That's correct. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct. And, Councilman, you had made mention earlier about the length of time it takes to get storm water approval. I know we've spoken on the issue many times for various projects. It is --
Is Progress Plaza okay, by the way? Are we okay 85 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. about Progress Plaza? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I believe so. They tell me it's fine. But you can understand that in many cases, some of these parcels have a difficult time in meeting those regulations, because they are pretty tough compared to what we used to have, and it takes us in some cases, on the very complex projects, a very long time, many engineering hours to review these things to see whether the architect or engineer on the project has properly handled the storm water, and that's what's been keeping things from moving very speedily along. Some projects go through very quickly. And also there's been a learning curve since the new regulations came in. And some engineering firms out there that do this work, they're relatively new to it and others are very experienced and understand what we need to see when we see their plans. 86 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Right. So, in effect, if this bill passes and gets implemented, anything above 50,000 square feet, you will basically have to do green roofs for storm water management, five stories or less and 50,000 square feet or more. Then that will essentially eliminate all of the other alternatives, because it doesn't make sense, from my perspective, if I have to do a green roof, why would I do a green roof and a tank or some other infiltration system. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. I mean, we would have to look at each project individually to make sure that it meets our need. I mean, you could have a 50,000 square foot roof but have a parcel of six acres or something, and that would go a long way to helping you meet your burden, but perhaps not entirely. So it all depends on the individual project.
So you could conceivably have to do two types of 87 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. systems to accommodate -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes, I believe that is conceivable, because we've had projects that have used porous paving, for example, but still had to do something about the roof.
So we currently deal with multiple types of strategies for some projects? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct.
Okay. This is an interesting issue. I just want to make sure I understand it.
Commissioner, did you say, as I understood in your testimony, that where appropriate, in an appropriate development -- and I believe the appropriate development at this point is a 50,000 square foot building, five stories or less -- that the green roof is 88 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. the most direct and cost-efficient way to meet those standards as opposed to underground tanking or anything else? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I don't think we can say without exception, but it certainly would probably be that way. You know, I'd be glad to cede it to either of my colleagues here.
Well, I can't really answer your question directly, but I can say that the green roof certainly provides other benefits beyond storm water, that to the City of Philadelphia it may be beneficial to consider this legislation for green roofs because of other things in addition to the storm water management. If you place storm water management as the sole reason for doing this, then you may be able to find other cost-effective -- more cost-effective ways to approach this, but if you consider everything, green roofs and the legislation does make some sense.
Again, I 89 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. believe we're being fair in this regard because we have provided the tax credit for the BPT, which is a substantial amount of money, one hundred thousand dollars. It will go a long way to cover a lot of the cost of the green roof. So I think we're not trying to put the burden on the developer entirely. But thank you for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam President. "Where appropriate" is a big term. So what becomes the factors or criteria that drive the decision to do the green roof in addition to the specs outlined by Councilman Jim Kenney? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well I mean, without getting into the bill, what I would say is that the Water Department is not in the position to direct people as to which way to meet 90 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. their storm water burden. So it is up to them to figure out how they capture that first inch of rainfall, and then we have to go through all their calculations and all their factoring and make sure that their plan will do that. We don't want to impose ourselves into -- as the Water Department, we don't want to impose ourselves into how a developer does this. As long as they do it in a legal manner, a proper manner and it has the end result of reducing storm water flow off of their property, then we're generally happy.
Okay. So then you're saying, then, that the role of the Water Department is to ensure that whatever the developer has outlined clearly meets the test of sufficient or adequate storm water management? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Exactly.
All right, then. Thank you for your testimony. 91 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you very much, Commissioner. MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel of witnesses are Vince Muller, Mark Masters, Jeff Jabco, Charlie Miller, Melissa Muroff.
Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I guess I'll go first, Madam. My name is Vincent Muller. I'm the Executive Director of the Friends Center located at 15th and Cherry Street, and we're very happy to be here today testifying in favor of this bill. Would the other members like to identify themselves first.
I'm Mark Masters. I'm the owner of the Fencing Academy of 92 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Philadelphia on Lancaster Avenue, and I am enthusiastically testifying for this bill, and I believe I am the owner of the oldest green roof in Philadelphia. If not, perhaps one of the older ones in the whole country, covering a large flat area. It's not as large as this proposal. It's about a little over 3,000 square feet. But I have ten years now of having had a green roof.
I'm Jeff Jabco. I'm Director of Grounds at Swarthmore College. I'm in charge of sustainability issues for Swarthmore College, and presently we have two green roofs and two more in the planning stages.
I'm Melissa Muroff. I'm one of the principals of Roofscapes. We're a green roof engineering firm and green roof provider.
So far, the focus 93 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. of the discussion seems to have been on the storm water management issue. I have found since I've had my green roof -- and I couldn't give you exact numbers -- a definite reduction in air conditioning costs. The roof covers my building. Fencers work hard when they're training, and having that roof protect the facility inside has definitely made it cooler. My apartment actually overlooks my green roof. So my green roof is my backyard. And the kind of sunlight that's normally reflected off of a green roof would be heating up my apartment in the summer, and once I had the green roof, it dramatically reduced the amount of heat that was reflecting into my apartment. My building was not built to have a green roof. It was a retrofit two years after the construction. The owner of Roofscapes came to me. His daughter was at my academy and said, I'd like to do this so we could have some place to 94 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. begin to show America what can be done with a green roof. I heard about it for a long time. I took the chance that this was something that would work, that could be done, and I've been promoting it and testifying and touring people in my green roof sort of ever since. I think we should move as quickly as possible. Eight years ago I was down in Washington to testify before a Senate subcommittee hearing on putting green roofs on federal buildings, and we know how many federal buildings have green roofs. So anything we can do to move it forwards. One particular observation that I have that, again, nobody has discussed in the construction costs or anything like that is, I've been able to compare the cost of maintaining my green roof and the cost of maintaining a regular flat roof, which I have on my apartment, which is about 1,500 square feet. In the last ten years that I've had my green roof, 95 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. I've had to spend close to $10,000 just in normal maintenance for my apartment's flat roof. I have spent no money maintaining my green roof and 3,000 square feet, and that's another issue. The roof is protected by the green roof. So the under-membrane, which is normally abused by weather, sun effects and all that kind of thing, it's much cheaper. So even if there's a greater initial cost in the installation, it's going to be recouped over a period of time in reduced maintenance costs on the roof itself. And any chance of making that BPT tax a little retrograde?
Thank you. Councilwoman Brown, did you want to ask --
3519 Lancaster, maybe a half block up from the CEC. 96 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Vince Muller again from Friends Center. Friends Center is a three-building complex located between 15th Street and Mole Street on the west and between Race and Cherry Street on the south, Race Street on the north, Cherry Street on the south. We're about to embark on a huge renovation of two of the three buildings on our complex. One of them is a newer office building from 1972 and one is the national historic landmark Meeting House from 1856. Both buildings are the object of the renovation. And the vegetated roof of 9,500 square feet that we've installed, which I believe is the biggest one in Philadelphia now, was installed only in June. So we haven't had a lot of experience with it yet, but our main 97 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. reasons for installing a vegetated roof were to help out with Philadelphia's storm water management problem, which we're all aware of the single pipe issue and what that means. But also part of this installation of the green roof was prefaced by installation of a brand new weather roof, which cost us almost $390,000, and that's not something that we want to have to replace in years. 12 We'd rather replace it in 75 years. And 13 that's what putting a green roof on top 14 of a conventional roof can do, a new 15 conventional roof. 16 The folks who we consulted with 17 have explained that we can expect up to 18 three times the life of our new roof as a 19 result of putting a vegetated roof over 20 top of it. So although that's hard to quantify from year to year in the short term in dollars and cents, down the road that is going to save the owner quite a bit of money. Also, the vegetated roof 98 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. provides a very positive insulation effect. Now, again, we haven't had it long enough to be able to evaluate our heating bills and our cooling bills, but we expect the combination of the new weather roof and the vegetated roof on top of it would only enhance the insulation capabilities of our building. We found that the vegetated roof costs about $85,000 to install. So it's somewhat less than $10 a square foot. And I imagine as you install the weather roof on -- or the vegetated roof on larger surfaces, that price will go down. Somebody want to ask a question?
Yes. We were kind of chatting here about cost and then you said it and I kind of missed it. You said it was like $10 a square foot?
Or less. Our roof was about 9,500 square feet and the total cost was 87,000 and change. So I think 99 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. that works out to less than $10 a square foot.
And you've been advised that the larger the roof gets, the more the price goes down?
Well, I haven't been advised to that effect, but that would seem to be only reasonable to assume, because you're going to have economies of scale in the installation process with a larger roof that you don't have with a smaller one.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. (No response.)
Once again, I'm Jeff Jabco, Director of Grounds at Swarthmore College. I do have some images of our green roof if you'd like to look at them while I give testimony. 100 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
At Swarthmore College we presently have two extensive green roofs. Our first one was an experimental 630 square foot storage building installed in 2002 and the second one, a 5,000 square foot roof of a student residence hall that was installed in 2004. Both of these roofs were installed on new construction to accomplish multiple goals that many of them have already been outlined. Reducing storm water runoff by providing peak rate reduction and storm water volume reduction; Improving quality of storm water that does run off, which would have the effect of reduction in the acid rain effect. That is, our rainfall tends to be fairly acidic and after the rainfall does pass through a green roof, it's close to neutral; Energy savings in summer on the 101 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. cooling costs for the residence hall. This is our first residence hall that we're planning on using all through the summer, so we wanted to have energy savings from the green roof on that; The cost savings because of prolonging the life of the roof's waterproof membrane. The membrane that was installed on the roof would have a guaranteed life of to years, and we 12 feel that we should be able to get three 13 times the life of that roof. So already 14 the cost of the green roof should pay for 15 the reroofing that we would not have to do. And one of the things that goes along with that is, we would have less waste deposited in landfills or the incinerators by reducing the roof replacements or the frequency of roof replacements. There also is a reduction in urban or suburban heat island effect due to the transpiration of the plants on the roof and the evaporation from the growing 102 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. media. You would also have filtration of airborne pollutants from a green roof that you wouldn't have on a traditional roof. Also, by having more green plants, they help to tie up the excess carbon dioxide that's generated from burning of fossil fuels, which is really important in our cities and suburban areas. An increased song bird and insect habitat, and then purely the beauty of the green roof as opposed to looking out onto a roof membrane. We also have the additional benefits at Swarthmore College that we have students who are interested in learning about environmental issues and environmental technology that they have direct access to the roofs for study and further research. Green roofs are now part of Pennsylvania Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual, which is published by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of 103 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Watershed Management, and they're accepted as part of the required storm water management plan by many local municipalities. Swarthmore College's residence hall green roof cost $10 a square foot, and that was for design, purchase and installation of the roof. The plants on the green roof are six species of sedum; Allium, which is flowering onion; Dianthus, which are carnations; ornamental grasses; asters; and ice plant. Estimate maintenance requirements are slightly more than the DEP's listed amount of three manhours per 1,000 square foot annually, and that is because of really maintaining this roof as a showplace and a garden, almost every week we have tour groups of architects, engineers and potential end users of green roofs coming to see our green roofs. Because of the environmental and aesthetic benefits, as well as the 104 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. economic benefits, Swarthmore College hopes to construct two more green roofs in the next two to three years, one on the second phase of the new residence hall, which is under construction now, and we hope to install that roof next summer, and another green roof on our existing Performing Arts Center, which was built in 1991. We would retrofit a green roof on that. And built in 1991, the roof is beginning to fail.
The membrane is beginning to fail on it, so it needs to be reroofed, so we would hope to do a green roof on that one, and that one is about 29,000 square feet. We always welcome visitors onto our green roof, and we would invite any of you to contact me to come and see our green roof, and we also give monthly tours to the public of our green roofs. Thank you.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman 105 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Kenney.
I thought I heard you say that the annual maintenance requirements is three manhours per year?
Three manhours per thousand square feet, and that's the estimate from the DEP in their manual.
Thank you. I actually wanted to ask a question around maintenance, because I have a backyard that I have tried everything imaginable to keep the weeds from growing. I mean, I put the tarp down, I put the mulch on top of it, and it keeps coming through, and I'm out there every Saturday with my weed whacker. How do you maintain this? How do you keep the grass or the weeds from growing? Do you physically have to have 106 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. somebody out there?
Well, one of the nice things about a green roof, because of the engineered soil that's in it, it's a very porous light soil mix, so it holds a certain amount of water, but also is free draining. And the plants that are selected for it can handle those types of conditions and are very good at taking up rainfall when it comes. But the roof is essentially self-weeding, so any dry spell that we have, any of the weed seeds that blow into it, essentially those young weeds would die because they can't handle the dry conditions that the roof would get, but the sedums are just fine with that.
So there is a process that I can use in my backyard other than a weed whacker that will help kill the weeds; is that what you're telling me?
Yup. It all depends on the soil, the soil getting 107 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. very dry in between the rainfalls, and that would kill the weeds.
Whatever blows in I let grow there. I've had trees start, and, well, okay, let's take those out, because we don't want a tree growing on the roof, but that's five minutes. Grasses blow in. My air conditioners drain on top of the roof, so where I get air conditioner draining, it's like you're in the desert and you'll find a spring, which has taller grasses by it. And I don't really worry about any maintenance. When the roof was first installed, I had an aphid problem. By the time the installer could get a solution for the aphid problem, ladybugs had already arrived and taken care of the 108 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. aphids. I just leave it as a natural environment.
You have to excuse my ignorance on this issue. I live in the section of town, they have these little things called Philadelphia trees, and some people may know what I'm talking about. They just like -- I don't know where they come from. They grow up. They start out like little things. You just ignore them, and a year and a half later, they're like a tree. Is it something in the soil or can you aerate it that will prohibit those? Because I'm saying, I'm sure you don't want to have a tree on your roof. It's one thing to have grass. I just honestly don't know.
Councilman, on, I think it was referred to, as a thin green roof, there's only about three and a half inches of aggregate to grow in, so a large tree is not going to sprout up up there. And Roofscapes, who we also 109 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. worked with in the design of our roof, allowed for about $2,400 a year in various kinds of maintenance, which might include weed removal, if necessary, or Philadelphia tree harvesting, if necessary. But it's not a lot of work, believe me. I don't think -- I mean, that's the cost of the contract, but I'll be surprised if we don't do better on a time and materials basis, because there's really not much to do.
All right. I hear you, but I -- you may not know what I'm talking about, but I've literally seen trees growing out of the side of buildings and they started out as these little weeds.
In alleys. And it's like cement and it's like a little crack, and the next thing you know, it comes up and it's like Jack and the Beanstalk. And you're suggesting 110 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. that because of the minimal amount of soil, there's no likelihood of this growing?
And if they're growing out of the side of the building, the roots are getting to somewhere where they're getting soil and moisture. In a green roof, with the thin layer and the very porous mix, you may have a tree like that germinate, begin to grow, but it's not going to last. It will die because it just gets too dry.
Okay. I hear you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Is someone else going to testify?
Madam President, if I could request -- because I think she may know the answers to a lot 111 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. of the issues that were raised from the Planning Commission relative to having to have flat roofs, which we don't have to have. If you could just talk about -- I would appreciate if you could take some of the criticisms or some of the speculation that it's not a good thing or that there's problems or that it's difficult to maintain or difficult to install, just kind of talk about the benefits of it and try to debunk, if you can, some of the other issues.
I'm sorry. This is Melissa Muroff and I'm with Roofscapes. I was asked to come today to be available to answer some questions if need be. I think one of the first questions that came up and that you 112 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. referenced again is the issue of flat roofs and the extent to which roofs with a pitch are appropriate. In fact, for the thin profiles that these gentlemen have been describing; that is, green roofs that have three to five inches of soil or aggregate, actually having a little bit of a pitch is much preferred. So typically it is true that what you tend to see on thin green roof profiles are roofs that are pitched slightly to the drains or the scuppers, what-have-you. However, having said that, roofs with pitches that are quite steep, like 30 percent inclines, are suitable for green roofs. The difference is that appropriate slope stabilization has to be incorporated into the design, and then with that, it goes without saying, there is an additional cost. But roofs up to a 2-on-12 pitch need no additional slope stabilization and are suitable for green roofs. 113 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. I think one of the other questions that came up pertained to height. Lower roofs are logistically easier to -- green roofs on lower buildings are logistically easier to install and, therefore, are going to be less expensive in that regard. There's nothing -- green roofs on skyscrapers; for example, high rises, 52 stories, a hundred stories -- well, whatever, 50 let's say stories, are certainly doable and there are many that have been installed around the country. They introduce additional issues, such as more extreme wind uplift pressures that have to be addressed, but they certainly can be. I think the point that you may have been getting to regarding high buildings is that they will likely be less effective in reducing the energy costs to cool the building in the summertime because the ratio of wall area to roof area is going to be much greater, 114 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. so you're not going to be -- you don't have as much surface area to work with to actually cool the building inside. So just relatively speaking, it's not going to be as an effective energy tool. You asked about cost. I mean, I think --
Yeah. I think a lot of that has been covered. I mean, I have no other questions. I've kind of like been on this green roof education process for a while, so I kind of know this stuff. But if there are any questions, I'm sure that she would be willing to answer them.
I think the issue of cost is of concern. Excuse me. What did you say it cost you to retrofit your roof?
Both of ours so far were new construction. So that was $10 a square foot, but what I budgeted for the retrofit is about $11 to $12 a square 115 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. foot.
And I believe somebody testified that they paid $2,500?
Well, we were asked to consider support contracts, maintenance contracts, for the roof, which run about $2,400 a year, and because this is our first year's experience with it, we purchased one, but if experience during the first four months of ownership is any indication, it may be cheaper just to maintain it on a time and materials basis, because there's really not too much to do. Early on you have some plant replacement. Not all the plants thrive, so some of those have to be replaced.
Yes. Our 9,500 square foot roof cost 87,000 and change. So I believe that works out to something less than $10 a square foot. And I would 116 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. have to think that if you were doing 50,000 square feet or more, that you'd be looking at economies of scale, which would bring that cost per foot down, but I don't know that for a fact.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you. In addition to green roofs, since you are the experts in many ways, are there other alternative avenues that provide the same or similar result?
Well, in addition to our green roof, another methodology that we're installing, which I as a building manager am equally excited about, is our recapture and reuse program. We have a very large sloped roof on the historical Meeting House, and our engineers have calculated that just based on normal Philadelphia rainfall, with a 20 percent loss factor, we'll be 117 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. able to collect enough rainwater off that roof and then reuse it in our office building to practically eliminate 85-plus percent of our potable water bill. It would literally reduce our use of fresh water down to hand washing and fountains, water fountains. All the water used currently to flush urinals or toilets would be gray water pulled off the roof of the Meeting House. So for us, I mean, our water bill -- we're a small operation, so our water bill is somewhere between $20,000, $22,000 a year, but we should be able to eliminate in excess of 90 percent of that just by collecting water off the Meeting House roof and storing it in cisterns in the basement of the building and then repiping it as gray water back over to the office building. And these are old buildings. These are not -- we don't have the benefit of building brand new. We have to retrofit all this stuff, and I believe the cost of what I just explained 118 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. will be under $230,000. So that's a lot of money initially, but if you're saving anywhere from $17,000 to $19,000 a year in your water bill, you're going to make that up in a hurry and then it's all money in your pocket.
The issues on cost -- and, Melissa, if you could comment on what I'm going to say, I would appreciate it. There is no doubt that there is an initial cost in doing this, and, again, I will reiterate that we are trying to defray that cost with a tax credit on the BPT. But can you talk about the difference between new construction and retrofit? Because I think what's getting somewhat complicated is that these, for the most part, are retrofitted buildings. The new construction costs are 119 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. substantially different than the retrofit building, because it's being designed into the project and built at the same time. The roof doesn't have to be torn up, a new roof put down and the thing put on there. Also, the issue of the length of time the roof lasts. If you don't have to replace this roof for 30 years and you're talking about a 50,000 square foot building, that's a substantial savings in the life of the building, because those roofs are very, very expensive. If you could just talk -- because I know cost is an issue and the issue of cost relative to maintenance, which I think all these things, in my opinion, are all outweighed by the benefits to the property owner, the savings in heat and air conditioning, the savings on the -- the other issue was when the Water Department implements its new formula for storm water management 120 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. charges, a building that's 50,000, 60,000 square feet flat roof is going to pay an awful lot of money to manage that storm water that can be reduced substantially by the use of the green roof. So as we're looking at the square foot costs stepping into the building or getting the building up, I think we really have to be fair and look at all of the other costs that are saved over the life of the building by the property owner. And I think what happens with developers is they say, Oh, my God, look at the cost that it's going to cost me right up front, without looking at the end user, who is going to obviously benefit for 30, 40, 50 years as a result of its installation and maintenance. So if you could just talk about that a little bit.
And I would also add -- and I have to defer to the Water Department on this, of course, but it has been our experience in working with 121 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. clients that are designing green roofs into their projects that they have expedited -- is this right -- expedited review of their project in order to get their building permit. And that actually does add up to dollars and cents for them as well early in this design and construction process. To the Councilman's point regarding the capital investment or the capital cost of the green roof as a new construction versus the capital cost of the green roof as a retrofit, the capital -- I'm not sure for those of you who have retrofits you were also referencing the cost of demolition of the old roof when you talked about the cost of the green roof. But I can say that for a sizable green roof that's over 50,000 square feet, I would suggest that it is well within reality to expect that the installed cost of the green roof, a thin profile, three or four inches of media or soil, would be in the ballpark 122 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. of $7 to $9 per square foot. For what it's worth, there's a project similar -- a big-box store in the City of Chicago, where -- again, this is obviously anecdotal, but it involved union wages and perhaps a similar construction environment. The contractor submitted his price proposal for $6.50, and that was for a 72,000 square foot vegetated roof on a big-box store. So that was a new construction. That might provide -- I haven't heard lower than that, so I might suggest that's probably likely to be a low end, but that's probably within reason for a new construction on a big-box store.
Just on top of that, could you talk -- and I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, Councilman O'Neill.
When you have a large flat roof that's made from 123 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. asphalt and the rain hits it, it is picking up the elements of the asphalt roof, which are toxic. That stuff is going into our storm water system and needs to be treated, which is an additional cost to the Water Department to do that. In addition, it's going to be an additional cost to the property owner because they're going to have to pay the new charges based on the new fee schedule. So I don't really see a down -- I really don't see an economic downside at all to any of this when it comes to buildings of that size. So I'm sorry, Councilman.
We've been hearing back and forth. Council President asked a question about cost. I think what she was talking about, if I picked it up right, is comparative cost, and maybe I missed part of that testimony, but whether it's 6.50, 7.50, 8.50, 9.50, if somebody is building a 124 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. 50,000 or bigger square foot building in Philadelphia and they hire a union roofing company with union roofing employees to do it, I don't know if that cost is a dollar a square foot or 7 dollars a square foot. I'd like to leave 8 this hearing at least knowing what we're 9 talking about. 10 Can somebody testify as to what 11 that cost is? I have no idea. 12
Well, I know from 13 our new construction project of the 14 residence hall, essentially if the cost 15 of the new roof is A amount, then the 16 cost of the green roof was an additional 17 A. So it's essentially twice the cost of 18 the roof if you're going to vegetate it. 19
So we're 20 going to be requiring people -- and I love green roofs, but I also love not using trans fats and all that, but we don't -- we do cut breaks to people based on certain issues. And what I just want to know, we're going to be requiring 125 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. somebody to pay twice as much for the roof in their building. Is that --
I wouldn't agree with the gentleman on that. We put a pretty expensive weather roof on -- we were due for a new roof. Our roof was over 30 years old and it was leaking. So we needed a new roof. Now, we put a very state-of-the-art expensive roof on and it cost $390-some thousand. For slight -- for less area, we spent only 84,000, 87,000 on the vegetated roof. So I don't see it as a --
No, not slate. I said slightly less area, because the vegetated roof didn't cover as much area as the weather roof. But we still spent only 84,000. So I don't think it's double the cost of a new roof. But if you are going to put a vegetated roof on your building, it doesn't make much sense to me to put it over an old roof, 126 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. because you --
I just want to limit -- I think the question was new construction, when we're requiring people -- what people do electively with retrofits, I mean, it's noble and everything, but I don't think we're requiring that. I'm just trying to elicit the information. It's roughly double the cost of new construction. That's fine. I just wanted to get the information on the record to make a judgment when we get attacked by the union roofers or whoever it is that -- Council President asked the question. The answer is now on the record.
Thank you, Madam President. If any of the witnesses on the panel can talk about Chicago and how they've done this. Does anyone know, 127 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. getting back to this whole cost issue, what questions were raised there, what the differences are? I mean, you folks are sort of estimating. In answer to Councilman O'Neill, you thought it might be double. Is there any statistics, Councilman, that you know dealing with --
No. I just really believe that when it comes to large box construction, which is primarily what we're talking about, and we don't require them to do it, they're going to get kicked in the rear end when it comes to their storm water management charges monthly, and at that time, it's going to be probably impractical to put one on after the building is constructed. So we may be trying to keep the developer from having to spend an additional amount of money going in, but when those new fees go into effect and they haven't mitigated, they're going to get rocked. Besides all the other 128 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. environmental benefits, the greenhouse effect, the warming effect, the savings on heating and air conditioning, the savings on us treating the water, all of that stuff, there is certainly a cost you need to pay to get there, and if we're going to continue to be concerned about the up-front costs, even though we're giving a hundred thousand dollars potentially towards the project, then we'll probably never get there. But then we're going to have to deal with the effects of what happens with the storm water management, because I think those monthly fees are going to be a killer.
Can I just -- I'm sorry. If I can just ask on the question of the tax credits, just so I'm clear on this. How is that done now?
It's up to percent of the project or $100,000 23 would be credited to your business 24 privilege tax, I think, in that -- I 25 don't have the bill in front of me, but I 129 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. think in the over five-year period, I believe it was. So I recognize that this is virgin territory for us, but as I said earlier in the discussion, this has been going on in Europe for how long?
50 years. And in Chicago for quite a long time with success. Developers will howl practically about anything, and if you gave the developers the opportunity to do nothing, they would do nothing, including mitigating neighborhood concerns or anything else. So we kind of force them to do things now. I really do believe that this technology and this is cutting edge for us that will be a tremendous advantage going forward, but if initial cost is always going to stop us, then I don't think we'll ever get there.
I just want to reiterate again that I would hate to see 130 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. the Committee leave here thinking that the cost of a vegetated roof is the cost of the under-roof all over again. It just isn't. I mean, the vegetated roof was installed in less than two weeks by about five guys. It took several months to install the new weather roof, the under-roof on our building. There's just much, much more involved, much more expense, much more materials, much more labor, and it doesn't make any difference whether it's a retrofit roof or a new roof. There's just no way a vegetated roof is going to cost what a weather roof costs. Somebody is going to have to explain that.
I support the bill. I'm not sure we have all the testimony in front of us that we might want to have. And I don't care if we report it out, get it. I'm not really concerned with that. I'm concerned with the side that's not here to comment, and even the tax benefit. I mean, I'd like 131 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. to know what it would be uncapped for larger buildings so they're not sort of punished in a relative way as opposed to being rewarded the same just because they have a bigger building than a smaller building. The concept is terrific. The cost questions, it seems like most of them will be made up one way or the other, whether it's maintenance, energy efficiency, the Water Department. But I also think that it would help to have the Water Department come in here with a full briefcase full of information to put on the record so when I talk to developer or building owner X that you're going to in the future have a reduction, which they obviously should, that I can give them something real specific. I mean, the Water Department knows what they're going to do with that regulation. They should be able to calibrate it to a 50,000 square foot building, a 75, a hundred, whatever it might be, so we have a whole 132 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. list of things that are going to offset whatever -- and this is not meant in any way towards the witnesses at the table. I think I would like to know what it really is. It might be different on a skyscraper. It might be different on different kinds of buildings. Just what the range of differences and what impacts that. I'm prepared to vote for this bill. I just think that the Water Department should be helping us here with specifics. We have a sheet that shows, yeah, you're paying here, but look what you're going to be saving, since that regulation is not in place yet, and we should be pretty exact about it and also with the differential cost, and it seems like in different buildings there's going to be a different relative cost to a conventional roof versus a green roof. And I don't care how we get the information, whether we get it another hearing, whether we report the bill out 133 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. and get it, but I think we might want to be ready for those kind of things. Is this something that we can lay out in a clearer, more concise form to explain to people? Because I think we're doing good work here and it's kind of exciting actually to be involved in it, but if we don't have the answers, we should have them. And whether it's at this point or not, I'll leave it to the Chair and the sponsor, but I'm ready to go either way with it.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you all very much for coming in to testify. Do we have anyone else to testify on the bill? 134 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. Do you want to amend it now?
Bill 13 No. 070366 is being held at the request of the sponsor. We will now consider Bill No. 070690, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 19 070690 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 135 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. 070690 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Madam President, I need to abstain due to the fact that the firm I'm associated with is part of the team designing the new expanded Convention Center.
Very well. The ayes have it and the record will indicate that Councilman Kenney abstained from voting. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 136 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. We will now consider Bill No. 6 070680. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill 070680 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 17 070680 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 137 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. (No response.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. This concludes our public meeting. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 12:30 p.m.) - - - 138 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on October 30, 2007, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)