises Leased Multiple Office, Retail, Apartment Cleveland 22 Landmark RE Management Leased Multiple Apartments Cleveland

23 PNC Bank Personal Use High Rise Office Cleveland

24 American Landmark Properties Leased High Rise Office Cleveland

!

Page!63!of!65!!

S No Name Classification Type Business City 25 808 Penn Lofts, LLC Leased High Rise Apartments Pittsburgh 26 ALCO Parking Leased Multiple Parking Pittsburgh

27 Alcoa Personal Use High Rise Office Pittsburgh

28 Allegheny County Personal Use Multiple Government Pittsburgh 29 BNY Mellon Personal Use High Rise Office Pittsburgh

30 Carnegie Museums Personal Use Single Arena Pittsburgh

31 Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh Personal Use Single Church Pittsburgh 32 CBRE Inc. Leased Multiple Office, Retail Pittsburgh

33 City of Pittsburgh Personal Use Multiple Government Pittsburgh

34 Dollar Bank Personal Use Single Office Pittsburgh

35 General Services Administration Personal Use Multiple Government Pittsburgh 36 General Nutrition Centers Personal Use Single Office Pittsburgh

37 Healthcare Trust of America Personal Use Single Office Pittsburgh

38 Highmark Personal Use High Rise Office Pittsburgh 39 Highwoods Properties Leased Multiple Office, Retail Pittsburgh

40 Jones Lang LaSalle Leased High Rise Office Pittsburgh

41 Pittsburgh Cultural Trust Personal Use Single Office Pittsburgh

42 Pittsburgh Gateways Personal Use Single Office Pittsburgh 43 Pittsburgh Parking Authority Personal Use Single Office Pittsburgh

44 Pittsburgh Penguins Personal Use Stadium Arena Pittsburgh

45 Pittsburgh Pirates Personal Use Stadium Arena Pittsburgh 46 The PNC Financial Services Personal Use High Rise Office Pittsburgh

47 PSSI/Pittsburgh Steelers Personal Use Stadium Arena Pittsburgh

48 Sports & Exhibition Authority Personal Use Stadium Arena Pittsburgh !!

!

Page!64!of!65!!

Detroit Exploratory Committee Meetings for 2030 District:- 1/16/2014 3-5 PM at DEGC- 2/6/2014 3-5 PM at 71 Garfield- 3/6/2014 3-5 PM at NextEnergy- 3/20/2014 3-5 PM at Detroit Future City

Detroit Tour Itinerary for Ross Students: March 6th, 2014

- 11:00am-12:00pm: Green Garage tour and talk with owner Tom Brennan- 12:00-1:00pm Sustainable Small Business Lunch at Green Garage

- 3:00-5:00 pm Detroit Exploratory Committee Meeting at NextEnergy

Ann Arbor Tour Itinerary for Ross Students: March 7th, 2014-10:00-11:00am Clean Energy Coalition and chat with Bonnie Bona (Project Manager, CEC)-11:00am-12:00pm - Smith Group JJR/Neal -Walk with Mark Melchi, MAV Development-12:00-1:00pm: Lunch at City Hall with Matt Naud -1:00pm - 2:00PM Discussion with Comerica Bank

Additional Interviews:

-Neal Warling, Senior Vice President at Jones Lang LaSalle 3/7/2014 (in person)-Damon Flower, Associate VP of Facilities Development and Operations,Washtenaw Community College - 3/14/2014 (in person)-Michael Martin, First Martin - 3/27/2014 at First Martin (in person)-Lyle Beckwith, Propery Manager at Oxford Property Management, 3/27/2014 (over the phone)

- 9:30-11:00am: Tour with Bedrock Real Estate (includes tours of Compuware, 1st National Building, Chase Building, Chrysler Building and the Federal Reserve Building

-1:00pm-3:00pm: Next Energy Tour and chat with Jean Redfield (President& CEO, NextEnergy), Joshua Brugeman (Director of Energy Efficiency, NextEnergy), and Gina Shrader (Program Manager)

Exhibit1H:1Schedule1of1Interviews1and120301District1Meetings1Attended1by1the1Ross1MAP1Team111

11

!

Page!65!of!65!!

Citation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 "2030 Districts / Architecture 2030." 2030 Districts / Architecture 2030. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://2030districts.org/>. 2 Ibid. 3 2030 District websites of Seattle, Cleveland and Pittsburgh and respective individual websites of their property owners and managers:

2 Ibid. 3 2030 District websites of Seattle, Cleveland and Pittsburgh and respective individual websites of their property owners and managers:

2030 Districts / Architecture 2030. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://2030districts.org/>. 2030 Districts / Architecture 2030. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.2030districts.org/cleveland/>.

"Welcome to Seattle 2030 District." 2030 Districts / Architecture 2030. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. <http://www.2030districts.org/seattle/>. 4 "Detroit, Michigan." (MI) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime,

moving, houses, news. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html>. 5 "Ann Arbor, Michigan." (MI) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools,

crime, moving, houses, news. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.city-data.com/city/Ann-Arbor-Michigan.html>. 6 Google Maps, Detroit and Ann Arbor, www.maps.google.com 7 Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USA 8 Jürgen Mihm, Christoph H. Loch, Dennis Wilkinson, Bernardo A. Huberman, (2010) Hierarchical Structure and Search in Complex

Organizations. Management Science 56(5):831-848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1148 9 Ibid. 10 Robert M. Grant, Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications (5th edition, Blackwell, 2004), Ch. 6 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Jürgen Mihm, Christoph H. Loch, Dennis Wilkinson, Bernardo A. Huberman, (2010) Hierarchical Structure and Search in Complex

Organizations. Management Science 56(5):831-848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1148 14 Ibid. 15 Robert M. Grant, Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Concepts, Techniques, Applications (5th edition, Blackwell, 2004), Ch. 6 16 University of Kansas “Community Toolbox” <http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/structure/organizational-structure/overview/main> 17 David S. Alberts. Rethinking Organizational Design for Complex Endeavors. Journal of Organization Design JOD, 1(1): 14-17 (2012) DOI: 10.7146/jod.2012.1.5 18 Caproni, Paula. (2012). “Management Skills for Everyday Life: The Practical Coach” Prentice-Hall. Upper Saddle River, N.J. USA. Chapter 5,

page 157. 19“Weatherization & Intergovernmental Program” Program: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants

<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/index.html> 20 “U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration” Clean Fuels Grant Program (5308)

<http://www.fta.dot.gov/grants/13094_3560.html> 21 “Pure Michigan”, Energy Efficiency Building Retrofits Grant <http://www.michiganbusiness.org/public-notices-requests-for-proposals/energy-

efficiency-building-retrofits-request-for-proposals/> 22 “Detroit Lions”, Community Development Grant http://www.detroitlions.com/community/grants-and-application.html