The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/25/2018 - Building Review Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingBuilding Review Board Page 1 October 25, 2018 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado Katharine Penning Rick Reider Staff Liaison: Justin Robinson Russ Hovland Chief Building Official The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing Agenda October 25, 2018 1:00 PM • CALL TO ORDER • ROLL CALL • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 27, 2018 BRB Meeting 2. Impact Fee Update 3. 2018 I-Codes Adoption 4. New Building Energy Scoring Requirements 5. 2019 Work Plan • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Building Review Board Date: Roll Call Marzonie Massey Penning Reider Robinson Johnson Vote  ABSENT  5 present 1 – Minutes for September Reider Penning Robinson Massey Marzonie Johnson Abstain Y ABSENT Y Y Abstain 3:0 2 - Impact Fee Changes Penning Robinson Massey Marzonie Reider Johnson Y ABSENT YYYY5:0 3 - 2018 I-Codes Adoption Robinson Massey Marzonie Reider Penning Johnson ABSENT YYYYY5:0 4 - Building Energy Scoring Massey Marzonie Reider Penning Robinson Johnson YYYY ABSENT Y 5:0 5 - 2019 Work Plan Marzonie Reider Penning Robinson Massey Johnson Y Y Y ABSENT Y Y 5:0 10/25/2018 Secretary's Note: Chair Cram was unable to attend and Vice Chair Johnson acted as Chair. Building Review Board Hearing Date: October 25, 2018 Document Log (Any written comments or documents received since the agenda packet was published.) DISCUSSION AGENDA: 1. Draft Minutes for the BRB September Hearing 2. Impact Fee Update 3. 2018 I-Codes Adoption 4. Building Energy Scoring 5. 2019 Work Plan EXHIBITS RECEIVED DURING HEARING: Item # Exhibit # Description: 3 1 Additional Code Changes Agenda Item 1 Item 1, Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 25, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Gretchen Schiager, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 BRB MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the September 27, 2018 meeting of the Building Review Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. BRB September 27, 2018 Minutes - DRAFT DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 1 September 27, 2018 Alan Cram, Chair City Council Chambers Tim Johnson, Vice Chair City Hall West Brad Massey 300 Laporte Avenue Bernie Marzonie Fort Collins, Colorado Katharine Penning Rick Reider Staff Liaison: Justin Robinson Russ Hovland Chief Building Official The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Meeting Minutes September 27, 2018 A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, September 27, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. • CALL TO ORDER Chair Cram called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cram, Massey, Marzonie, Penning ABSENT: Johnson, Reider, Robinson STAFF: Hovland, Van Hall, Schiager • PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. • DISCUSSION AGENDA 1. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 2018 MEETING. Mr. Marzonie moved to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2018 meeting. Ms. Penning seconded. The motion passed 4:0. Building Review Board ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 2 September 27, 2018 The Board discussed whether to proceed with agenda item #3 given the low attendance of members for this meeting. They agreed it would be preferable to postpone the discussion of the 2018 I-Codes Adoption until the October 25, 2018 meeting. Mr. Hovland stated he would do a brief review of the code change highlights at that point in today’s meeting. Mr. Massey asked about the International Swimming Pool and Spa codes. Mr. Hovland explained his preference for adoption of all the new codes at the same time, since they cross-reference each other. 2. 2018 IMPACT FEE UPDATE Staff Presentation Mike Beckstead, City of Fort Collins Chief Financial Officer, gave a presentation to the Board. He explained that the impact fees are complex, and include Capital Expansion, Transportation Capital Expansion and Utilities Plant Investment Fees. Using Community Parks as an example, he explained how the fees are used. He reviewed the timeline for the impact fee project and the drivers of the fee increases. He summarized the key findings of the Fee Group. He talked about whether residential fees should be based on home sizes. Mr. Beckstead also provided a comparison of the fees in neighboring communities. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Massey asked for clarification about the percentage of permits in various square footage ranges, and what the new breaks would be. Mr. Beckstead stated that 90% of the permits pulled in the past few years have been 2200 sq. ft. or greater. He went on to explain that determining the fees by square footage will involve marrying the breaks in the permit data with what the census data shows in terms of the number of residents in larger homes. He said the fees are calculated by the value of assets divided by population, and while the value of the assets and the total population won’t change, how those fees are spread out based on number of people may change depending on what the data shows. Mr. Massey asked why the expansion fee for Parks is the only one that pays 100% of the cost, while others are subsidized by other tax revenue streams. Mr. Beckstead said it was set up that way when capital expansion fees were established back in 1996. He explained that the asset infrastructure of Police Services or general government, for example, does not support higher fees, while the asset infrastructure of Parks does. Mr. Maroni asked if there is an ideal number of acres of parks per capita. Mr. Beckstead said he would have to refer that question to Kurt Friesen in Parks, however he there is a plan to build two new community parks, at which point the parks plan would be fully built. Ms. Penning asked whether refurbishing existing parks would reduce the need to build new parks, and whether that would be more cost effective. Mr. Beckstead stated that the City does have a goal of having a neighborhood park within a mile and a community park within four miles of every residence, as well as a target number of park acres per capita. He also pointed out that the existing parks are not currently in a state of disrepair, and capital expansion fee cannot be used for maintenance and upkeep. Chair Cram noted that the last time the fees were reviewed, the main source of contention was the emphasis of residential versus commercial fees, which is not going to change at this point. Mr. Marzonie expressed concern that increased fees impact the cost of construction which may eventually make Fort Collins an undesirable place because of the cost of living, particularly to buy a home. He asked about how much territory has been built out. Mr. Beckstead talked population estimates for the future based on available undeveloped land within the Growth Management Areas between neighboring communities. Mr. Beckstead invited the Board to provide a memo for Council, if desired. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT City of Fort Collins Page 3 September 27, 2018 3. 2018 I-CODES ADOPTION Staff Presentation Mr. Hovland said the City’s goal is to adopt codes within a year of being released, which coincides with Utilities’ adoption timeline for of the energy code. Mr. Hovland discussed the code amendments, noting that not much was changing. He stated that he will remove the previously adopted local amendments that are now included in the International Codes. Mr. Hovland reviewed the key local amendments outlined in the staff report: 1. Residential homes would be required to have an EV-ready conduit structure, while for multi- family, the requirement would be for 10% of parking spaces to be equipped with the conduit. 2. New homes would be required to install a ¾” PV conduit structure. 3. Window u-value would change from .32 to .30. 4. Multi-family with trash chutes would now be required to include a recycling chute. 5. An emergency repair permit provision for disaster situations is proposed. Board Questions and Discussion Mr. Massey asked about windowsill heights for child fall protection. Mr. Hovland said the sill heights in the IBC had been changed to match the IRC requirements in the last round of amendments, and that stayed in. Mr. Hovland mentioned that Water Conservation Staff had recommended a change to the low-flow fixture requirements to make them lower. The Building Code Review Committee discussed is and disagreed with it. Upon request by the Water Board, the Committee discussed it further, but still did not support the change. Instead, they recommend keeping the current low-flow, but increasing the MaP score for toilets, which is the performance of the flush, from 350 to 600. This would result in less flush failure resulting in flushing once instead of twice. They also support lowing the showerhead flow from 2 gallons per minute to 1.75. He believes these are positive changes. This can be discussed at the October meeting. • OTHER BUSINESS None • ADJOURNMENT Chair Cram adjourned the meeting at 2:15 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Gretchen Schiager. Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on __________. _________________________________ ______________________________ Russell Hovland, Chief Building Official Alan Cram, Chair ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item #2 Item 2, Page 1 P P P P P STAFF REPORT October 25, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue & Project Manager SUBJECT 2018 Impact Fee Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since the fall of October 2016, staff has worked to coordinate the process for updating all new development related fees that require Council approval. The 2017 CEFs and TCEFs full fee proposals showed significant increases from the previously approved fees. Due to the concern in the development and building community around impact fee changes, Council asked for a fee working group to be created to foster a better understanding of impact fees prior to discussing further fee updates. The fee working group meetings commenced in August of 2017, comprised of a balanced group of stakeholders – City staff, business-oriented individuals, citizens and a Council liaison. The group met 14 times, and the topics covered included: detailed review of fee methodologies, inputs, calculations, City revenue sources, alternative revenue sources, academic economic research on impact fees, a third-party impact fee audit review and impact fee comparisons to other communities. Below is a summary of the key findings from the Fee Working Group position paper: • Bringing impact fees together for review and formation of the fee working group has been beneficial to better understand the full impact of Council approved impact fees for new development. • The group acknowledges overall sound methodologies, calculations and inputs. • The third-party fee audit revealed that the City manages impact fee expenditures very well. how the City spends and collects impact fees is sound. • Regarding economic data, the group agrees that amenities paid for through impact fees add to property value, but views differ as to what extent they impact demand and supply. Academic research showed that home price increases in growing areas are mainly demand driven. • The group agreed that impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the community. They recommend better messaging to stakeholders and the general public. • In the 2017 study, park impact fees increased more than other impact fees due to increases in the costs of land, water and construction. These fees are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built. • The group acknowledges the need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and maintenance. • If council approves lower fees than the staff recommendation, alternative revenue sources will be needed. If Council goes this direction, it will be for the community to decide what alternatives to pursue. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Next Steps: November 13th Council Work Session, December 4th & 18th Ordinance readings, 2019 Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs 2. Feedback & Questions from Council Finance Committee Agenda Item #2 Item 2, Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Board agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to support the Impact Fee changes proposed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Presentation 2018 Impact Fee Update 1 2018 Building Review Board Agenda • Impact Fee Background, Scope & Timeline • Proposed Impact Fee Updates • Feedback & Next Steps 2 ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Why Do We Have Impact Fees 3 Capital Expansion Fees • New developments pays a proportionate share of infrastructure costs to “buy-in” to the level of service • Fee revenue used to build new service capacity • In place since 1996 Transportation Capital Expansion Fees • New development contributes toward the construction of arterial and collector roadways needed per growth • Fee revenue used to build out additional infrastructure • In place since 1979 Utility Plant Investment Fees • Provides a mechanism for new development to reimburse existing utility customers for existing infrastructure • Fee revenue used to build additional infrastructure The concept of growth paying for the impact of growth is a policy decision that City Council made and continues to support Fee Revenue Used to Add Infrastructure Needed Because of Growth Example 4 Fees Provides a Revenue Source to Maintain Current Levels of Service Community Parks: • Acres of parks per capita is a measure of level of service • The goal is to maintain acres of parks per capita • As growth occurs, new parks must be added, or park service levels decline • A Community Parks Impact Fee generates only designated revenue used to build the next community park and to maintain the existing level of service Capital Expansion Fees: • Community parks • Neighborhood parks •Fire • Police • General government ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Impact Fee Coordination 5 Objective: • Review fee updates together to provide a holistic view of the total cost impact • Bring impact fees forward per a defined cadence….. 2 - 4 years Type of Fee Fee Name Capital Expansion Neighborhood Park Capital Expansion Community Park Capital Expansion Fire Capital Expansion Police Capital Expansion General Government Capital Expansion Transportation Utility Water Supply Requirement Utility Electric Capacity Utility Sewer Plant Investment Utility Stormwater Plant Investment Utility Water Plant Investment Building Development 45 Development Review & Building Permit Fees Impact Fee Timeline 6 Reflects master fee data updates, does not reflect annual inflation updates 1. Detailed fee study analysis every 4 years for CEF, TCEFs & Development fees 2. Detailed fee study analysis every 2 years for Utility fees 3. Conduct fee study analysis in the odd year before BFO 4. In years without updates, an annual inflation adjustment occurs 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Capital Expansion Fees Update Step II Step III Update Transportation CEFs Update Step II Update Electric Capacity Fees Update Update Update Raw Water Update Update Update Wet Utility Fees Update Update Update Development Review Fees Update Update ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 2017 – Drivers of Fee Increases 7 Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed increase 71% to 79%): • Fee based on replacement cost of existing infrastructure • Cost of construction, land, water up significantly since last fee revision Transportation Capital Expansion Fees (2017 proposed changes -32% to 114%): • Cost of construction up since last fee revision • Current transportation plan & calculation shift Electric Capacity Fees (2017 changes approximately -50% to 40%): • Change in methodology from plan-based to “buy-in” Raw Water Fees (effective 1/1/2018): • New fee model - value of the existing water rights portfolio & growth related capital expenses Large Increase Created Significant Business Community Concern 2017 Recap: Phase I Fees 8 Council directed stepped implementation for CEF & TCEF in 2017 Success Factors: • Bringing fees together was good for understanding the full impact of fees • Formed citizen/staff working group Lessons Learned: • Fee increase recommendations were significant, caused confusion in the community • Difficult to explain with different methodologies and qualitative aspect Fee Status as of October 2017 Next Steps CEFs • 75% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - three steps TCEFs • 80% of fees implemented • Phased in approach - two steps Electric Capacity • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years Raw Water • 100% of fees implemented • Every two years ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 9 • Review of impact fees together is beneficial for understanding the full impact of fee updates • Overall, sound methodologies, calculations and inputs • The third-party fee audit revealed how the City spends and collects impact fees is sound • Impact fee amenities add to property value, but views differ as to what extent they impact housing costs Key Findings • Impact fees are complicated and difficult to communicate across the community • Park impact fees are the only category where impact fees pay for 100 percent of what is built • Need to identify new revenue sources for park refresh and maintenance in the future • If less than recommended is approved, alternative revenue sources will be needed Fee Group Findings Fee Group Validated Integrity in Fee Development and Expenditures 10 Recommendations 1. Better Communication/Outreach & Notice of Fee Changes 2. Repayment of the $130k Identified in the Impact Fee Audit 3. Progressive Fees if/where Possible 4. Explore Additional Revenue Sources for Parks Buildout 5. Investigate Revenue Alternatives to Support Parks Refresh & Maintenance 6. Explore Stronger Supports for Affordable Housing Fee Waivers Fee Group Recommendations Recommendations Will be Reviewed with Council Finance in September…. Implemented as Appropriate Over Time ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 CEFs & TCEFs Proposed Updates Effective 2019 11 Fire fees updated July 2018 to reflect calculation error CEFs & TCEFs Totals with Inflation Land Use Type Unit Current Total Step II Total Step II Total w Inflation % Increase % Increase w Inflation Residential, up to 700 sq. ft. Dwelling $5,845 $7,049 $7,473 21% 28% Residential, 701-1,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $8,779 $10,593 $11,221 21% 28% Residential, 1,201-1,700 sq. ft. Dwelling $10,283 $12,409 $13,139 21% 28% Residential, 1,701-2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $11,099 $13,391 $14,173 21% 28% Residential, over 2,200 sq. ft. Dwelling $12,147 $14,658 $15,516 21% 28% Commercial 1,000 sq. ft. $8,430 $10,164 $10,720 21% 27% Office and Other Services $6,660 $8,028 $8,472 21% 27% Industrial/Warehouse 1,000 sq. ft. $2,000 $2,411 $2,542 21% 27% With Inflation, Proposed Fee Increases of 27% to 28% for CEFs and TCEFs 12 Wet Utility PIFs Proposed Updates Effective 2019 Utility Criteria Current Charge 2019 Charge $ Change % Change Water $ / GPD $ 4.66 $ 4.99 $ 0.33 7.1% Wastewater $ / GPD $ 13.98 $ 15.31 $ 1.33 9.5% Stormwater Per acre (adjusted for run-off factor) $ 8,217 $ 9,142 $ 925 11.3% Proposed Fee Increases of 7% to 11% Across the Three Wet Utility Fees ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 What if Impact Fees are not Updated? 13 With Limitations on Total Revenue, if Full Fee Increases are Not Implemented the City Will Need to Turn to Alternatives Implications if full impact fee increases are not implemented: • Wait to build new infrastructure and service capacity • Lower current levels of service • Alternative revenue sources ‒ Sales tax increase, property tax increase, occupation tax… Fee Comparison: For Median New Home Sales Price $483K* 14 Fort Collins Fees in the Lower-Middle of the Pack *Multiple Listing Service (MLS) ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Neighboring Cities Median Sales Comparison with Fees 15 Of Median Home Sales Prices, Wellington Has Higher Fee Percentages… Timnath Has Lower Fee Percentages Fort Collins Fee Stack Median New Home Sales 16 Fort Collins Fees & Code Cost Impact is Leveling % of Median New Home Sales Price ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Outreach Plan 17 Organization Date Super Issues Forum September 6th Northern Colorado Homebuilder's Association September 11th Fort Collins Board of Realtors September 11th Building Code Review Committee September 12th Downtown Development Authority September 13th Economic Advisory Commission September 19th North Fort Collins Business Association September 26th Parks and Recreation Board September 26th Local Legislative Affairs Committee September 28th South Fort Collins Business Association October 2nd Affordable Housing Board October 11th Human Relations Board October 11th Housing Catalyst TBD Next Steps 18 1. Next Steps: • September 17th: Council Finance Committee • November 13th: Council Work Session • December 4th & 18th: Ordinance readings • 2019: Utility Fees, Development Fees & Step III for CEFs 2. Feedback & Questions • Is there support for this process going forward? ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda Item #3 Item 3, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 25, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official SUBJECT Ordinances, including local amendments, relating to the adoption of the: 2018 International Building Code (IBC) 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) 2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) 2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) 2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) 2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) The National Electrical Code (NEC) and the International Plumbing Code (IPC) are companion standards to the proposed five core building codes. The most current editions of the NEC and IPC are reviewed and adopted by the State of Colorado and become the State Electric and State Plumbing codes. Fort Collins accepts and enforces the NEC and IPC when, and as adopted, by the State. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2018 International Codes (2018 I-Codes) represent the most up-to-date, comprehensive, and fully integrated body of codes regulating building construction and systems using prescriptive and performance-related provisions. The purpose of these codes is to establish the minimum construction requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating structural strength and stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation, and property protection from hazards attributed to the built environment within the City of Fort Collins. BACKGROUND Since 1924 the City of Fort Collins has periodically reviewed, amended, and adopted the latest nationally recognized building standards available for the times. The City has updated the minimum construction standards 15 times since 1924. The 2018 International Codes will replace the 2015 editions of the IBC, IRC, IMC, IFGC, and the IECC all of which were adopted on July 17, 2017. Some code provisions formally located within the above listed codes have been relocated into new separate codes such as the IEBC and the ISPSC. These are included in this proposed adoption process however the requirements in these 2 standards have not changed from the previous code sections located in IBC and IRC. Building codes and standards are reviewed and voted on by code officials and construction industry professionals from across the country and published every three years under the oversight of the International Code Council (ICC). These core 2018 I-Codes represent the latest construction publications from ICC. Review process The implementation of new building standards can have a dramatic impact on the construction industry and the economy of the community. To better understand these impacts, a code review committee is convened to review Agenda Item #3 Item 3, Page 2 the new codes and all local amendments. The code review committee represents a wide spectrum of volunteers from across the local construction industry including private developers, residential and commercial builders, architects, engineers, representatives from the energy conservation sector and Poudre Fire Authority. The code review committee met regularly (See member list included) in July, August, and September 2018 to discuss new proposed amendments and current amendments. This committee will vote on support and move for adoption of the 2018 I-Codes and amendments in late September. While this review process requires considerable time and resources, it produces enforceable and effective building codes and amendments that the community and construction industry support and create together. Amendments overview A few current amendments are now in the new 2018 code as written (codes have caught up to us) and have been deleted, while other amendments that did not have the intended results or were shown to be ineffective and costly to the construction industry were deleted. Overall, the changes from the 2015 codes to the 2018 codes are few and impacts to cost of construction are minimal. A handful of new amendments are being proposed including 2 which support the City’s sustainability goals and the Climate Action Plan: Proposed amendments to the IBC: • In new commercial and multi-family buildings when a trash chute is provided as typically in a multi-story apartment building, a second chute for recycling must be provided. This can be achieved in the same fire- rated shaft to reduce costs. Approximate cost increase is $1500 per floor. • In new multi-family structures, 10% of all parking spaces must provide a conduit from the electrical room to the front of the parking space for installing electric vehicle charging equipment in the future. Approximate cost increase is $300 per parking space. • A new no-fee emergency repair permit provision was added to allow a fast permit to be issued in a disaster/damage situation where a building owner can temporarily repair a dwelling to allow occupancy while more permanent repairs are forthcoming. This was recommended by the county building department who scrambled to put this in place after several recent disasters. Proposed amendments to the IRC: • New homes are to be provided with an empty 3/4-inch conduit from the attic to the main electrical panel for ease of installing future photovoltaic (PV) system signaling wiring. Approximate cost increase for this conduit and installation is $200.00. • New homes are to be provided with an empty 3/4-inch conduit from the main electrical panel board to an empty junction box in the garage for ease of installing a future electrical vehicle (EV) charging outlet. Approximate cost increase is $100.00. Changes in the new 2018 IRC and IECC codes: • Window u-value will go change from .32 to .30 an increase in efficiency and approximate cost increase of 8% for vinyl windows. This would add approx. $200-$300 to the cost of the window package for an average size house. The cost assumptions discussed in each bullet above were determined after staff reached out to the tradespeople who would be involved with the code requirement such as electricians, plumbers, mechanical contractors, and fire-suppression contractors. Construction supply houses were contacted for an estimate of off- the-shelf materials. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Alterations to, or new construction of City owned properties will have to comply with the provisions of the 2018 I-Codes. The scope of work to be performed will determine the financial impact to the City. In general, there are no Citywide financial impacts expected with the adoption of the 2018 I-Codes. Agenda Item #3 Item 3, Page 3 Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) anticipates the following financial impacts and expects these costs to be absorbed into the current CDNS budget: 1. Purchase of new building codes, approximately $5000. The necessary copies of the seven core 2018 I- Codes have been purchased for staff. 2. Staff training on the new codes is mostly accomplished in-house. When possible, staff will attend code classes that are offered at various times throughout the year. This additional training cost is expected not to exceed $5,000. 2018 BUILDING CODE ADOPTION REVIEW COMMITTEE Name Company Phone Alan Cram Cram Services; BRB Chair 303-588-8633 Bob Poncelow Poudre Fire Authority 970-416-2871 Brad Smith City Staff, Utilities/Plan Review 970-416-4321 Brian Kelly Toll Bros. 970-305-0474 Ceri Jones Triton Communities 970-567-9717 Charlie Atwood Hartford Homes 970-556-5756 Chris Allison Former CBO, Longmont 970-226-1247 Eric Fried CBO, Larimer County 970-4987705 Jeff Schneider Armstead Construction; P&Z Chair 970-566-9971 Justin Montgomery Design Point Engineering 970-430-5783 Mike Doddridge Doddridge Construction 970-218-3210 Mike Missimer Fort Collins Heating & Air 970-310-9232 Paul Higman GS Services 970-449-1612 Ron Carroll City Staff, Building Inspector 970-416-2326 Russell Hovland City Staff, CBO 970-416-2341 Sarah Carter City Staff, Plans Examiner 970-416-2748 Steve Steinbicker Architecture West 970-207-0424 Terry Heyne Custom On-Site Builders 970-412-0149 Greg Black Colorado Lic. PE 970-213-1824 BOARDS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH The 2018 I-Codes with proposed amendments have/will be presented to numerous boards and commissions: Board of Realtors Water Board Energy Board Commission on Disability Natural Resource Advisory Board Poudre Fire Authority Board Building Review Board Affordable Housing Board Air Quality Advisory Board Northern Colorado Home Builder Association Chamber of Commerce STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Board agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to “Recommend the City adopt the 2018 International Codes and References, with any necessary local amendments.” Additional code changes/amendments not shown in the included staff report for Oct 25, BRB meeting 1. IBC 310.4.1 Care facilities within a dwelling. Care facilities for five or fewer persons receiving care that are within a single-family dwelling are permitted to comply with the International Residential Code provided an automatic sprinkler system is installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.3 or Section P2904 of the International Residential Code. 2. IRC and IBC, adding a local code amendment requiring all structures choosing to install asphalt shingles to use class 4 impact resistant. Additionally, a requirement for reroof projects to report the amount of waste and final waste location will be added. a. Will protect against non-severe hail storms (hail smaller than golf ball size). b. Cost increase for average house is approx. $500- $1000. Builders are concerned about the additional cost but some area already installing these as a standard practice. c. According to the Solid Waste Director for Larimer County, construction and demolition materials normally make up 30% of the volume at the landfill. This number has increased to approximately 50% due to the increase of shingles from recent storms. d. While it is possible to use asphalt shingles to produce reclaimed asphalt pavement, currently there are no facilities in Northern Colorado that recycle them. The City does not accept asphalt shingles at the Hoffman Mill Crushing Facility due to equipment limitations and cleanliness of materials including concern of Asbestos used in certain shingles. 3. IRC and IBC, change the showerhead maximum gallons per minute from 2.0 to 1.8 gpm to lower water consumption. 4. Commission on accessibility: For Multi-family the IBC / ICC A117.1 requires a some of the accessible dwellings have a roll-in shower when you have more than 26 units. The min size accessible roll-in shower is 30x60 and their concern in 30 is too narrow. They are requesting we change this to 36”x60”. Russ Hovland Chief Building Official City of Fort Collins 970-416-2341 rhovland@fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 970.416.2740 fcgov.com ITEM 3, EXHIBIT 1 Agenda Item 4 Item 4, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 25, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Kirk Longstein, Energy Services Project Manager SUBJECT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ENERGY SCORING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this staff report is to present the Building Energy Scoring (BES) ordinance being considered by City Council, November 20. The discussion will focus on definitions of building energy scoring, benchmarking, reporting and transparency, and the year-long process of community engagement. In the long-term, a critical mass of commercial Building Energy Scores will give the community the ability to select the lowest operating cost option before renting our buying a building. An essential element of the recommendations is an emphasis on the free flow of information in order to facilitate more informed choice in the marketplace. BES is a foundational element which will encourage the voluntary improvement of efficiency through improved operations and investment over time. Comparing the energy performance of one building against another allows commercial real estate stakeholders, such as building owners, investors, brokers and tenants, to evaluate the highest-performing, lowest-operating cost option, and monitor their performance in the market place. REQUESTED BOARD ACTION Staff is seeking to inform the Building Review Board of the initiative and seeks a vote of support. ATTACHMENTS 1. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager DataTrends 2. Staff Presentation Benchmarking and Energy Savings Do buildings that consistently benchmark energy performance save energy? The answer is yes, based on the large number of buildings using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager to track and manage energy use. Over 35,000 buildings entered complete energy data in Portfolio Manager and received ENERGY STAR scores for 2008 through 2011, which represents three years of change from a 2008 baseline. These buildings realized savings every year, as measured by average weather-normalized energy use intensity and the ENERGY STAR score, which accounts for business activity. Their average annual savings is 2.4%, with a total savings of 7.0% and score increase of 6 points over the period of analysis. Buildings that start with lower ENERGY STAR scores and higher energy use achieve the greatest savings. In fact, buildings starting with below average energy efficiency in 2008 (i.e., score under 50) saved twice as much energy as those starting above average. What is Source Energy? Source energy is the amount of raw fuel required to operate your building. In addition to what you use on -site, source energy includes losses from generation, transmission, and distribution of the energy. Source energy enables the most complete and equitable energy assessment. Learn more at: www.energystar.gov/ SourceEnergy Which buildings experienced the greatest savings? What is the ENERGY STAR score? The ENERGY STAR score is a 1-to-100 assessment of a building’s energy efficiency, as compared with similar buildings nation- wide. The score adjusts for climate and business activity. Learn more: www.energystar.gov/benchmark. DataTrends 267 258 252 248 2008 Baseline 2009 2010 2011 Energy Use Average Weather Normalized Soruce EUI (kBtu/ft2) Energy Savings in Portfolio Manager 7% Savings 58 61 63 64 2008 Baseline 2009 2010 2011 ENERGY STAR Score Average 1-100 Score 7% average energy savings and 6 point ENERGY STAR score increase Over 70% of the buildings (25,926) reduced their energy consumption, as shown in blue below. Close to 90% of these experienced average annual reductions in the range of 0 to 10%. A smaller number of buildings experienced average annual reductions greater than 10%, which may be expected with large scale energy efficiency investments. This suggests that slow and steady improvements over time are typical of buildings that consistently track and benchmark energy consumption. Energy savings were experienced by all building types. Among those with above average savings are Retail, Office, and K-12 School, the sectors with the most buildings benchmarking in Portfolio Manager. These buildings represent over 60% of the buildings benchmarking consistently from 2008-2011. How do savings levels vary among buildings? Organizations benchmarking consistently in Portfolio Manager have achieved average energy savings of 2.4% per year, and an average increase in ENERGY STAR score of 2 points per year in their buildings. If all buildings in the U.S. followed a similar trend, over 18 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents could be saved each year. Through 2020, the total savings could be approximately 25%. What is the financial value of benchmarking? The financial value of benchmarking can be expressed in terms that are meaningful to each building sector. A savings of 2.4% for three consecutive years is equivalent to the following: For a 500,000 square foot office building: Cumulative energy cost savings of $120,000 Increase in asset value of over $1 million For a medium box retailer with 500 stores: Cumulative energy cost savings of $2.5 million Increase in sales of 0.89% For a full service hotel chain with 100 properties: Cumulative energy cost savings of $4.1 million Increase in revenue per available room of $1.41 For an 800,000 square foot school district: Cumulative energy cost savings of $140,000 Salary of 1.2 full time teachers each year What are the potential energy savings over time? Note: This analysis represents buildings benchmarking consistently from 2008 through 2011. The data is self reported and has been filtered to exclude outliers, incomplete records, and test facilities. Portfolio Manager is not a randomly selected sample and is not the basis of the ENERGY STAR score. To learn more, visit: www.energystar.gov/DataTrends. October 2012 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Weather Normalized Source EUI (kBtu/ft2) Possible Savings: 25% by 2020 Average Annual Energy Change (2008-2011) in Weather Normalized Source EUI More than 10% Reduction 1 Building Energy Scoring Kirk Longstein, Project Manager What Is Building Energy Scoring (BES)? 2 1 Benchmarking 2 Reporting 3 Transparency ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 3 Nationwide Approaches BES: Benchmarking 4 Fuel Efficiency: MPG Building Energy Score: 1 to 100 1 Benchmarking ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 BES: Reporting 5 2 Reporting 6 BES: Transparency ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Benefits of BES 7 1 Benchmarking 2 Reporting 3 Transparency • Energy Savings & Lower operating costs • Identifying opportunities for investment • Market Transparency for consumers • Market differentiator Building Energy Scoring Journey 8 Multifamily Notifications & Data Collection Annual Report Due Public Display of Score 1 Benchmarking 2 Reporting 3 Transparency ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Recommended Phased Implementation 9 Multifamily Notifications  Data Collection Annual Report Due Public Display of Score 2019 2020 2021 2022 Commercial Year Recommended Phased Implementation 10 Multifamily Notifications  Data Collection Annual Report Due Public Display of Score 2019 2020 2021 2022 Commercial Year >20k ft2 annual reporting continues… ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Recommended Phased Implementation 11 Multifamily Notifications  Data Collection Annual Report Due Public Display of Score 2019 2020 2021 2022 Commercial >20k ft2 >20k ft2 Year annual reporting continues… Recommended Phased Implementation 12 Multifamily Notifications  Data Collection Annual Report Due Public Display of Score 2019 2020 2021 2022 Commercial >10k ft2 >10k ft2 Year >20k ft2 >20k ft2 annual reporting continues… ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Building Energy Scoring: Compliance 13 Non-Compliance Options • Reoccurring fine Exemptions • Industrial use types • Financial distress • Partial occupancy • New construction 1 Benchmarking 2 Reporting 3 Transparency ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 2 Agenda Item #5 Item 5, Page 1 STAFF REPORT October 25, 2018 Building Review Board STAFF Russ Hovland, Chief Building Official SUBJECT Proposed Work Plan for the Building Review Board EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The attached work plan is the estimation of the work, time, and cases the board may hear in 2019. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the Board agrees with the recommendation, the Board may pass a motion to “Recommend the board approve the proposed work plan.” ATTACHMENTS 1. 2019 Work Plan Community Development & Neighborhood Services Planning 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6111- fax 2019 Annual Work Plan Building Review Board The Building Review Board will continue to meet on the last Thursday of each month when there are public discussion or hearing items placed on the regular monthly agenda. The Board may also meet as needed in order to convene special hearings. Staff anticipates that the Building Review Board will hear several appeals by contractor license applicants who do not strictly meet the qualification criteria specified in the City Code. Under its quasi-judicial review authority, the Board is empowered to grant variances from such criteria when it determines there are practical difficulties or that an undue hardship would be imposed on the applicant; or, when the Board determines the applicant has sufficient specialized training, education, or additional relevant experience. The Board is also empowered to render disciplinary action, including suspension or revocation of regulated contractor licenses, under which any specified infractions listed in the regulations are committed. Additionally, in its code appellate function, the Board may hear appeals from strict application of the building codes or from an interpretation of the codes by the Building Official. The Board will continue to hear cases involving challenges to the Building Official’s interpretation of the adopted building codes, as well as the adopted International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). In its advisory capacity, the Board is expected to participate as a member of the Code Review Committee, in the review of the International Building Codes. The Board will be asked to make recommendations to Council regarding any suggested revisions based on local conditions and community standards. The adopted 2006 International Property Maintenance Code will be reviewed for updating in 2019 with a goal of adopting the 2018 IPMC by mid-year. This will be presented to the board for input and support. _____________________________________ ___________________________ Alan Cram, Building Review Board Chair Date of Approval 0 to 10% Reduction 0 to 10% Increase More than 10% Increase 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Percent Savings (2008-20111) Average Percent Savings, All Buildings Includes types with at least 500 buildings in the analysis data Savings by Building Type ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1 among Portfolio Manager buildings 6 point increase 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 Weather Normalized Source EUI (kBtu/ft2) Percent Savings (2008-2011) ENERGY STAR Score (2008) 2008 EUI 2009 EUI 2010 EUI 2011 EUI Percent Savings Savings Vary with ENERGY STAR Score ITEM 4, ATTACHMENT 1