greenfill columbus leed infill incentive policy report

GreenFill Columbus

A Green Building-Urban Infill Incentive Policy for a Truly Sustainable Columbus

Presented to the Green TeamGrowth & Development Committee

2009Amanda King

OSU City and Regional Planning Graduate Student

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................... 3Background.................................................... 4Research....................................................... 6GreenFill Policy Proposal.................................. 9Next Steps.................................................... 13Future Considerations..................................... 14

AppendicesComputrol's Government LEED Incentives

City of Cincinnati Tax Abatement Policy

LEED New Construction and Existing Buildings Criteria

"Building Greener" Incentives Document

City of Columbus Development Incentives

Green Team Growth and Development Committee Meeting Notes

""GGrreeeennFFiillll"" PPoolliiccyy PPrrooppoossaall -- CCiittyy ooff CCoolluummbbuuss GGrreeeenn TTeeaamm 3

Introduction

In the summer of 2009, the Green Team's Growth and Development Committee expressed an interest in developing an incentive policy, in conjunction with the Green Building Committee, that would encourage the development of green buildings in already urbanized areas of the City of Columbus. Such a policy would combine the environmental interests of each committee - encouraging both sustainable buildings and sustainable land use - to develop a unique incentive policy that would also be an economic boon to the City.

This document is an outgrowth of that interest in such a policy. Its purpose is to present the research on the environmental and economic impacts of buildings and sprawled development, the positive impacts of green buildings and urban infill growth, and the policies that the City can feasibly adopt to encourage truly sustainable development. Considering the examples of other jurisdictions, such as the City of Cincinnati's tax abatement incentive for LEED-certified buildings, as well as the current conditions and programs already existing in Columbus, this report provides policy recommendations for a "GreenFill" incentive program to put the City at the forefront of sustainble building development.

The Green Team has already begun identifying Green Strings for City policies to encourage a "culture of green" in its operations, including requiring all new major City buildings to achieve LEED certification. The policy proposal here is consistent with these and other Green Team objectives by reocgnizing the importance of linking green buildings with urban infill development - not only to achieve environmentally sound development patterns but to also provide long-term economic benefits to the City and developers alike.

With its existing LEED development mandate, the City has already recognized the importance of green building development. The City can expand the environmental and economic benefits of green buildings by encouraging private green building development and incorporating a focus on their development in designated infill areas. A recent Rutgers University and Brookings Institution study that found the nation could save hundreds of billions of dollars and preserve about four million acres of land over the next two decades by channeling development into existing urban areas and compact new towns. The following report outlines how the City can institute a "GreenFill" incentive policy to extend its culture of green and realize these environmental and economic benefits.

GreenFill policy recommendation for a greener Columbus


Backgroundland use. energy. environment. infill.

Energy and Environmental Impacts of Buildings

Buildings represent one of the largest contributors to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. It is estimated that buildings account for 38.9% of U.S. energy use, 72% of U.S electricity consumption, and 38% of all CO2 emissions.1 In addition, buildings use about 15 trillion gallons of potable water per year3 and create about 170 million tons of construction and demolition debris per year.3 In addition, the U.S. EPA estimates that indoor air pollutants may be up to 10 times as high as outdoor concentrations, including high carbon dioxide concentrations, exacerbating poor health conditions.4

The immense impact that buildings, especially those for large commercial uses, have on the environment and natural resource usage have a residual impact on our economy as energy and health care costs rise and affordable raw materials become more scarce. As a result of these consequences, local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private building developers alike have been looking towards green building design to provide quality working and living atmospheres and reduce building operating costs.

Benefits of Green Buildings

While the benefits of green buildings can vary greatly depending upon the technologies implemented and behaviors adopted within them, a study of 121 various LEED-certified commercial buildings (new construction) had an average energy use intensity (EUI) level of 24% below that of the national average for all commercial building stock. LEED office buildings, the most common type of commercial building, had an average EUI of 33% below the national average, with LEED Gold and Platinum buildings achieving a 50% reduction in EUI.5 These energy reductions result in significant cost savings as well as air quality benefits related to reduced emissions from energy sources. A survey of 12 public green buildings estimated a 33% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.6

Green buildings also present a significant opportunity to stimulate the economy. In general, the economic benefits of green buildings can include an estimated 8-13% reduction in building operating costs, 7-10% increase in building value, 6-20% improvement of return on investment, and over 3% occupancy ratio increase.7,8 These benefits are expected to increase as energy costs rise and market attention and demand for green buildings increases.

Other green building features that are part of LEED standards can be adopted to create additional benefits. These included using indoor construction materials with low volatile organic compound (VOC) levels to improve indoor air quality and health, reducing water usage and costs, limiting imperviousness and/or adopting features to reduce stormwater runoff, and many other benefits. Using reused and/or recycled materials also expands the market for construction and demolition debris from other building development projects, completing the cycle of materials reuse.

1 Environmental Information Administration (2008). EIA Annual Energy Outlook.

2 U.S. Geological Survey (2000). 2000 data.

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009). “Estimating 2003 Building-

Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts”.

4 Environmental Protection Agency (2008). An Introduction to Indoor Air

Quality. Accessed via: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html.

5 New Buildings Institute (2008). Energy Performance of LEED for New

6 GSA Public Buildings Service (2008). Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post

Occupancy Evaluation of 12 GSA Buildings.

7 McGraw Hill Construction, Green Building SmartMarket Report, 2006

8 GSA Public Buildings Service (2008). Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post


Backgroundland use. energy. environment. infill.

Impacts of Sprawled Development in Metropolitan Areas

Sprawled development has important economic, social, and

environmental costs.9 It irreversibly eliminates valuable

natural land, displaces water and degrades water quality,

increases traveling distances, inflates housing prices,

excludes certain economic groups, and presents a financial

burden on cities, among numerous other consequences.

As the amount of impervious surface related to

development and new roadways increases, areas lose their

ability to manage stormwater, resulting in flooding and

polluted runoff that flows into water streams. Sprawl also

greatly increases automobile dependence, which

contributes to greenhouse gas emissions as well as smog-

forming emissions that then lead to public health problems

such as asthma and cancer.10 Sprawled development also

results in loss of valuable open space and prime farmland.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2007 Census found

that the state of Ohio lost more than 600,000 acres of

prime farmland between 2002 and 2007, which has

important environmental and economic implications.11

The cost of extending water and sewer services as well as

constructing and maintaining roads for expanded greenfield

development constitutes large capital costs for

municipalities. Sprawled development can inflate these

infrastructure costs by up to 40%. Over the long term,

property taxes on these developments will not cover the

cost of ongoing infrastructure maintenance costs, even with

development impact fees.12

Benefits of Encouraging Urban Infill Development

Conversely, infill development refers to new development

that occurs in core urbanized areas – areas of the region

that are already built up. Infill development can occur on

previously developed sites or on vacant land within an

urban typology. There are several environmental benefits of

urban infill development, including fewer vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) due to concentrating destinations in already

populated areas.

In addition, infill development increases the likelihood that

commuters will choose public transit or other modes of

transportation such as biking or walking, since infill sites

will most likely be serviced by transit lines and sidewalk,

which also contributes to reduced carbon emissions and

other air quality benefits. A U.S. EPA case study of three

metropolitan areas found that reductions in VMT related to

increased urban infill versus greenfield development lead

to regional emissions reductions of 3-8%.13 Finally,

encouraging infill development reduces development

pressures on greenfield sites, which provides the greatest

environmental benefit to metropolitan areas by preserving

valuable natural open space that helps mitigate the

environmental impact of carbon-emitting activities in the

urban core.14

Urban infill development also has a number of economic

benefits for metropolitan areas. Commuters are likely to

face reduced energy costs related to transportation as well

as less traffic congestion compared to conventional

suburban-style development. The U.S. EPA estimates that

overall regional traffic congestion as a result of urban infill

versus greenfield development can be decreased by 5-7%.15

Infill commercial development is also likely to increase

accessibility to economic opportunities for those who

might be left out of the equation with distant greenfield

development.

9 Burchell, Robert W. et al. Sprawl costs: economic impacts of unchecked development. (2005). Island

Press. Washington D.C.

10 “Environment”. Smart Growth America. <http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/environment.html>

Accessed November 11, 2009.

11 Presented at the 10th Annual Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit by Ohio Department of Agriculture

Director Robert J. Boggs. November 5, 2009.

12 Burchell, Robert W. et al. Sprawl costs: economic impacts of unchecked development. (2005). Island

Press. Washington D.C.

13 “Measuring the Air Quality and Transportation Impacts of Infill Development”. (2007). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

14 “Granting Air Quality Credit for Land Use Measures: Policy Options”. (1999) Prepared for the U.S. EPA by

Jack Faucet Associates and Sierra Research, Inc.

15 “Measuring the Air Quality and Transportation Impacts of Infill Development”. (2007). U.S. EPA.

16 “Linking Vision with Capital –Challenges and Opportunities in Financing Smart Growth” (September 2001)

Research Institute for Housing America – Institute Report No. 01-01.


Research methodology. current conditions. existing policies.

In order to develop a green buildings policy for the City of Columbus that also meets its sustainable growth goals, it is important to identify what development policies already exist in the City as well as what other jurisdictions are doing to encourage the development of green buildings. A green building incentive policy should incorporate achievable and verifiable design standards that address the market shortcomings of private development while efficiently utilizing the City’s resources for a program that is both economically and environmentally sustainable. The following incentive program research also analyzes the feasibility of a direct incentive, such as grants and loans, versus other types of incentives including tax abatement and expedited development review.

Local Green Building Policies at a Glance

An increasing number of local jurisdictions are offering incentives for private commercial buildings to incorporate green standards. The City of Cincinnati awards a 15-year 75% property tax abatement to all developments in its CRA that meet a minimum “LEED Certified” for New Construction standard (see Appendix for tax abatement details). This has led to a dramatic increase in the development of LEED-certified buildings in Cincinnati since the policy was instituted in 2007.

Also in 2007, the City of El Paso passed a Green Building Grant Program for commercial and multi-family buildings achieving “LEED Certified” or higher. The program provides grants of up to $400,000 per project depending on the level of LEED certification achieved as well as other criteria such as incorporating a mix of building uses in previously vacant properties. Eligible projects must also meet 10 of the 17 LEED points for Energy & Atmosphere criteria in order to receive the grant incentive.

In addition, the City of Babylon, New York, mandates that all commercial and residential buildings over 4,000 square feet meet a minimum “LEED Certified” standard. All buildings that meet this standard are provided with a refund to developers for the cost of certification fees paid to the U.S. Green Building Council.

Other local government incentives for green buildings include density bonuses, where developers are permitted to build more densely than otherwise permitted by zoning codes in exchange for achieving LEED status; permit fee waivers/reductions, where buildings that meet LEED standards are eligible for building permit fee reduction or exemptions; expedited permit processing, where buildings that are applying for LEED certification gain priority building permit processing in order to streamline the pre-development process for green builders; and complimentary technical assistance and promotion from city officials for meeting certain green building standards and/or LEED certification. A complete list of local government incentives for green building development can be found in the Appendix.

Source: "Growing the Green Economy", Delta Brownfields



Adhering to LEED for Green Buildings Policy

The standards developed under LEED incorporate sound principles of green design, including site selection and water- and energy-efficiency standards, which benefit both building owners and local governments that provide infrastructure services. As outlined above, LEED is clearly the primary standard by which many jurisdictions base their green buildings policies. This can largely be attributed by the importance of having a widely recognized third-party verification of green design in order to demonstrate eligibility for green building incentives. In addition, the City of Columbus, like most cities in today’s economic climate, would not benefit from committing its staff to developing and enforcing its own green building standards when a useable rubric already exists. Furthermore, green building operators will likely receive a greater return on investment with the marketable LEED label as it will increase the building’s desirability to tenants. Thus, LEED should be the standard by which the City bases its green buildings policy.

Increased soft costs as a barrier to LEED certification

While incorporating sustainable design methods into buildings lead to tangible cost savings for building operators, obtaining LEED certification does lead to increased upfront costs. These may include increased costs for greener materials, but also additional soft costs for design, documenting compliance standards, and LEED registration and verification costs. While design and compliance costs may decrease over time as more professionals become versant in LEED-standard construction, these soft costs remain a barrier to building green.

While increased project costs related to LEED can vary widely, the Green Building Finance Consortium, a group of business and real estate professionals seeking independent research on green building investments, estimated in 2006 that the increased cost of building to “LEED Certified” standards is about 0.8% of initial costs, 3.5% for “LEED Silver” buildings, 4.5% for “LEED Gold”, and about 11.5% to achieve “LEED Platinum” status.17 These estimates include both hard and soft costs related to LEED certification. A study commissioned by the American Chemistry Council estimates that the average increased soft costs of obtaining LEED certification is about 2.3%.18 It is also reasonable to consider that these percentages may now be lower as green/LEED-standard building design becomes increasingly mainstream.

While buildings incorporating green design methods may certainly achieve environmental benefits without receiving official LEED certification, verification is an important component of green buildings and many of green buildings’ benefits – such as increased property values and marketability – cannot be realized without this verification. Thus, receiving LEED certification is key to the short- and long-term success of a green building policy.

17 “Quantifying ‘Green’ Value: Assessing the Applicability of the CoStar Studies”. (2006)

Green Building Finance Consortium.

18 “Analyzing the Cost of Obtaining LEED Certification”. (2003) American Chemistry

Council. Prepared by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants.

The Lazarus LEED Gold building in Downtown Columbus

Source: OSU Urban Arts Center



Existing Development Incentives in Columbus

The City of Columbus has already made strides to link green building practices and development incentives. Currently, all commercial buildings receiving tax abatement incentive package must demonstrate that energy-efficiency measures are being taken. The City currently offers a 75%, 10-year property tax abatement for developments in the Enterprise Zone, which covers about 97% of the city limits. The City is unable to increase this tax abatement amount without diverting funds from local schools, and must allow this level of abatement for non-LEED developments in order to compete with the 100% abatement offered by many surrounding suburbs.

While many jurisdictions offer expedited building permit review to incentivize LEED building development, the City is bound to provide reviews on a first-come, first-served basis and strives to issue building permit reviews as expeditiously as possible.

As for instituting policies that encourage urban infill development, the City participates in incentive programs to redevelop brownfield sites and follows a “Pay As We Grow” strategy to pay for infrastructure and costs associated with growing outward and greenfield development upfront in order to control sprawled development patterns.

Conclusions from Incentive Program Research

Because Columbus has exhausted its tax abatement incentive packages as it continues to compete with surrounding suburbs for commercial development to sustain its economic health, it is not feasible for the City to offer increased tax abatement for LEED-certified buildings. However, the City should promote its encouragement of green buildings on its Economic Development website and other literature in order to attract greener development. In addition, development process incentives such as expedited permit review would likely not increase the development of LEED buildings as the City already makes great strides to streamline this process.

The City’s Department of Development has learned, however, that many developers do not find it difficult to incorporate green standards into their buildings, but find the additional soft costs of obtaining LEED certification to be the major hurdle to green development. While additional hard costs associated with LEED certification, such as energy-efficient equipment, can be recouped through utility cost savings over the life of the building, these soft costs may be difficult to justify for some developers until green building design becomes standard industry practice. However, verification of standards is paramount to a successful green buildings policy. Thus, the City of Columbus should institute a direct incentive program that offsets the additional upfront soft costs of LEED building certification in urban infill areas in order to encourage truly sustainable development.

A grant program is preferable to a loan program as it is straightforward for developers and does not require additional City resources for ongoing loan monitoring. As higher levels of LEED certification provide greater benefits to the City’s overall environmental quality and may also incur greater costs, the grant program should offer tiered incentives based on the level of certification achieved. Furthermore, because the costs associated with achieving “LEED Certified” status is marginal compared to traditional development costs, buildings must achieve a minimum “LEED Silver” rating to qualify for this financial incentive.

City of Columbus development patterns over the years

Source: Community Research Partners


Policy Proposal"greenfill" grant incentive program

City of Columbus “GreenFill” Grant Incentive Program

In order to encourage the private development and redevelopment of green buildings in sustainable areas, the City of Columbus should implement a tiered grant program for LEED-certified buildings in urban infill areas. The tiered system will help cover the soft costs of obtaining LEED certification and reward developers that achieve high levels green design.

Newly built and existing buildings in urban infill areas attaining “LEED Silver” certification would be eligible for 90% reimbursement of additional soft costs related to obtaining certification; “LEED Gold”-certified buildings would qualify for 100% reimbursement; and buildings meeting the highest “LEED Platinum” certification would be eligible for a 110% reimbursement of additional soft costs to reward this high achievement which would greatly benefit the City. Buildings must obtain LEED certification for New Development or Existing Building to qualify (see Appendix for LEED criteria). These recommended grant amounts are a modification of the tiered percentages outlined in the City’s “Building Greener” document (see Appendix).

Only soft costs associated with LEED certification would be eligible. These costs include LEED registration and verification fees, resource costs for documenting compliance, and additional design and consulting costs associated with LEED certification.19 Eligible soft costs associated with LEED certification should not exceed 2-3% of the total development budget.

Geography of the “GreenFill” Incentive Program

In order to fulfill the urban infill requirement of the incentive program, which ensures that the City’s resources contribute to truly sustainable green building development, LEED standard buildings must meet Criteria 1 and 2 of the LEED Checklist’s “Sustainable Sites” standards to qualify. These criteria require buildings to be redeveloped on sites that have already been developed at one time or another, are built away from environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and floodplains, do not occupy prime farmland, and are within more densely developed areas (see Appendix for full “Sustainable Sites” criteria).

Using the LEED “Sustainable Sites” criteria also ensures that the City’s goals of encouraging sustainable infill development are met without placing any additional burdens on building developers, as meeting these criteria directly contribute to development’s overall LEED rating.

Cost Scenarios for “GreenFill” Incentive Program

While it can be difficult to determine the annual costs of the proposed GreenFill Incentive Program, as developer demand and project-specific eligible soft costs will vary, a variety of scenarios can be used to estimate the size of the grant program the City should adopt.

Using the City’s building permit data from 2007, the total square footage of major commercial buildings that could potentially seek LEED certification totaled about 2,674,901.20 Given USGBC’s costs of verification based on building area for new construction and existing buildings, respectively, the following calculations reflect the total costs of LEED certification paid to USGBC if every building issued a permit in the City in 2007 sought registration (complete calculations are available in Appendix).

19 Developers would have to conform to all other Department of Development standards

and demonstrate in a grant application that applicable soft costs are above and beyond

the costs that would normally be applied for non-LEED standard development. The

Department of Development should develop criteria for determining eligible costs as

needed.

20 Year 2007 Building Permit Data was used as the number of permit issued significantly

declined in 2008 and 2009. The 2007 data is believed to be the most recent “typical”

estimate of building permits issued by the City of Columbus annually.



As Table 1 illustrates, if all of the eligible commercial buildings seeking a permit in the City of Columbus in 2007 achieved LEED certification of some kind, the cost of verification reimbursable by the City through the GreenFill Incentive Program would be $147,119.56 if all building were new construction; $106,996.04 if all buildings were pre-existing; and $127,057.80 of half of the buildings (based on square footage) were existing

However, developers typically incur additional soft costs in addition to LEED certification costs paid to USGBC, including compliance tracking costs and additional design/consulting expenses as described earlier. Applying the average soft cost premium of 2.3% for LEED described in the Research section of this report to the City’s 2007 building permit data, we can estimate the potential eligible LEED soft costs as follows22:

Project Type Square Footage Verification Cost per Square Foot[21]

Total LEED Verification Cost

New Construction (NC) 2,674,901 $0.06 $147,119.56

Existing Building (EB) 2,674,901 $0.04 $106,996.04

Half NC/Half EB 1,337,450.5 (NC)1,337,450.5 (EB)

$0.055 (NC)$0.04 (EB)

$127,057.80

Building Type Building Value Average LEED Premium (2.3%)Stores/Mercantile Buildings $93,389,066 $2,147,948.52 Hospitals/Institutions $3,787,119 $87,103.74 Office/Banks/Professional $79,335,832 $1,824,724.14 Industrial $18,194,800 $418,480.40 Hotels/Motels $39,898,160 $917,657.68

TOTAL COSTS $5,395,914.47

Thus, we can estimate that if every major commercial building seeking a permit in 2007 achieved LEED certification (minimum “Silver” certification), and the City subsidized all soft costs associated with LEED certification, the cost to the City would be about $5.4 million. There are several caveats to these estimates, however. First and foremost, these estimated costs would likely decrease significantly since only buildings in qualified urban infill areas would be eligible for the grant incentive. Secondly, the average soft cost premium for building to LEED standards (2.3%) is an estimate from the year 2003 and is likely to be lower as green building development becomes increasingly mainstream; Finally, these estimates include all buildings which could conceivably seek LEED certification, but office/professional buildings are by far the most likely commercial category to use green design. The City may wish exclude some types of buildings that are unlikely to seek LEED certification, such as stores that are likely to be relatively small, from these calculations.

Given these potential cost estimates, the City may choose to establish a program fund of about $100,000 (annual grant allotment) to cover only LEED verification costs paid to USGBC for developments in eligible urban infill areas. Again, the City would use a tiered system to award 90% reimbursement for LEED Silver buildings; 100% for LEED Gold buildings; and 110% for LEED Platinum buildings. This amount is likely to be well above necessary given the number of building permits that can potentially be expected in eligible infill areas. If the City wishes to subsidize the total soft costs associated with LEED certification for buildings in eligible areas, it may wish to limit program costs by capping eligible expenses at 2-3% (or less) of total soft costs and instituting a competitive grant process with a maximum available program fund. For instance, the City of Portland caps its green building fund program at $435,000 annually.



Potential Funding Sources

In order to finance the GreenFill grant incentive program for LEED buildings, the City should establish a dedicated Green Building Fund, which can be funded in a variety of ways. The following scenarios are examples of funding schemes used by other municipalities to fund similar grant incentive programs despite general economic constraints. There are also a number of state-level green building programs, such as Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener fund that provides a variety of funding mechanisms to local governments, but this report will focus on what municipalities can do to fund green buildings in the absence of such state programs. The City should identify what measure(s) to finance its Green Building Fund may be most feasible given its unique situation.

Many of the green building incentive programs described earlier in this report set aside a portion of sewer and water fees and/or building permit fees to be used towards the program fund. Because LEED-standard buildings usually reduce stormwater runoff and water and sewer maintenance costs, these cities invest their utility maintenance cost savings into a revolving green building fund. If the City of Columbus were to use this method of financing its Green Building Fund, it may wish to consider requiring that eligible buildings meet LEED’s water-related criteria in addition to the Site Selection and Density/Community Connectivity criteria to ensure that these specific savings are realized.

For instance, the City could require incentivized buildings to meet LEED’s 30% Water Use Reduction criterion, which would decrease the City’s overall water and sewer maintenance costs. The City could then afford to divert a percentage of its water and sewer fees from non-LEED buildings towards the Green Building Fund, which would continue to decrease the burden of the City water supply and treatment services.

Another funding approach may be to seek bond funding for the grant program and perhaps include the Green Building Fund in the City’s next infrastructure levy. The City’s commendable AAA bond rating puts it in a unique position over other municipalities to secure this type of funding for this proposed grant program.

The City of Portland, Oregon, has several unique funding mechanisms for its green building and infrastructure incentive programs. Its “1% for Green” fund collects one percent of the construction budget for city projects within the city right-of-way to fund green infrastructure projects that benefit the surrounding community. Columbus could institute a similar program by dedicating a percentage of its construction project budgets to the Green Building Fund for private LEED building development. Because the City has committed to developing all of its government buildings to LEED standards, dedicating a portion of its construction project budgets to the Green Building Fund would be partially offset by the reduced operating budgets of these buildings.

Portland has also established a Green Investment Fund (GIF) particularly to award grants for soft costs associated with private green building projects. The GIF was established in 2000 and is funded in a variety of ways including residential and commercial solid waste fees; grants from private foundations; fees associated with intergovernmental service agreements; and sponsorships from high-profile events held by the Green Building committee.

This multi-pronged approach may be the best funding mechanism for Columbus to establish its Green Building Fund. The City may be able to assess a small portion the water and sewer fees (and potentially building permit fees) it collects in tandem with dedicating a percentage of its construction budget for City projects, securing some bond funding, and seeking private grant funding to establish a Green Building Fund. The Columbus Foundation and other private foundations that have a history of supporting environmental-related programs may form a partnership with City to establish the Fund.


Prospective Impacts of the “GreenFill” Incentive Program

While the exact energy, environmental, and economic benefits of encouraging private development of LEED buildings will vary, the GreenFill Incentive Program is certain to have a significant impact on catalyzing widespread development of green buildings in the City of Columbus and focusing development within core urbanized areas.

A Duke University study on the impacts of the City of Cincinnati’s LEED tax abatement program found that the number of new LEED-registered buildings dramatically increased after the program was established.24 All of the developers involved in the study indicated that the incentive program was the primary reason they chose to pursue LEED certification, even above marketing value and operational cost savings. The developers also indicated that LEED incentive program motivated them to develop in the central city rather than in surrounding municipalities.


Thus, in addition to the many environmental and utility maintenance cost benefits associated with LEED-standard buildings, the City of Columbus could also realize increased market attention in building development, especially in its urban infill areas, as a result of the proposed LEED incentive program. Such a program could give the City a competitive edge in attracting development as well as businesses seeking to occupy highly desirable green buildings, which in turn creates jobs and tax revenues within the City.

24 LaJeunesse, Katherine J. “Cincinnati Takes the Lead in LEED: Effects of a real estate tax abatement for LEED certification on development and green

building”. (2009). <http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/10161/1005/1/LaJeunesse_NSOE_MastersProject.pdf>


NextStepsadditional research. implementation.

Next Steps for Green Buildings Incentive Policy

In addition to exploring funding mechanisms for the GreenFill Incentive Policy, there are several areas for further study that may be investigated before the program is instituted:

1. Use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) modeling to determine which areas of the City are eligible for the incentive grant using the LEED Sustainable Sites criteria as recommended. By generating an incentive zone map, developers will be able to easily determine where urban infill sites are and where the GreenFill incentive applies, making it easier for developers to build green. In addition, after mapping GreenFill-eligible sites, the City may wish to add to or further limit eligible sites based on any of its own additional development priorities.

2. Consider mandating additional LEED criteria to the GreenFill incentive grant. If the City determines that using a portion of utility fees would be part of the financing mechanism for the GreenFill incentive program, it may be appropriate to research other City green building priorities and add relevant LEED criteria to the incentive program.

3. Continue researching green building funds and related grant programs in other cities to inform the funding mechanism for the GreenFill incentive grant. Though this report provides research and suggestions for financing the GreenFill incentive program, it may be necessary to continue researching the financing of similar grant-making programs in other cities. This will likely require interviewing program administrators and other research to elucidate innovative approaches to funding grant programs.

4. Gain insight on GreenFill policy recommendations from other local officials as well as developers. It may be useful for local officials, such as those within the Department of Development, to review this policy recommendation report in order to gain additional insight on its feasibility. As this policy recommendation evolves, it may also be useful for some local developers to weigh in on how this policy meets their perception of barriers to LEED-standard and urban infill development.

Source: U.S. Green Building Council


Beyond GreenFill future considerations. additional recommendations.

In addition to the GreenFill incentive program recommendations made here, the City of Columbus may also wish to consider the following policies to achieve truly sustainable green building development:

LEED Scorecard for All City Developments

The City should strongly consider requiring all developments applying for a building permit to complete a LEED Scorecard, the LEED criteria checklist, as a mandatory part of the development process. This would be an expansion upon the City’s policy to require developers to demonstrate energy efficiency measures in order to receive a tax abatement package. A similar program is instituted with the City of Arlington, Virginia, and is designed to encourage green building development.25 This policy would also fulfill the City’s Green Strings initiative to tie all City incentives to green commitments.

A policy such as this also serves to accelerate the pace at which local developers become accustomed to green design, thus institutionalizing these standards beyond the life of the grant program. This may also enlighten developers to their building’s eligibility for LEED certification when then may not have otherwise known they would qualify.

One Stop Shop for Green Development

In order to streamline the development process specific to green building design, the City should include a webpage on the Department of Development website that serves as a One Stop Shop for Green Development. The One Stop Shop would provide City resources and technical assistance information for green/LEED buildings and may include: a listing of City LEED Accredited Professionals that may be able to provide consulting services during the planning and development process; a list of local suppliers of green building materials; and other available City resources for meeting LEED standards, such as construction material recycling facilities. The site would also link to neighborhood/area profiles of priority geographic locations for green development.

The site may also include suggestions and best management practices for creative green building features, such as rooftop gardens, stormwater management techniques, rain gardens, and other desirable features. This information is either already available from the City in some form or can easily be linked to from other web sources. The One Stop Shop would serve to compile all of this information on one webpage to provide developers with all the information they need to build green. One example model for such as webpage is the City of Seattle’s “City Green Building” website.26

Create Regional Partnerships

While adopting an incentive policy like “GreenFill” to encourage sustainable infill development will have important environmental and economic impacts on the City, implementing such a policy on a regional scale is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainable growth of the Central Ohio area. It is therefore recommended that City develop partnerships with its surrounding suburbs as well as the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) to institute incentives for green infill development.

The success of the City’s incentive program will serve as a model to surrounding communities, and the City can mentor these communities in developing their own infill policies that reflect regional cooperation. Central Ohio communities have already demonstrated a willingness to collaborate as a region on important planning issues, such as watershed partnerships including the Big Darby Accord and the Olentangy River Watershed Planning Partnership that is currently forming under MORPC. As the urban anchor of the area, the City of Columbus is perfectly suited to lead a regional cooperative effort to promote sustainable infill development and preserve diminishing open spaces.

25 “Green Building Site Plan Conditions in Arlington (Private Development)”

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/epo/EnvironmentalServi

cesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx

26 “City Green Building”

http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/GreenBuilding/Commercial/IncentivesAssistance/defau

lt.asp

greenfill columbus leed infill incentive policy report

Documents

development of green

sustainable buildings

buildings construction

culture of green

environmentgreen buildings

green strings

buildings account

green building committee