HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/30/2013 - URBAN RENEWAL POLICIES RELATING TO ENERGY EFFICIENDATE: July 30, 2013
STAFF: Bruce Hendee, Josh Birks
Tom Leeson
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Urban Renewal Policies Relating to Energy Efficiency Requirements and Recycling/Reuse of
Demolition and Construction Waste Materials.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Consideration of the March 27, 2013 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board resolution to require
URA funded projects to participate in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as well as
construction/demolition waste diversion thresholds, was continued to allow for greater public
outreach and discourse with interested parties. Subsequent to the March URA Board meeting, staff
set up a working group of community members and industry professionals to provide feedback on
the proposed changes. The group supported the required participation in the Energy Star program;
however, the group recommended the punitive aspect of withholding funds if the project does not
meet the required score be removed. The working group also supported the required waste diversion
from construction and/or demolition but suggested an allowance for “As-Built Surveys” to be
submitted as evidence of non-compliance, require third-party verification, and to remove the
punitive aspect of the policy.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Is there support for moving forward with a resolution to amend the evaluation criteria for
URA funded projects to require participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as well as
construction/demolition waste diversion thresholds?
2. If there is support for the policy change, does the URA Board support the working group’s
recommendations?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On March 27, 2013 the URA Board reviewed a resolution to amend the evaluation criteria for URA
funded projects to require participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder
system to set energy targets for new buildings and major renovations. Additionally, the resolution
would have required URA funded projects to demonstrate that at least 50% of the waste materials
by weight (excluding wastes containing lead, asbestos or other hazardous material) generated by a
construction or demolition project be diverted from the landfill through waste management options,
such as reuse or recycling (Attachment 1). While there was some discussion and questions
regarding the content of the resolution, much of the discussion was about public outreach. The
Board ultimately continued the item to allow for greater public outreach and discourse with
interested parties.
July 30, 2013 Page 2
Subsequent to the March URA Board meeting, staff set up a working group of community members
and industry professionals to provide feedback on the proposed changes (Attachment 2). The group
met on three occasions and provided their perspective and some recommendations on the proposed
policy changes (Attachment 3).
In addition to the public outreach, the continuation allowed staff to evaluate existing City buildings,
as well as a previous URA project with regards to the Energy Star rating (See Attachments 4 and
5 for the Energy Star Ratings).
Energy Efficiency Requirements
The URA working group’s discussion about the EPA’s Energy Star program as it relates to URA
projects predominately centered on three main topics: the potential increase in costs associated with
the program, the difficulty in monitoring projects that property owners don’t fully control; and, the
uncertainty of receiving TIF reimbursement a year after project completion.
In terms of additional costs, it was demonstrated that buildings designed to meet the Energy Star
rating typically do not cost more. This is because the Energy Star scoring systems compares
proposed buildings to a national survey of buildings conducted in 2003. Most buildings are required
to meet energy codes newer than 2003, so in most cases proposed buildings compare favorably. As
a result, experience shows that meeting Energy Star does not increase construction costs. The power
in the program is getting designers and developers to consider energy use during the design phase
so adjustments can be made, as well as the 12-month monitoring period, which provides important
feedback about the building operation and user behavior.
The second and third topic discussions, while distinct, were related as they both dealt with the
requirement to monitor energy use for a year after completion in order to meet the Energy Star
designation. The proposed policy requires that, in addition to designing a building to meet the
Energy Star label, the energy use shall be monitored for 12 consecutive months after completion to
demonstrate the operating building earns an EPA rating of 75 or higher. The concern was two-fold:
in cases where property owners/developers lease tenant spaces, they don’t always have control over
energy use, so the prospect of having funding withheld at the end of 12-months was a significant
concern; and secondly, the potential of having funding withheld if the building does not meet the
Energy Star rating significantly complicates project financing and makes a relatively uncertain
process even more uncertain.
After much discussion, the group supported the Energy Star program, as well as the requirement to
monitor buildings for 12-consecutive months; however, the group recommended that the punitive
aspect of withholding funds if the project does not meet the required score be removed. In general,
the group felt the policy would be better received and more successful if it was not complicated by
the added uncertainty of withholding funds. However, the energy efficiency requirement would be
included within the project’s redevelopment agreement and the URA could enforce compliance
without withholding funds.
July 30, 2013 Page 3
Deconstruction/Construction Waste Recycling Requirements
The URA working group’s discussion about the deconstruction/construction waste recycling
requirements as it relates to URA projects predominately centered on three main topics: the one-size
fits all nature of the policy; the difficulty with monitoring compliance; and the punitive aspect of
the policy. With regards to the one-size fits all aspect of the policy, there was concern raised that
certain projects may or may not be able to meet the 50% threshold due to construction type or other
characteristics, but the policy, as written, does not allow for any deviation regardless of
circumstance. It was suggested the policy include a provision that allows an “As-Built Survey” to
be submitted if a property owner feels the diversion threshold could not reached; however, the
project would need to meet whatever the survey indicated was feasible. An “As-Built” survey
would estimate the amount of different materials within a building and estimate the amount of the
materials that could be recycled. An “As-Built Survey” could be conducted by any competent
architect, engineer, or construction manager, or by such organizations as the Institute for the Built
Environment, National Center for Craftsmanship, or the non-profit Waste-Not. Anyone conducting
an “As-built Survey” would need to be pre-approved by the City/URA and have no connection with
the proposed project.
With regards to monitoring compliance, the group discussed the difficulty of actually verifying
diversion rates. The numbers associated with construction waste loads can easily be manipulated,
and diversion by weight needs to be verified by a third-party. Without third-party verification, the
program may not actually achieve the goals intended. While the mechanics would still need to be
figured out, if third-party verification is required, the developer/property owner would be required
to contract with a URA approved “vendor” who would then provide verification to the URA.
Finally, similar to the Energy Star program, the group had concerns with the punitive nature of the
recycling policy. The potential of having funding withheld if the project does not meet the diversion
threshold complicates project financing and makes a relatively uncertain process even more
uncertain. The group recommended any punitive aspect of the policy be removed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. March 27, 2013 URA Board Meeting Minutes
2. URA Working Group Member List
3. URA Working Group Meeting Notes
4. City Buildings – Energy Star Rating
5. Valley Steel Energy Star Rating
6. Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation
7. Air Quality Advisory Board Recommendation
8. Powerpoint presentation
March 27, 2013
Resolution No. 053
Adopting Revised Policies and Procedures for the
Urban Renewal Authority, Postponed Indefinitely
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As a follow up to the February 28, 2013 URA Board work session, this Resolution amends the
adopted 2012 URA Policies and Procedures. As an alternative to required participation in IDAP,
the amended Policies require participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder
system to set energy targets for new buildings and major renovations. Additionally, in an effort to
meet the City of Fort Collins established goal of diverting 50% of the community waste from
landfills, the amended Policies also requires URA funded projects to demonstrate that at least 50%
of the waste materials by weight (excluding waste containing lead, asbestos or other hazardous
material) generated by a construction or demolition project be diverted from the landfill through
waste management options, such as reuse or recycling. The Resolution also delegates the authority
to approve Administrative Procedures with the Executive Director, and includes some minor
language changes for clarification purposes.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Energy Efficiency Requirements
During the October 23, 2012 URA Board meeting, it was recommended that URA projects be
required to participate in the Fort Collins Utilities Integrated Design Assistance Program (IDAP)
as an alternative to requiring buildings to meet a LEED certification. Since that time, City Utilities
has moved forward to redesign IDAP as a performance-based program in alignment with the
Architecture 2030 Challenge, a program with a path to carbon neutral buildings by 2030. The new
IDAP will require a significant commitment from property owners in terms of monitoring and
program compliance and would be very difficult to achieve without willing property owners that are
dedicated to the outcome.
As an alternative to required participation in IDAP, it is recommended the Board consider requiring
participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder system to set energy targets
for new buildings and major renovations (more than 50% of square footage affected). The Target
Finder is an online tool that enables architects and building owners to set energy targets and
receive an EPA energy performance score for projects during the design process (See Attachment
3 for program details). The program utilizes energy use targets based on actual building energy
consumption data for more than a dozen building types. EPA’s Energy Star energy performance
scale assigns a score between 1 and 100 for the corresponding energy use intensity for the specified
project. Projects that earn a score of 75 or higher are eligible for Designed to Earn the Energy Star
certification. A score of 75 means the building performs 35 percent better than typical, comparable
buildings and represents the top 25 percent of existing buildings. The Target Finder is a
comprehensive look at a building’s potential energy use as it takes into account building size,
climate, operating hours, number of occupants, computer use, and occupant behavior.
199
URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MINUTES
ATTACHMENT 1
March 27, 2013
As a policy decision, the Board could choose to require URA projects that include new buildings,
or major renovations to meet the Designed to Earn the Energy Star certification. While this
requirement would be a major step in bringing energy use and efficiency to the forefront during the
design phase, this level of participation does not require that new buildings actually perform at the
designed target levels. The Board could choose to require that new buildings achieve the Energy
Star label. Closing the loop between the design's intended energy use and the building's actual
performance requires the commitment of the owner to earn the Energy Star label after the project
is built and operating. An operating building that earns an EPA rating of 75 or higher for 12
consecutive months of energy bills and receives verification by a professional engineer or registered
architect that the building meets indoor environmental standards qualifies to earn the Energy Star
label. This step solidifies that the design intent has been translated into the building's actual
performance. The following flow chart demonstrates the necessary process to obtain Design to Earn
Energy Star versus obtaining and Energy Star label.
Source: EnergyStar.gov
It is recommended that URA projects that do not include new construction or major renovations
(more than 50% of square footage affected) meet the current energy code, except for the building
envelope requirements, which could be cost prohibitive. It is also recommended that energy use be
monitored through the Energy Star program but not require any target energy performance level.
The current code requires energy assessments prior to building alterations with valuations of
$30,000 or greater, and requiring energy performance to be monitored will go a long way in
bringing awareness of energy use and efficiencies to building owners.
It should be noted that requiring new buildings and major renovations to achieve an Energy Star
label will add cost to the design phase of a project. The design phase is considered a soft cost and
represents a small percentage of overall project costs. Given the requirements in current building
codes, meeting Energy Star label should not add any additional costs to overall hard costs. The
advantage of the program is that it is focused on ensuring building systems are designed correctly
and appropriately for the intended users, that system commissioning is carried out (currently a code
requirement) and that monitoring take place over an extended period of time.
Based on the discussion above, staff is recommending the following URA Policy:
All URA projects that include new construction or major renovations of existing
buildings (more than 50% of square footage affected) shall be required to meet the
Energy Star label. Such projects shall be required to design buildings in such a
manner as to be eligible for Designed to Earn the Energy Star (DEES) certification.
Once buildings are completed, the energy use shall be monitored for 12 consecutive
months to demonstrate the operating building earns an EPA rating of 75 or higher
200
March 27, 2013
in Portfolio Manager and verification shall be received by a professional engineer
or registered architect that the building meets indoor environmental standards and
qualifies to earn the Energy Star label.
Additionally, all URA projects that include renovations that affect less than 50% of
existing square footage shall be required to meet the current energy code, except for
the building envelope requirements, and energy use shall be monitored through the
Energy Star program for 12-consecutive months in an effort to raise energy use
awareness.
Deconstruction/Construction Waste Recycling Requirements
With the adoption of the green building amendments, all new construction is required to submit a
construction waste recycling plan with the intent of diverting construction waste from the landfill.
The program focuses on the materials in which the City has capacity to receive, which includes
wood, metal, concrete, and cardboard. The current program does not apply to alterations.
The requirement for a construction waste recycling plan addresses the waste material generated
during the construction process, but does not address materials associated with the demolition of
existing structures. As articulated in both City Plan and the Fort Collins Climate Action Plan, the
City of Fort Collins established a goal to divert 50% of the community waste from landfills. As
redevelopment occurs through the City of Fort Collins, a significant amount of material from
demolished structures can be diverted from the landfills by ensuring structures are deconstructed,
as opposed to demolished.
Deconstruction is the process of systematically dismantling a structure in an environmentally,
economically and socially responsible manner, aiming to maximize the recovery of materials for
reuse and recycling. Deconstruction is commonly separated into two categories; "non-structural"
and "structural". Non-structural deconstruction, also known as “soft-stripping”, consists of
reclaiming non-structural components including appliances, doors, windows, and finish or trim
materials. Structural deconstruction involves dismantling the structural components of a building;
removing the entire building down to or including the foundation.
Deconstruction, as a process, is more time consuming than standard demolition, and is generally
more expensive. However, many of the additional costs associated with deconstruction can be
reduced when taking into account reduced disposal costs, avoided purchases of new materials (if
materials are re-used on site), revenue earned from material sales and potential tax incentives. Tax
benefits can be obtained when materials are donated to a 501(c)(3), such as ReSource Fort Collins.
Therefore, staff is recommending that all URA funded projects demonstrate that at least 50% of the
waste materials by weight (excluding waste containing lead, asbestos or other hazardous material)
generated by a construction or demolition project be diverted from the landfill through waste
management options, such as reuse or recycling.
Approval Process of Administrative Procedures
The URA Administrative Procedures, which were most recently revised in October, 2012, have
historically been approved by a URA Board Resolution. The Administrative Procedures were
201
March 27, 2013
adopted as part of the Policies and Procedures, yet they serve a very different purpose. The
Administrative Procedures are intended to provide both minimum procedural requirements for URA
applicants and an operating framework for staff to implement the Policy and Procedures established
by the URA Board.
In an effort to allow staff the ability and flexibility to respond quickly to issues that arise when
implementing the URA Policies, it is recommended that the Board delegate the authority to approve
Administrative Procedures to the Executive Director. Any revisions to the Administrative
Procedures will be presented to the URA Board.
October 2012 URA Board Recommended Amendments
During the October 23, 2012 URA Board meeting in which the Policy and Procedures were adopted,
the Board requested staff to look at several sections and recommend possible language changes. The
amendments, which are included within the attached redlined version of the policies, address the
following policy sections:
Section 2- Objectives
• Presence of Floodplain language
Section 4 – Evaluation Criteria
• Financial Feasibility of Projects language
Section 4 – Public Benefit
• Affordable Housing as Public Benefit language.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The requirement for participation in the Energy Star program, as well as the required
deconstruction/recycling of waste material may result in some additional costs to URA projects.
While the additional costs may be eligible for reimbursement by tax increment financing, the
additional costs could impact the financial feasibility of certain projects. Tax increment financing
represents gap financing, meaning financing that covers the gap between a financially feasible
project and non-financially feasible project. When Code requirements add costs to a project, in
essence the gap becomes larger. This becomes a policy decision related to trade-offs for URA
financing. As more of the tax increment is necessary to offset costs associated with Code
requirements, less of the increment will be available for other improvements, such as required
public infrastructure, that also contribute to the gap.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Ultimately, the benefit will be positive to the environment as each project will increase the level of
quality and sustainability of all publicly funded URA projects. Benefits will include reduced energy
use, increased diversion from the landfill and subsequently a lower carbon impact.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
202
March 27, 2013
Given the relatively short period of time between the February work session and the Resolution
adoption date, there has been less public outreach than is typical of similar policy changes. The
following outreach effort shave been made:
• URA Board Worksession - February 28 (Attachment 4)
• Presentation to the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs
Committee – March 22
• Presentation to the Air Quality Advisory Board - March 18
• Agenda Item Summary provided to the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Energy
Board
• Copies of proposed amendments sent to the North Fort Collins Business Association and the
South Fort Collins Business Association. “
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, introduced the item as the next step in the development
of URA policies and procedures.
Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager, stated staff has arrived at the green building
recommendation for URA projects to fall under the guidelines of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Energy Star program, and its associated target finder system. He detailed the requirements
for the program. Leeson stated the second aspect of the Resolution looks at deconstruction and
recycling requirements for URA projects and establishes a threshold for landfill diversion.
Hendee reviewed the positive components of the Energy Star program and stated there are some
boards and commissions which have not yet been able to give a recommendation on this item.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, commended the environmental accountability found in the plan and
requested the maximum public benefit from URA projects. He questioned the urgency of the need
for this change.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, questioned the urgency of the need for this change and
suggested a more thorough public outreach process be completed prior to adoption of new policies.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported the changes to the policies and went on to discuss
his perceived problems with the URA and its existing policies and procedures.
Luke McFetridge, South Fort Collins Business Association President, encouraged additional public
outreach be completed prior to adoption of new policies.
Ron Lautzenheiser, North and South Fort Collins Business Association, suggested adoption of new
policies should be slowed down and further vetted.
Chair Weitkunat asked if deconstruction is impossible on some buildings. Leeson replied some
buildings may have too many hazardous materials to achieve an effective deconstruction; however,
deconstruction is generally an option.
Boardmember Troxell asked if these items would apply to entire projects, despite the fact that the
TIF funding may be going to infrastructure such as streets. Leeson replied the policies are currently
written to apply to entire projects.
203
March 27, 2013
Boardmember Troxell asked if these requirements would be a part of the scorecard for projects.
Leeson replied it would technically be, as it would be included within the evaluation criteria.
Boardmember Troxell suggested additional feedback should be sought, though he commended the
track the policies are on.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if exceptions were considered, particularly in cases where the TIF funding
is going to public improvements rather than the project per se. Leeson replied there has not been
discussion about that; however, that is certainly up for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ohlson noted new construction projects would only be subject to the energy component.
Leeson replied the recycling policies also apply to construction waste in addition to demolition.
Boardmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Boardmember Kottwitz, to continue the item
to a later date pending additional public outreach and testing against existing projects.
Vice-Chair Ohlson disagreed that this has been a rushed process and stated the policies have been
considerably weakened. He opposed the City’s overall view of public outreach in terms of outreach
to business interests versus outreach to environmental interests. He stated the process should be
more consistent.
City Manager Atteberry stated he believed the public outreach process included many differing
viewpoints; however, he noted he is committed to work further on the process with the new Council.
Boardmember Manvel noted the mission of the URA involves sustainable development, and this is
a small step toward that end. He stated the issue deserves a vote rather than postponement.
Boardmember Poppaw stated she would not support the motion to postpone.
Boardmember Kottwitz supported postponement of the item and stated the URA has worked hard
at improving outreach. She expressed appreciation for staff work on the item.
Boardmember Horak stated public outreach has been inconsistent as it is not a documented,
systematic process; however, staff is working on development of such a process. He stated he would
support the motion to postpone the item, but hoped it would ultimately pass with the new Council.
Chair Weitkunat stated it is important to get the policies and direction of the URA right moving
forward.
Boardmember Horak asked about the date for taking up the issue again. City Manager replied staff
has considered May 21 as a possible date.
The vote on the motion to postpone consideration was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson, Poppaw, and Manvel.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
204
URA Policy Working Group Members
Name Organization Phone Email
Luke McFetridge South FC Business Association
Jim Eddy North FC Business Association
Ann Hutchinson FC Area Chamber
Anita Comer Waste Not Recycling
Dave Derbes Brinkman Partners
Cara Blake Fort Collins Sustainability
Group
Neil Kaufman National Center for
Craftsmanship
Matt Arabasz RB+B Architects
City of Fort Collins Staff
Tom Leeson Redevelopment Manager 970.416.2231 tleeson@fcgov.com
Bruce Hendee Chief Sustainability Officer 970-416-2332 bhendee@fcgov.com
Mike Gerbo Chief Building Official 970-416-2618 mgebo@fcgov.com
Gary Schroeder Sr. Energy Services Engineer 970-221-6395 gschroeder@fcgov.com
Stu Reeve Building Energy Manager 970-221-6274 sreeve@fcgov.com
ATTACHMENT 2
URA Policies Working Group
Commons Conference Rm., City Hall
April 17, 2013
12:00-1:30 PM
Meeting Notes:
Energy Star Discussion:
• The building community has been able to quantify the impact of the green building code
amendments at roughly $5/sf. The impact of Energy Star is unknown – need to try to
determine the impact.
• Need to try to benchmark existing buildings to determine how they would meet E-Star.
This can be done relatively easy for City owned buildings – will look at trying to see how
projects that have been approved through the URA previously would score.
• New buildings probably meet E-Star easily because of the new code requirements;
however, small renovations might be more difficult. Should the policy differentiate
between new and renovations so the smaller projects are not overly burdened?
• Need to recognize that there’s a difference between ownership and tenants in terms of
monitoring. An owner with numerous tenants has less control over how a
building/tenant space is utilized in terms of energy use.
• There’s a difference in product type as well. Multi-family products operate very
differently than retail. E-Star compares like products/building types, so product type has
less impact on rating/score than one would think.
• E-Star does not add too much cost. The power of the program is that it forces
owners/designers to consider energy use early in the design stage. It is a relatively
simple process (a couple hours) to input the information in the online program to
generate the score.
• The monitoring portion of the program is really the most important part. Having that
data is very valuable in terms of being able to determine any disconnect between the
design and the operation of a building.
• Having to wait a whole year to monitor a building adds a significant amount of
uncertainty to an already uncertain process. Perhaps the punitive nature of the policy
could be scaled back.
Deconstruction/Recycling Discussion
• Diversion rate of 50% can easily be achieved, but the question is - are we achieving what
we want with the policy.
• Metal and concrete are already being recycled
• Perhaps we should remove metal and concrete first and then have a recycling/reuse
threshold.
• Significant savings can be had with the tax credits, however, tax laws can be changed.
• More detail is needed with this policy. 50% seems to be arbitrary.
ATTACHMENT 3
Action Items
• Look at feasibility of benchmarking existing buildings
• Review policy to determine if differentiating smaller renovations is feasible
• Research E-Star program with regards to different product types
• Look at alternative to punitive measures if project does not meet E-Star rating
URA Policies Working Group
Commons Conference Rm., City Hall
April 30, 2013
12:00-1:30 PM
Meeting Notes:
Deconstruction/Recycling Discussion
• In order for program to be successful there is a strong need for third party reporting
• Tax incentives alone are enough to offset additional costs. Neil Kaufman indicated he
would gather data to demonstrate.*
• Concern about the one-size fits all approach. Due to time constraints and full
deconstruction process may not be feasible – may need to go through hybrid process
that is more waste diversion through recycling/reuse
• Different building types and use drive variables in cost and time – any policy needs to
take into account different processes for different building types/uses
• Certain materials are going to be recycled anyway (i.e., concrete, steel copper, etc.) –
these should not be considered waste.
• What happens if a project doesn’t meet the 50% threshold – are we going to withhold
funds? Punitive aspect is concerning.
• Do we, as a community, even know if we are diverting 50% of the waste we are
generating? Do we have this data?
• Monitoring diversion rates is problematic as it is very difficult to actually verify
compliance. Third-party monitoring would be very important.
• National Center for Craftsmanship and Waste Not would rather see an incentive based
program because it is easier to work with clients when they choose to go through the
process
• Could require 50% (by weight) diversion but include an exception clause that states that
if an “As-Built Quantity Survey” demonstrates 50% would not achievable.
• Neil Kaufman agreed to provide the group with an estimate of as-built quantity survey.*
• It is important to provide the development community the impacts of such policies.
*Additional information pending.
URA Policies Working Group
Commons Conference Rm., City Hall
May 10, 2013
12:00-1:30 PM
Meeting Notes:
Deconstruction/Recycling Discussion
• Discussion centered on the need to know the net impacts of required deconstruction.
The group was reminded that the current policy proposal was for a required
recycling/reuse threshold and not deconstruction.
• Neil Kaufman reviewed a handout demonstrating the potential return on investment for
deconstruction projects following the National Center for Craftsmanship model. He
emphasized the numbers are shown as an example and are not intended to show that it
works all the time.
• The group inquired as to the cost of quantity surveys to determine feasibility of
recycling/reuse of building materials. A full-blown quantity survey could cost several
thousand dollars; however, a full blown survey would not be required to determine
feasibility. The cost would be significantly less although exact amount is unknown.
• A comment was made that not all URAs are created equally in terms of time and money
available. North College URA only has 16 years left, so has less money available. The
more money required of a project due to policies/regulations, the less money that is
available for public infrastructure and other needed improvements.
• There was discussion regarding allowing any additional costs associated with
recycling/deconstruction to be considered a cost that is eligible for reimbursement by
the URA. It was emphasized that we should not set the bar too low in terms of recycling
requirements and end up paying a premium (reimbursement).
Energy Star Discussion
• There was discussion about additional costs associated with implementing the Energy
Star requirements. It was explained that the Energy Star scoring systems compares a
proposed building to a national survey of buildings conducted in 2003. Most buildings
are required to meet energy codes newer than 2003, so in most cases proposed
buildings compare favorably. As a result, experience shows that meeting Energy Star
does not increase construction costs.
• The group was reminded that the monitoring aspect of the proposal is problematic
because developers/property owners are not always in control of tenant spaces and
therefore cannot control energy use. It would be difficult to punish a property
owner/developer for circumstances they can’t control.
• The group discussed the positive benefits or meeting energy efficiency requirements,
but struggled with the punitive nature of the proposal. Could support the proposal if
there was no punitive aspect to the policy.
Energy Star Ratings for City Owned Facilities
My Portfolio: Stu Reeve
April 19, 2013 ‐ 05:51:51 PM
Total Buildings: 21
Current Rating
(1‐100)
117 N Mason 48 15,500 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/25/2012
215 NM 90 72,000 9/30/2012
Not Eligible: Less than one year since the
period ending date of the last ENERGY STAR
application. Eligible again on 09/30/2013 11/16/2012
281 NC 95 37,603 10/31/2012
Not Eligible: Less than one year since the
period ending date of the last ENERGY STAR
application. Eligible again on 10/31/2013 11/30/2012
City Hall 2 31,553 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/25/2012
City Park Pool/Bathhouse N/A 0 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
EPIC N/A 97,900 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Fleet Services N/A 23,200 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Lincoln Center N/A 74,143 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Loomis Warehouse 60 20,244 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/25/2012
Mulberry Pool N/A 0 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Museum N/A 12,853 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Museum of Discovery 71 46,928 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 11/5/2012
North Transit Center 27 6,013 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
North‐Side Aztlan Center N/A 49,800 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Operation Services 88 26,564 9/30/2012
Not Eligible: Less than one year since the
period ending date of the last ENERGY STAR
application. Eligible again on 09/30/2013 11/27/2012
Facility Name Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) Current Energy Period Ending Date Eligibility for the ENERGY STAR Last Modified
ATTACHMENT 4
Current Rating
(1‐100)
Facility Name Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) Current Energy Period Ending Date Eligibility for the ENERGY STAR Last Modified
Police Services 57 98,800 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/25/2012
Ricker Brothers Warehouse 38 14,160 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Senior Center N/A 41,220 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Streets/Maintenance Facility N/A 51,314 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 10/30/2012
Traffic Ops 19 9,500 8/31/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 11/5/2012
Transfort N/A 50,445 9/30/2012 Not Eligible: Rating must be 75 or above 11/5/2012
Group Total 779,740
OMB No. 2060-0347
STATEMENT OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Valley Steel
Building ID: 3551491
For 12-month Period Ending: December 31, 20121
Date SEP becomes ineligible: N/A Date SEP Generated: May 09, 2013
Facility
Valley Steel
208 Hickory St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Facility Owner
N/A
Primary Contact for this Facility
N/A
Year Built: 2007
Gross Floor Area (ft2): 19,000
Energy Performance Rating2 (1-100) 79
Site Energy Use Summary3
Electricity - Grid Purchase(kBtu) 120,785
Natural Gas (kBtu)4 404,000
Total Energy (kBtu) 524,785
Energy Intensity4
Site (kBtu/ft2/yr) 28
Source (kBtu/ft2/yr) 43
Emissions (based on site energy use)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MtCO2e/year) 52
Electric Distribution Utility
Fort Collins Utilities
National Median Comparison
National Median Site EUI 46
National Median Source EUI 73
% Difference from National Median Source EUI -40%
Building Type Warehouse
(Unrefrigerated)
Stamp of Certifying Professional
Based on the conditions observed at the
time of my visit to this building, I certify that
the information contained within this
statement is accurate.
Meets Industry Standards5 for Indoor Environmental
Conditions:
Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality N/A
Acceptable Thermal Environmental Conditions N/A
Adequate Illumination N/A
Certifying Professional
N/A
Notes:
1. Application for the ENERGY STAR must be submitted to EPA within 4 months of the Period Ending date. Award of the ENERGY STAR is not final until approval is received from EPA.
2. The EPA Energy Performance Rating is based on total source energy. A rating of 75 is the minimum to be eligible for the ENERGY STAR.
3. Values represent energy consumption, annualized to a 12-month period.
4. Values represent energy intensity, annualized to a 12-month period.
5. Based on Meeting ASHRAE Standard 62 for ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality, ASHRAE Standard 55 for thermal comfort, and IESNA Lighting Handbook for lighting quality.
The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 6 hours (includes the time for entering energy data, Licensed Professional facility inspection, and notarizing
the SEP) and
welcomes suggestions for reducing this level of effort. Send comments (referencing OMB control number) to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S., EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
EPA Form 5900-197
ATTACHMENT 5
ENERGY STAR® Data Checklist
for Commercial Buildings
In order for a building to qualify for the ENERGY STAR, a Professional Engineer (PE) or a Registered Architect (RA) must validate the accuracy of the data underlying
the building's energy performance rating. This checklist is designed to provide an at-a-glance summary of a property's physical and operating characteristics, as well as
its total energy consumption, to assist the PE or RA in double-checking the information that the building owner or operator has entered into Portfolio Manager.
Please complete and sign this checklist and include it with the stamped, signed Statement of Energy Performance.
NOTE: You must check each box to indicate that each value is correct, OR include a note.
CRITERION VALUE AS ENTERED IN
PORTFOLIO MANAGER VERIFICATION QUESTIONS NOTES
Building Name Valley Steel
Is this the official building name to be displayed in
the ENERGY STAR Registry of Labeled
Buildings?
Type Warehouse (Unrefrigerated)
Is this an accurate description of the space in
question?
Location
208 Hickory St., Fort Collins,
CO 80521
Is this address accurate and complete? Correct
weather normalization requires an accurate zip
code.
Single Structure Single Facility
Does this SEP represent a single structure? SEPs
cannot be submitted for multiple-building
campuses (with the exception of a hospital, k-12
school, hotel and senior care facility) nor can they
be submitted as representing only a portion of a
building.
208 Hickory Warehouse (Warehouse (Unrefrigerated))
CRITERION VALUE AS ENTERED IN
PORTFOLIO MANAGER VERIFICATION QUESTIONS NOTES
Gross Floor Area 19,000 Sq. Ft.
Is this the total gross floor area as measured
between the principal exterior surfaces of the
enclosing fixed walls and including all supporting
functions? The total gross floor area should
include offices, lobbies, rest rooms, equipment
storage areas, mechanical rooms, employee break
rooms, cafeterias, elevators, stairwells, all space
occupied by refrigeration/freezer units, and all
areas that are entirely refrigerated. Existing
atriums or areas with high ceilings should only
include the base floor area that they occupy. The
total gross floor area should not include outside
loading bays or docks.
Workers on Main
Shift 4
Does this number represent the average number
of workers that are present during the primary shift
(that is, the shift with the most workers)? Note: this
is not the total number of staff employed at the
property. For example, if there are three daily 8
hour shifts of 100 workers each, the Workers on
Main Shift value is 100.
Weekly operating
hours 54 Hours
Is this the total number of hours per week that this
warehouse space is in operation, excluding hours
when the facility is occupied by maintenance,
ENERGY STAR® Data Checklist
for Commercial Buildings
Energy Consumption
Power Generation Plant or Distribution Utility: Fort Collins Utilities
Fuel Type: Electricity
Meter: Electric Meter (kWh (thousand Watt-hours))
Space(s): 208 Hickory Warehouse
Generation Method: Grid Purchase
Start Date End Date Energy Use (kWh (thousand Watt-hours))
12/01/2012 12/31/2012 2,720.00
11/01/2012 11/30/2012 4,360.00
10/01/2012 10/31/2012 4,240.00
09/01/2012 09/30/2012 1,440.00
08/01/2012 08/31/2012 1,640.00
07/01/2012 07/31/2012 1,440.00
06/01/2012 06/30/2012 1,800.00
05/01/2012 05/31/2012 1,360.00
04/01/2012 04/30/2012 2,680.00
03/01/2012 03/31/2012 4,560.00
02/01/2012 02/29/2012 4,880.00
01/01/2012 01/31/2012 4,280.00
Electric Meter Consumption (kWh (thousand Watt-hours)) 35,400.00
Electric Meter Consumption (kBtu (thousand Btu)) 120,784.80
Total Electricity (Grid Purchase) Consumption (kBtu (thousand Btu)) 120,784.80
Is this the total Electricity (Grid Purchase) consumption at this building including all
Electricity meters?
Fuel Type: Natural Gas
Meter: Gas Meter - Xcel (therms)
Space(s): 208 Hickory Warehouse
Start Date End Date Energy Use (therms)
12/01/2012 12/31/2012 1,087.00
11/01/2012 11/30/2012 537.00
10/01/2012 10/31/2012 17.00
09/01/2012 09/30/2012 0.00
08/01/2012 08/31/2012 0.00
07/01/2012 07/31/2012 0.00
06/01/2012 06/30/2012 0.00
05/01/2012 05/31/2012 0.00
04/01/2012 04/30/2012 39.00
03/01/2012 03/31/2012 351.00
Page 2 of 3
02/01/2012 02/29/2012 1,061.00
01/01/2012 01/31/2012 948.00
Gas Meter - Xcel Consumption (therms) 4,040.00
Gas Meter - Xcel Consumption (kBtu (thousand Btu)) 404,000.00
Total Natural Gas Consumption (kBtu (thousand Btu)) 404,000.00
Is this the total Natural Gas consumption at this building including all Natural Gas meters?
Additional Fuels
Do the fuel consumption totals shown above represent the total energy use of this building?
Please confirm there are no additional fuels (district energy, generator fuel oil) used in this facility.
On-Site Solar and Wind Energy
Do the fuel consumption totals shown above include all on-site solar and/or wind power located at
your facility? Please confirm that no on-site solar or wind installations have been omitted from this
list. All on-site systems must be reported.
Certifying Professional
(When applying for the ENERGY STAR, the Certifying Professional must be the same PE or RA that signed and stamped the SEP.)
Name: _____________________________________________ Date: _____________
Signature: ______________________________________
Signature is required when applying for the ENERGY STAR.
Page 3 of 3
FOR YOUR RECORDS ONLY. DO NOT SUBMIT TO EPA.
Please keep this Facility Summary for your own records; do not submit it to EPA. Only the Statement of Energy Performance
(SEP), Data Checklist and Letter of Agreement need to be submitted to EPA when applying for the ENERGY STAR.
Facility
Valley Steel
208 Hickory St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Facility Owner
N/A
Primary Contact for this Facility
N/A
General Information
Valley Steel
Gross Floor Area Excluding Parking: (ft2) 19,000
Year Built 2007
For 12-month Evaluation Period Ending Date: December 31, 2012
Facility Space Use Summary
208 Hickory Warehouse
Space Type
Warehouse
(Unrefrigerated)
Gross Floor Area (ft2) 19,000
Workers on Main Shift 4
Weekly operating hours 54
Percent Cooled 0
Percent Heated 100
Number of walk-in
refrigeration/freezer units 0
Distribution Center o N
Energy Performance Comparison
Evaluation Periods Comparisons
Performance Metrics Current
(Ending Date 12/31/2012)
Baseline
(Ending Date 12/31/2012) Rating of 75 Target National Median
Energy Performance Rating 79 79 75 N/A 50
Energy Intensity
Site (kBtu/ft2) 28 28 31 N/A 46
Source (kBtu/ft2) 44 44 48 N/A 73
Energy Cost
$/year N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
$/ft2/year N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MtCO2e/year 52 52 58 N/A 87
kgCO2e/ft2/year 3 3 3 N/A 5
More than 50% of your building is defined as Warehouse (Unrefrigerated). Please note that your rating accounts for all of the spaces listed. The National Median
column presents energy performance data your building would have if your building had a median rating of 50.
Notes:
o - This attribute is optional.
d - A default value has been supplied by Portfolio Manager.
2012
Valley Steel
208 Hickory St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Portfolio Manager Building ID: 3551491
The energy use of this building has been measured and compared to other similar buildings using the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Energy Performance Scale of 1–100, with 1 being the least energy
efficient and 100 the most energy efficient. For more information, visit energystar.gov/benchmark.
This building’s
score
79
100
Most Efficient
This building uses 43 kBtu per square foot per year.*
*Based on source energy intensity for the 12 month period ending December 2012
Date of certification
Date Generated: 05/09/2013
Statement of
Energy Performance
1
Least Efficient
50
Median
Buildings with a score of
75 or higher may qualify
for EPA’s ENERGY STAR.
I certify that the information contained within this statement is accurate and in accordance with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s measurement standards, found at energystar.gov
1
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: May 15, 2013
TO: Urban Redevelopment Authority Board
FROM: Joseph Piesman on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT: URA Project Requirements
In May the NRAB received information from staff concerning the proposed requirements for URA
funded projects to meet EPA Energy Star standards and to meet deconstruction/recycling goals. The
NRAB is supportive of these requirements.
Motion: The NRAB supports the EPA Energy Star requirements and deconstruction/recycling
requirements as recommended by staff for URA funded projects.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-1 in favor.
Please feel free to contact me regarding this recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joe Piesman
Chair, Natural Resources Advisory Board
691-6697
j.piesman@comcast.net
cc: Darin Atteberry
Tom Leeson
Susie Gordon
ATTACHMENT 6
Environmental Services
215 North Mason
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6600
970.224.6177 Fax
fcgov.com/environmental services
The Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) submits the following recommendations to the Urban Renewal
Authority (URA) regarding the proposed resolution to modify the 2012 URA policies and procedures:
1. All projects must be monitored for 12 months to verify an Energy Star score of 75 or greater.
2. Increase the requirement for waste stream construction/demolition recycling to a minimum
of 60% and as high as feasible.
The AQAB encourages the URA to also consider the following:
3. Require active, verifiable ambient air quality mitigation during deconstruction and
construction to reduce mobile and fugitive emissions.
4. Clarify the meaning of the requirement that “…the building meets indoor environmental
standards …”. Does this include the City’s municipal code for radon?
5. Encourage participation in the City’s ClimateWise program.
The AQAB appreciates your consideration of these recommendations when drafting revisions to the
policy.
City of Fort Collins – Air Quality Advisory Board
To:
City of Fort Collins – Urban Renewal Authority
From:
Greg McMaster, Chair AQAB
Date: 3/18/2013
Re:
Recommendation to Urban Renewal Authority on Resolution Amending the 2012
URA Policies and Procedures
ATTACHMENT 7
1
1
Fort Collins URA Work Session –
Energy Efficiency Policies
July 30, 2013
2
General Direction Sought
• Is there support for moving forward with a resolution
to amend the evaluation criteria to require
participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as
well as construction/demolition waste diversion
thresholds?
• If there is support for the policy change, does the
URA Board support the working group’s
recommendations?
ATTACHMENT 8
2
3
URA Evaluation Criteria
Background:
• March 27, 2013 Board Hearing
• EPA’s Energy Star program and the Target Finder
system
• 50% diversion rate of the waste materials by
weight generated by a construction or demolition
project
• Item continued to allow for greater public outreach
4
Policy Working Group
Working group of community members and industry
professionals established
Met on three occasions and provided perspective and
some recommendations
Evaluate existing buildings/projects
3
5
Energy Efficiency Requirements
• Designed to Earn the Energy Star certification
• Energy Star label
• Close the loop between design and actual
performance
• Monitor energy use for 12 consecutive months
6
Energy Efficiency Requirements
Applicability:
New buildings and major renovations (more than
50% of square footage affected)
• Energy Star Label
Minor Renovations (Less 50% square footage
affected)
• Current Energy Code (except building envelope)
• Monitor Energy Use for 12 months
4
7
Deconstruction/Recycling
URA funded projects demonstrate that at
least 50% of the waste materials by weight
(excluding wastes containing lead, asbestos
or other hazardous material) generated by a
construction or demolition project be diverted
from the landfill through waste management
options, such as reuse or recycling.
8
Outreach Efforts
Presentation to Additional Boards
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Air Quality Advisory Board
• Chamber
• South/North Fort Collins Business
Associations
• Policy Working Group
5
9
Working Group Discussion
Energy Efficiency Requirements:
• Concerned with Increase in Costs
• Lack of Control over certain Properties
• Withholding of funds
10
Working Group Recommendation
Energy Efficiency Requirements:
• Support for requirements
• Support for 12-month monitoring
• Remove punitive aspect of policy
6
11
Working Group Discussion
Recycling/Deconstruction Requirements:
• One-size fits all Nature of Policy Problematic
• Difficulty with Monitoring
• Punitive Aspect
12
Working Group Recommendation
Recycling/Deconstruction Requirements:
• Allow “As-Built Survey” to be submitted
• Require Third-party Verification
• Remove Punitive Aspect
7
13
Direction Sought
• Is there support for moving forward with a resolution
to amend the evaluation criteria to require
participation in the EPA’s Energy Star program, as
well as construction/demolition waste diversion
thresholds?
• If there is support for the policy change, does the
URA Board support the working group’s
recommendations?
security, or other support personnel? Note: the
average warehouse space operates 60 hours per
week.
Percent Cooled 0 %
Is this the percentage of the total floor space within
the facility that is served by mechanical cooling
equipment?
Percent Heated 100 %
Is this the percentage of the total floor space within
the facility that is served by mechanical heating
equipment?
Number of walk-in
refrigeration/freezer
units
0 Does this count include all large walk-in
refrigeration or freezer units at the warehouse?
Distribution Center No(Optional) Is this building considered a distribution center?
Page 1 of 3