Travis County officials outline environmentally preferable purchasing practices to Austin commissioners

Travis County sustainability staff on Tuesday described how the county tries to buy goods and services that “have the least adverse effect on human health and the quality of the environment,” urging commissioners to look beyond a product’s sticker price toward lifecycle impacts.

Katie Cain, an environmental specialist for Travis County, told the commission that environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP) considers design, raw materials, supply chain emissions, toxic content and end‑of‑life disposal when comparing otherwise similar products. “It’s just purchasing and procuring products and services that have the least adverse effect on human health and the quality of the environment when compared to similar products and services,” Cain said.

Why it matters: Cain and Ryan Kinney, a senior environmental specialist who described himself as a sustainability analyst, said the county adopted an EPP policy in 2019 and has built internal reuse and redistribution programs—most notably a reuse store for office supplies and a purchasing warehouse for larger items such as desks and chairs—to reduce landfill disposal and lower procurement costs over time.

“Sometimes the purchases we already make already would qualify for EPP,” Kinney said, noting that tracking and vendor reporting make it easier to recognize existing EPP purchases rather than change procurement overnight. He described one county goal to source EPP for a minimum of 50% of office‑supply purchases and said current reporting shows progress: the county’s EPP share for office supplies has increased to about 11%–12% from about 4% several years ago. Kinney added that roughly 888 employees with purchasing authority completed required EPP training last year.

How it works: The presenters described a basic EPP workflow—identify need, verify whether reuse options exist, check certifications and eco‑labels, then complete the purchase—and emphasized education, vendor conversations and small operational changes such as preferring locally made items or products with recycled content. Cain said their training materials and vendor worksheets point buyers to trustworthy labels and warn of “greenwashing.” “If a product seems iffy, it might be iffy—do your own research,” she told the commission.

Procurement constraints and thresholds: Commissioners asked whether the county requires an EPP premium or uses a decision matrix. Kinney said the county’s EPP policy does not prescribe a specific premium, and procurement remains governed by state rules and internal dollar thresholds: purchases above a certain amount (he cited $50,000 as a common procurement breakpoint) trigger different competitive processes and greater documentation. For many staff purchases, he said, a checkbox in the county’s SAP system now asks whether EPP was considered.

Reuse and take‑back programs: Cain described partnerships across departments that operate the reuse store and purchasing warehouse and noted the county works with facilities and vendors to streamline take‑back programs for copiers, toner and other items so material value is preserved and disposal costs drop.

What presenters want next: Cain and Kinney encouraged other jurisdictions to start with low‑hanging fruit—recurrently purchased items that are already EPP qualified—and to use targeted training, vendor conversations and internal reuse networks to expand uptake.

The presentation closed with commissioners asking for the presenters’ slides and the county resolution and guide that established the 2019 policy. The presenters said they would share links and materials and invited follow‑up conversations.