City
of Keene
Keene,
New Hampshire
SUSTAINABILITY DESIGN COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
|
Saturday, |
5:00 |
Council Chambers |
|
Members Present: James Duffy, Chair Dan Bartlett, Vice Chair Michael Haman Connie Joyce Dan White Hanspeter Weber
Mayor Dale |
Staff Present:
Members Not Present: Joe Kohler Ruth Venezia, Councilor Tom Duffield Dave Curran
|
At 1:17 pm, Chair Duffy
began the meeting explaining that it was a recap of the first public
meeting they had. He stated that they had made a few changes and that
they would be able to provide a little more detail. He introduced
himself and the other members. He reviewed the following:
The Charge of the
Committee
The charge is to
research and draft sustainable design and energy efficiency standards
to be applied to the construction and renovation of buildings within
the City of Keene.
History of the
Committee
Chair Duffy gave a
brief background: Mayor Pregent had appointed the committee in
February 2008 and that the committee began meeting in June 2008. They
have been working on producing a draft ordinance. The group divided
into 3 subcommittees. They crafted ideas for an ordinance and to
research the regulatory issues involved. They looked at other
communities in the State and around the country. They looked at how
the building community felt about an ordinance and whether they would
support a mandatory ordinance or voluntary ordinance, how
knowledgeable they were in green building and if they built green.
They found that a number of contractors were aware of green building
standards, have built green buildings and that the consensus was that
they would rather see incentive and voluntary and not mandatory.
Hanspeter Weber & Mary Jensen inventoried the entire community –
what the knowledge base was, if there was an infrastructure that
could support an ordinance, if there were materials readily available
and how knowledgeable the public was. The committee accessed the
City’s staff capacity to enforce an ordinance. Their
preliminary findings were that right now if it were strictly
mandatory it would be difficult to enforce it but that there was
sufficient knowledge amongst the staff.
PowerPoint
Presentation presented by City Staff Planner, Andrew Smith
Definition of green
building
The basic definition is
using energy, water and materials in a better way for human health
and the environment. Mr. Smith gave examples such as insulation,
increasing the thickness of the windows, solar panels (optional),
heat exchangers (which function to capture and reuse heat).
Examples of local
green buildings
-
The Harris Center,
Hancock, NH – It is an environmental educational institution and has
been around for 35 years. In 2001, they embarked on a green
renovation. They took out the old insulation and replaced it with
recycled insulation that was more energy efficient. The decking is
recycled plastic. The framing was wood from their property which is
another sustainable component. The floor and countertops were made
from recycled materials. They used triple pane glass with argon gas
on the inside. They used timbers recycled from an old mill building
to make the conference room. They use natural light to conserve on
electricity. -
Stonyfield Farms,
Londonderry, NH – It is a business that makes yogurt. They use
heat exchangers to make sure when the liquid transfers from a cool
state to a warm state they can bounce the heat back. -
The Town of
Epping, NH – They became the first town in NH to pass a green
building ordinance which is mandatory for all commercial
construction. They use a point base system that LEEDS relies on but
their system isn’t quite as strict. -
KSC’s
Pondside III Dormitories, Keene, NH – This is a certified
LEEDS Silver building. All flooring contains recycled content.
Motion sensors are used to conserve on electrical energy as well as
low energy light fixtures & natural lighting. Countertops &
window sills were made from recycled soda cans.
Other Examples
-
City Hall,
Chicago, IL – They have a green roof that filters storm water
& treats toxins. They have tried to repopulate the prairie
grasses.
Mr. Smith stated that
to summarize what was happening around the country they were looking
at the content of the building, products that were available locally,
conserving energy, reusing & recycling components and making sure
that the buildings were healthy.
He stated that all of
this came together with the committee. The committee examined energy,
water and other resources and making sure that buildings in Keene had
an opportunity to conserve these. He stated that the committee looked
at providing incentives that make green building attractive to home
owners and that it was easy for people to do.
There are three
variables: economic, social and environmental. According to the EPA,
39% of America’s energy comes from buildings: 12% water
consumption, 68% electricity, and 38% of the carbon dioxide
emissions. Mr. Smith stated that small gains in these areas would be
effective in making a smaller carbon footprint for the country. He
stated that the research the committee had done was that the actual
cost difference was that the perception of the cost was greater than
the real difference in the cost. He gave the example of moving the
building to orient it towards the sun and that it was still green.
Carl Panza stated that
he was against making it mandatory but that they could make it
attractive and still have an ordinance. He suggested that they could
offer an incentive if someone decided to build a green building and
that if they decided to build green, then the green building
ordinance could apply. Mr. Smith stated that it was important to
provide incentives to make people want to do it. For new projects,
expedited Planning Board review was one incentive because it
shortened the approval process. Tax credits were another possibility.
Chair Duffy added that the committee had had several discussions
about the pros and cons of many things and that the public meetings
were a chance to get public input, ideas and questions. He stated
that when they were done with these listening sessions the committee
would incorporate the public’s feedback and that they were
exploring ways to develop something that would work. He stated that
the focus of the first meeting was on residential but that they were
also looking at commercial projects. Mr. Panza asked if they had
looked at what type of incentives other communities were using. Chair
Duffy stated that they hadn’t looked into it but that it seemed
to be tax credits. Mr. Panza stated that there was a State website
that the committee may want to consider looking at. Mr. Smith stated
that some ordinances offer points and that once they get a certain
number of points they’re approved. People can pick and chose on
how they choose to comply. Mr. Panza stated that he was for this but
wanted to share some things he had been hearing such as the City was
making it more difficult for businesses to move into Keene and that
they would have to pay 20% more which would discourage them from
coming in. Mr. Smith stated that the perception and reality of the
actual cost of a project was different. Mr. Panza stated that he had
called the State who informed him that it would cost 20% more. Chair
Duffy stated that when Mary Jensen spoke at the first public meeting
she discussed the cost of building two dorms: one with LEED
certification process and another without using the certification
process but trying to duplicate it. He stated that there was no
difference. He commented that he appreciated the question because it
spoke to the need to bridge the gap between perception and reality.
He added that with improved technology and education, there was no
difference at all. Mr. Panza stated that it needed to be proven that
there wasn’t any difference. Mr. Panza stated that he had asked
the State what the savings would be and that they indicated that they
didn’t know if anyone knew this. He stated that the 3 paned
windows mentioned in the presentation were going to be a lot more
expensive the 2 paned windows. He stated that he was concerned about
the environment but asked if it would drive industry and home owners
away. He suggested that there needed to be a balance and an
educational process involved. Mr. Haman agreed on the education
process and stated that people needed to start doing their little
part and that it wasn’t all about money. Chair Duffy stated
that Mr. Panza was right and that they had heard at the first meeting
that the public needed reliable information which was part of the
Committee’s work.
Mayor Pregent responded
to Mr. Panza’s question in regards to making it difficult for
companies to come here and start businesses. He stated that
businesses that were going to move to a new place do demographic
studies but that this was also part of it. He read the committee’s
goals “to recommend a draft to the City Council that reflects
the wants and needs of the community.” He stated that sometimes
compromises had to be made to get things rolling. He stated that the
second part was in regards to the education of the public and that
they must educate the contractors as to what was going on. He stated
that whenever he put a contractor on a committee, the contractors had
a tendency not to show up at the meetings and that they don’t
really want to change especially when it was something as innovative
as green building. He indicated that the committee must show them a
cost comparison and show them that it would be very beneficial to
them. He stated that the incentive in today’s market was money
and that the committee needed to be careful what they make mandatory.
He added that they were all familiar with the ongoing discussions on
disorderly housing and that it had become quite controversial. He
stated that how they present it was as important as what they
present. He added that there were good incentives in regards to tax
breaks. He commented that he liked their presentation and that if
they refined it they would come out with a good ordinance. He stated
that it all came down to money and that hopefully the committee would
think about the future and the new items that would be developed for
green building.
Dan Bartlett, committee
member and architect, pointed out that in the 1920s they were
building sustainable buildings with solar daylight, cross
ventilation, light wells and then after WWII they built cheap
buildings which became the standard. He stated that this was part of
the perception that they cost more and that the real cost was in the
life cycle of the building. He stated that there was plenty of data
to support the contention that green building didn’t cost more
and that part of the committee’s goal was to make this
information available to the public. He pointed out that the upfront
costs were well within standard building costs for a quality
building. He stated that this was life cycle cost, a healthier
building, lower maintenance costs, a longer lifespan as well as
energy savings. Life cycle costs much lower. He stated that he
couldn’t find anything to support the contention that green
building was more expensive. He stated that when someone decided to
build a building, there was a budget and that they work to that
budget. He added that if they understand the value of the investment,
they will spend that money.
Resources
USGBC – US Green
Building Council, Home Builders, Green Globes, Energy Stars, National
Homebuilders, Green Building Initiative, and EPA
What Could it
Mean for Keene? Mr. Smith pointed out that Keene was mostly
old construction and that a lot of the work in Keene was renovations.
He stated the building department kept a record of what types of
permits came in and that there wasn’t any record of green
building. He suggested that either they weren’t tracking it or
that a lot of the renovations weren’t green and that they
needed to figure out how to make them green. Mr. Haman stated that
what wasn’t in yet was the lifespan of the building and what it
would take to maintain a building which was a lot. Ms. Joyce stated
that a lot of money must be invested to create a savings. Mr. Haman
stated that it was a slower return. Mr. Panza stated that he didn’t
have any question that it would save but that they needed to get all
the facts and figures.
Draft
Mr. Smith read the
draft of the Sustainable Building Practices Ordinance and then
reviewed the proposed requirements.
-
All applicants for
a building permit would be required to file a waste management plan
with the City and to divert 75% from disposal. -
All applicants for
a building permit for work on existing buildings would be required
to submit an energy audit report. -
The applicant may
choose to meet the requirements of a recognized third party green
building rating system. If they choose to do this the project could
be reviewed faster and building permit fees could be reduced. If the
project achieves that rating, it will qualify for 50% reduction in
building permit fees. -
Minor projects
that aren’t subject to Site Plan Review can still qualify for
the same reduction in permit fees if they choose to get LEEDS or
other certification. -
If the applicant
comes up with a voluntary scheme for saving energy they can qualify
for a reduction in the building permit fees.
Included in the draft
is a list of third party recognized rating systems: LEED, Energy Star
with Indoor Air Package, National Green Building Initiative and Green
Globes.
Mr. Smith explained the
proposed points system. Mr. Bartlett stated that LEED was broken up
into 5-6 categories. He suggested that they would have to work out
the final definition as it would pertain to residential. Mr. Smith
stated that the number points you got corresponded to the percentage
in the building permit fees reduction. Mr. Panza stated that it
didn’t benefit the home owner. Mr. Bartlett stated that it did
benefit the owner because the owner pays the contractor. Mr. Smith
stated that the contractor passes on the cost to the owner. He stated
that it was a one time savings. Ms. Joyce stated that Mr. Panza made
a good point and that the home owner doesn’t know what the
contractor puts down for their estimated jobs. Mr. Panza stated that
the key word was taxes. He stated that the building permits were
small. He stated that Keene was the second highest taxed City in the
State and that anything the City could do financially would help make
it attractive for people wanting to move here. He suggested that they
investigate a tax incentive. Mr. Bartlett stated that he and
committee member Joe Kohler had discussed the idea that through their
education outreach the real incentive should be in the cost savings
of the operation of the house. He stated that whatever tax that was
displaced by these incentives and that other people not doing
construction projects must pick up the tax burden. Ms. Joyce
recognized that Wes Cobb had brought this up at the last public
meeting. Mr. Bartlett stated that there were exceptions for small
renovations and no requirements. Mr. Panza stated that he thought
people would look at the immediate effect. He stated that he had
called several cities about incentives for things such as solar
panels. In Portsmouth, they don’t increase the assessment of
the house if someone makes improvements to their house. Mr. Panza
stated that taxes were a big issue. Ms. Joyce stated that she had
held an open house earlier and that 3 of the 10 couples were from
Keene. She stated that those 3 couples were talking to everyone else
about why people should leave because the taxes were so high. Mayor
Pregent stated that at the present time, improvements increase the
value of the property which results in an increase in taxes. He
stated that they must be careful when they compare taxes and that
this was a different discussion. Mr. Haman stated that CNN reported
that the highest tax real estates were NJ, PA and NH. Mr. Panza
stated that those States also had a State income tax. Mr. Smith
stated that it was worth looking into what Portsmouth had done. Mr.
Panza stated that it would be a great incentive. Ms. Joyce stated
that neighbors wouldn’t like it when they were assessed at the
same value and you have a 1000 more square feet. Mr. Bartlett stated
that he had seen instances where there was a deferred increase and
that sometimes it worked of not charging taxes until the project was
completed. He stated that if it was a 2 year project it wouldn’t
be raised. Chair Duffy stated that the rationale was that they
capturing savings during that time and if that if it was still lower
or the same, it may be an incentive. Ms. Joyce stated that the people
who could afford renovations and additions were in a different
category. Mayor Pregent stated that there was a difference in adding
for assessed value or whether getting a solar panel and that they
were talking about giving tax incentives for green.
Mr. Smith continued
explaining the energy options table. He stated that a person could
get points for having the following: energy star windows, having
permeable paving, energy star lighting fixtures, re-using materials,
recycling the content, using regional materials, certified wood, low
VOC emitting paint & carpets (which affects indoor air quality),
LEED AP (LEED Accredited Professional) and alternative energy sources
such as solar panels, solar hot water, geothermal heat pump wind, or
wind generation for electricity. Bartlett stated that this was in
addition to tax credits already in place in Keene. Mr. Smith stated
that in the City of Keene there were tax credits for solar panels,
wood and wind and that if a wood system was used there was up to a
$10,000 deduction on the assessed value of the home. Chair Duffy
stated that this was revised due to a concern a few years ago and
that if a store put up solar panels the tax revenue would drop and
have a serious impact on the City. Ms. Joyce asked if they could
separate commercial from residential. Chair Duffy stated that his
understanding that this was discriminatory.
Mr. Smith asked what
people thought of construction waste. Mayor Pregent stated that it
should be part of it but that they must be careful what they mandate.
He stated that when a building is torn down, the waste must be
disposed of but that it needed to be handled environmentally correct
and that some of it could be used as they did at the Harris Center.
Mr. Panza stated that
if they increase the cost of construction waste contractors may find
alternative ways of dumping it illegally. Chair Duffy stated that Mr.
Davis, a local contractor, was just arrested for taking short cuts.
Ms. Joyce asked what the cost was for constructive waste. Members did
not know. Staff member Mr. Smith stated he would find out. Mr.
Bartlett stated that the Harris Center had 3 bins and that there was
a cost savings because it wasn’t all by the ton. Mayor Pregent
suggested that there was probably an ordinance on it but that there
should be some mention of it in the new ordinance and that the
committee would be coming up with what they felt was appropriate.
Energy audits were
discussed. Mr. Smith stated that other communities required them for
residential. Mr. Bartlett stated that people would know where the
leaky spots were in their houses and that they may get a rating that
could be used. Ms. Joyce asked if the energy auditors would be done
by employees of the City. Mr. Smith stated third parties.
Mr. Smith asked if
energy audits would be for residential or commercial. Mr. Bartlett
stated both. Mr. Smith stated that if they got 5 points they didn’t
need an energy audit.
Mr. Panza stated that
the concept was good and that they should keep the point system
simple and not make more work for the City. Mr. Bartlett stated that
it spoke to educational piece of understanding a building’s
energy use. He stated that it was for the people who have the money
and desire to invest in a project. Mr. Haman stated that many people
appreciate an energy audit by their Doctor to get a baseline of
performance. Mr. Weber stated that energy audits worked best in
taking in new construction at a time when it is still useful and when
they can use the results of them. He stated that when the building
envelope was still accessible and open they were more useful but not
in every circumstance. Mr. Bartlett stated that it would kick in when
a project was started and not when it was done and that a new house,
during design review, they could pick up and give credit.
Chair Duffy read an
email from Frank Richter: “I’d propose a merit based
program (governed by the ordinance) that rates buildings based upon
performance. For example, offer kudos to owners if an audit is done
on a home and the HERS rating (and overall energy performance of the
building) is improved by a certain percentage or for new construction
it meets a specific HERS rating. What form the kudos come in is up to
the Board. This gives bragging rights to the owner, saves them a lot
on utilities and if a rental property makes their building more
attractive to renters.” Chair Duffy stated that he could see
where it may help with renters who must kick in for the heat. Mr.
Bartlett stated that there was information out there on incentives
for renters to be more energy efficient. Mayor Pregent stated that
most renters in Keene were young and that it was not their priority.
Ms. Joyce stated that some of the owners had shared furnaces in their
buildings and that they had an incentive to say renters could have
500 gallons before having to pay for it. She stated that this was
reasonable and put the responsibility on them. Mr. Smith stated that
there was a huge rental base in Keene and that it may not be
incentive for people who rent out to make green buildings. Mr.
Bartlett stated that they didn’t have anything in this proposal
that would address this. Mr. Smith stated that 48% of housing in
Keene was rentals. Mayor Pregent stated that over the last 10 years,
the City of Keene had changed into a rental business community. He
stated that energy audits weren’t a top priority for them and
that this would be part of the educational part. He stated that until
the landlord sees where it would help him financially it won’t
be. Mayor Pregent stated that it was a strong point for incentive
program and long term education program. Mr. Smith stated that Seal
of approval from the City that verified the project as a green
project could be an incentive to landlords because renters might seek
out these greener projects that cost less to heat. Mr. Bartlett
stated that it could become a marketing tool by labeling buildings
“Keene Green Certified”. Mr. Panza stated that people
were more interested in money. Mr. Smith stated that it was time to
wrap up the meeting. The meeting ended at 3 pm.
Respectfully submitted
by,
Bettina Chadbourne
Minute Taker
