Final report prepared for the City of Columbus\' Green Team on incentive policy options to promote the construction of LEED projects in infill areas of the City.

1. GreenFill
Columbus
A Green Building-Urban Infill
Incentive Policy for a Truly
Sustainable Columbus
Presented to the Green Team
Growth & Development Committee
2009
Amanda King
OSU City and Regional Planning
Graduate Student

2. Table of Contents
Introduction................................................... 3
Background.................................................... 4
Research....................................................... 6
GreenFill Policy Proposal.................................. 9
Next Steps.................................................... 13
Future Considerations..................................... 14
Appendices
Computrol's Government LEED Incentives
City of Cincinnati Tax Abatement Policy
LEED New Construction and Existing Buildings Criteria
"Building Greener" Incentives Document
City of Columbus Development Incentives
Green Team Growth and Development Committee Meeting Notes

3. GreenFill
policy recommendation for a greener Columbus
Introduction
In the summer of 2009, the Green Team's Growth and Development
Committee expressed an interest in developing an incentive policy, in
conjunction with the Green Building Committee, that would encourage the
development of green buildings in already urbanized areas of the City of
Columbus. Such a policy would combine the environmental interests of each
committee - encouraging both sustainable buildings and sustainable land use -
to develop a unique incentive policy that would also be an economic boon
to the City.
This document is an outgrowth of that interest in such a policy. Its purpose is
to present the research on the environmental and economic impacts of
buildings and sprawled development, the positive impacts of green buildings
and urban infill growth, and the policies that the City can feasibly adopt to
encourage truly sustainable development. Considering the examples of other
jurisdictions, such as the City of Cincinnati's tax abatement incentive for
LEED-certified buildings, as well as the current conditions and programs
already existing in Columbus, this report provides policy recommendations
for a "GreenFill" incentive program to put the City at the forefront of
sustainble building development.
The Green Team has already begun identifying Green Strings for City policies
to encourage a "culture of green" in its operations, including requiring all
new major City buildings to achieve LEED certification. The policy proposal
here is consistent with these and other Green Team objectives by reocgnizing
the importance of linking green buildings with urban infill development - not
only to achieve environmentally sound development patterns but to also
provide long-term economic benefits to the City and developers alike.
With its existing LEED development mandate, the City has already
recognized the importance of green building development. The City can
expand the environmental and economic benefits of green buildings by
encouraging private green building development and incorporating a focus on
their development in designated infill areas. A recent Rutgers University and
Brookings Institution study that found the nation could save hundreds of
billions of dollars and preserve about four million acres of land over the
next two decades by channeling development into existing urban areas and
compact new towns. The following report outlines how the City can institute
a "GreenFill" incentive policy to extend its culture of green and realize these
environmental and economic benefits.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team
3

4. Background
land use. energy. environment. infill.
Energy and Environmental Impacts of Buildings Benefits of Green Buildings
Buildings represent one of the largest contributors to While the benefits of green buildings can vary greatly
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. depending upon the technologies implemented and
It is estimated that buildings account for 38.9% of behaviors adopted within them, a study of 121
U.S. energy use, 72% of U.S electricity consumption, various LEED-certified commercial buildings (new
and 38% of all CO2 emissions.1 In addition, buildings construction) had an average energy use intensity
use about 15 trillion gallons of potable water per (EUI) level of 24% below that of the national average
year3 and create about 170 million tons of for all commercial building stock. LEED office
construction and demolition debris per year.3 In buildings, the most common type of commercial
addition, the U.S. EPA estimates that indoor air building, had an average EUI of 33% below the
pollutants may be up to 10 times as high as outdoor national average, with LEED Gold and Platinum
concentrations, including high carbon dioxide buildings achieving a 50% reduction in EUI.5 These
concentrations, exacerbating poor health conditions.4 energy reductions result in significant cost savings as
well as air quality benefits related to reduced
The immense impact that buildings, especially those emissions from energy sources. A survey of 12 public
for large commercial uses, have on the environment green buildings estimated a 33% reduction in
and natural resource usage have a residual impact on greenhouse gas emissions.6
our economy as energy and health care costs rise and
affordable raw materials become more scarce. As a Green buildings also present a significant opportunity
result of these consequences, local governments, to stimulate the economy. In general, the economic
nonprofit organizations, and private building benefits of green buildings can include an estimated
developers alike have been looking towards green 8-13% reduction in building operating costs, 7-10%
building design to provide quality working and living increase in building value, 6-20% improvement of
atmospheres and reduce building operating costs. return on investment, and over 3% occupancy ratio
increase.7,8 These benefits are expected to increase
as energy costs rise and market attention and
demand for green buildings increases.
Other green building features that are part of LEED
standards can be adopted to create additional
benefits. These included using indoor construction
materials with low volatile organic compound (VOC)
levels to improve indoor air quality and health,
reducing water usage and costs, limiting
imperviousness and/or adopting features to reduce
stormwater runoff, and many other benefits. Using
reused and/or recycled materials also expands the
market for construction and demolition debris from
1 Environmental Information Administration (2008). EIA Annual Energy Outlook.
other building development projects, completing the
2 U.S. Geological Survey (2000). 2000 data.
cycle of materials reuse.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009). “Estimating 2003 Building-
6 GSA Public Buildings Service (2008). Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post
Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts”.
Occupancy Evaluation of 12 GSA Buildings.
4 Environmental Protection Agency (2008). An Introduction to Indoor Air
7 McGraw Hill Construction, Green Building SmartMarket Report, 2006
Quality. Accessed via: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html.
8 GSA Public Buildings Service (2008). Assessing Green Building Performance: A Post
5 New Buildings Institute (2008). Energy Performance of LEED for New
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team
4

5. Background
land use. energy. environment. infill.
In addition, infill development increases the likelihood that
Impacts of Sprawled Development in Metropolitan
commuters will choose public transit or other modes of
Areas
transportation such as biking or walking, since infill sites
will most likely be serviced by transit lines and sidewalk,
Sprawled development has important economic, social, and
which also contributes to reduced carbon emissions and
environmental costs.9 It irreversibly eliminates valuable
other air quality benefits. A U.S. EPA case study of three
natural land, displaces water and degrades water quality,
metropolitan areas found that reductions in VMT related to
increases traveling distances, inflates housing prices,
increased urban infill versus greenfield development lead
excludes certain economic groups, and presents a financial
to regional emissions reductions of 3-8%.13 Finally,
burden on cities, among numerous other consequences.
encouraging infill development reduces development
pressures on greenfield sites, which provides the greatest
As the amount of impervious surface related to
environmental benefit to metropolitan areas by preserving
development and new roadways increases, areas lose their
valuable natural open space that helps mitigate the
ability to manage stormwater, resulting in flooding and
environmental impact of carbon-emitting activities in the
polluted runoff that flows into water streams. Sprawl also
urban core.14
greatly increases automobile dependence, which
contributes to greenhouse gas emissions as well as smog-
Urban infill development also has a number of economic
forming emissions that then lead to public health problems
benefits for metropolitan areas. Commuters are likely to
such as asthma and cancer.10 Sprawled development also
face reduced energy costs related to transportation as well
results in loss of valuable open space and prime farmland.
as less traffic congestion compared to conventional
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2007 Census found
suburban-style development. The U.S. EPA estimates that
that the state of Ohio lost more than 600,000 acres of
overall regional traffic congestion as a result of urban infill
prime farmland between 2002 and 2007, which has
versus greenfield development can be decreased by 5-7%.15
important environmental and economic implications.11
Infill commercial development is also likely to increase
accessibility to economic opportunities for those who
The cost of extending water and sewer services as well as
might be left out of the equation with distant greenfield
constructing and maintaining roads for expanded greenfield
development.
development constitutes large capital costs for
municipalities. Sprawled development can inflate these
infrastructure costs by up to 40%. Over the long term,
property taxes on these developments will not cover the
9 Burchell, Robert W. et al. Sprawl costs: economic impacts of unchecked development. (2005). Island
cost of ongoing infrastructure maintenance costs, even with
Press. Washington D.C.
development impact fees.12
10 “Environment”. Smart Growth America. <http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/environment.html>
Accessed November 11, 2009.
Benefits of Encouraging Urban Infill Development
11 Presented at the 10th Annual Ohio Farmland Preservation Summit by Ohio Department of Agriculture
Director Robert J. Boggs. November 5, 2009.
Conversely, infill development refers to new development
12 Burchell, Robert W. et al. Sprawl costs: economic impacts of unchecked development. (2005). Island
that occurs in core urbanized areas – areas of the region
Press. Washington D.C.
that are already built up. Infill development can occur on
13 “Measuring the Air Quality and Transportation Impacts of Infill Development”. (2007). U.S.
previously developed sites or on vacant land within an
Environmental Protection Agency.
urban typology. There are several environmental benefits of
14 “Granting Air Quality Credit for Land Use Measures: Policy Options”. (1999) Prepared for the U.S. EPA by
urban infill development, including fewer vehicle miles
Jack Faucet Associates and Sierra Research, Inc.
traveled (VMT) due to concentrating destinations in already
15 “Measuring the Air Quality and Transportation Impacts of Infill Development”. (2007). U.S. EPA.
populated areas.
16 “Linking Vision with Capital –Challenges and Opportunities in Financing Smart Growth” (September 2001)
Research Institute for Housing America – Institute Report No. 01-01.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team
5

6. Research
methodology. current conditions. existing policies.
In order to develop a green buildings policy for Local Green Building Policies at a Glance
the City of Columbus that also meets its
sustainable growth goals, it is important to An increasing number of local jurisdictions are offering
identify what development policies already exist incentives for private commercial buildings to
in the City as well as what other jurisdictions are incorporate green standards. The City of Cincinnati
doing to encourage the development of green awards a 15-year 75% property tax abatement to all
buildings. A green building incentive policy should developments in its CRA that meet a minimum “LEED
incorporate achievable and verifiable design Certified” for New Construction standard (see Appendix
standards that address the market shortcomings for tax abatement details). This has led to a dramatic
of private development while efficiently utilizing increase in the development of LEED-certified buildings
the City’s resources for a program that is both in Cincinnati since the policy was instituted in 2007.
economically and environmentally sustainable. Also in 2007, the City of El Paso passed a Green
The following incentive program research also Building Grant Program for commercial and multi-family
analyzes the feasibility of a direct incentive, such buildings achieving “LEED Certified” or higher. The
as grants and loans, versus other types of program provides grants of up to $400,000 per project
incentives including tax abatement and expedited depending on the level of LEED certification achieved as
development review. well as other criteria such as incorporating a mix of
building uses in previously vacant properties. Eligible
projects must also meet 10 of the 17 LEED points for
Energy & Atmosphere criteria in order to receive the
grant incentive.
In addition, the City of Babylon, New York, mandates
that all commercial and residential buildings over 4,000
square feet meet a minimum “LEED Certified” standard.
All buildings that meet this standard are provided with a
refund to developers for the cost of certification fees
paid to the U.S. Green Building Council.
Other local government incentives for green buildings
include density bonuses, where developers are
permitted to build more densely than otherwise
permitted by zoning codes in exchange for achieving
LEED status; permit fee waivers/reductions, where
buildings that meet LEED standards are eligible for
building permit fee reduction or exemptions; expedited
permit processing, where buildings that are applying for
LEED certification gain priority building permit
Source: "Growing the Green Economy", Delta Brownfields processing in order to streamline the pre-development
process for green builders; and complimentary technical
assistance and promotion from city officials for meeting
certain green building standards and/or LEED
certification. A complete list of local government
incentives for green building development can be found
in the Appendix.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team
6

7. Research
methodology. current conditions. existing policies.
Adhering to LEED for Green Buildings Policy
The standards developed under LEED incorporate
sound principles of green design, including site
selection and water- and energy-efficiency
standards, which benefit both building owners and
local governments that provide infrastructure
services. As outlined above, LEED is clearly the
primary standard by which many jurisdictions base
their green buildings policies. This can largely be
attributed by the importance of having a widely
recognized third-party verification of green design in
order to demonstrate eligibility for green building
incentives. In addition, the City of Columbus, like
most cities in today’s economic climate, would not
benefit from committing its staff to developing and
enforcing its own green building standards when a The Lazarus LEED Gold building in Downtown Columbus
Source: OSU Urban Arts Center
useable rubric already exists. Furthermore, green
building operators will likely receive a greater return
While increased project costs related to LEED can
on investment with the marketable LEED label as it
vary widely, the Green Building Finance Consortium,
will increase the building’s desirability to tenants.
a group of business and real estate professionals
Thus, LEED should be the standard by which the City
seeking independent research on green building
bases its green buildings policy.
investments, estimated in 2006 that the increased
cost of building to “LEED Certified” standards is
Increased soft costs as a barrier to LEED certification
about 0.8% of initial costs, 3.5% for “LEED Silver”
buildings, 4.5% for “LEED Gold”, and about 11.5% to
While incorporating sustainable design methods into
achieve “LEED Platinum” status.17 These estimates
buildings lead to tangible cost savings for building
include both hard and soft costs related to LEED
operators, obtaining LEED certification does lead to
certification. A study commissioned by the American
increased upfront costs. These may include
Chemistry Council estimates that the average
increased costs for greener materials, but also
increased soft costs of obtaining LEED certification is
additional soft costs for design, documenting
about 2.3%.18 It is also reasonable to consider that
compliance standards, and LEED registration and
these percentages may now be lower as green/LEED-
verification costs. While design and compliance costs
standard building design becomes increasingly
may decrease over time as more professionals
mainstream.
become versant in LEED-standard construction, these
soft costs remain a barrier to building green.
While buildings incorporating green design methods
may certainly achieve environmental benefits
without receiving official LEED certification,
verification is an important component of green
17 “Quantifying ‘Green’ Value: Assessing the Applicability of the CoStar Studies”. (2006) buildings and many of green buildings’ benefits – such
Green Building Finance Consortium. as increased property values and marketability –
18 “Analyzing the Cost of Obtaining LEED Certification”. (2003) American Chemistry cannot be realized without this verification. Thus,
Council. Prepared by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants. receiving LEED certification is key to the short- and
long-term success of a green building policy.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team
7

8. Research
methodology. current conditions. existing policies.
Existing Development Incentives in Columbus Conclusions from Incentive Program Research
The City of Columbus has already made strides to link Because Columbus has exhausted its tax abatement
green building practices and development incentives. incentive packages as it continues to compete with
Currently, all commercial buildings receiving tax surrounding suburbs for commercial development to
abatement incentive package must demonstrate that sustain its economic health, it is not feasible for the
energy-efficiency measures are being taken. The City City to offer increased tax abatement for LEED-
currently offers a 75%, 10-year property tax certified buildings. However, the City should promote
abatement for developments in the Enterprise Zone, its encouragement of green buildings on its Economic
which covers about 97% of the city limits. The City is Development website and other literature in order to
unable to increase this tax abatement amount attract greener development. In addition, development
without diverting funds from local schools, and must process incentives such as expedited permit review
allow this level of abatement for non-LEED would likely not increase the development of LEED
developments in order to compete with the 100% buildings as the City already makes great strides to
abatement offered by many surrounding suburbs. streamline this process.
While many jurisdictions offer expedited building The City’s Department of Development has learned,
permit review to incentivize LEED building however, that many developers do not find it difficult
development, the City is bound to provide reviews on to incorporate green standards into their buildings, but
a first-come, first-served basis and strives to issue find the additional soft costs of obtaining LEED
building permit reviews as expeditiously as possible. certification to be the major hurdle to green
development. While additional hard costs associated
As for instituting policies that encourage urban infill with LEED certification, such as energy-efficient
development, the City participates in incentive equipment, can be recouped through utility cost
programs to redevelop brownfield sites and follows a savings over the life of the building, these soft costs
“Pay As We Grow” strategy to pay for infrastructure may be difficult to justify for some developers until
and costs associated with growing outward and green building design becomes standard industry
greenfield development upfront in order to control practice. However, verification of standards is
sprawled development patterns. paramount to a successful green buildings policy. Thus,
the City of Columbus should institute a direct incentive
program that offsets the additional upfront soft costs
of LEED building certification in urban infill areas in
order to encourage truly sustainable development.
A grant program is preferable to a loan program as it is
straightforward for developers and does not require
additional City resources for ongoing loan monitoring.
As higher levels of LEED certification provide greater
benefits to the City’s overall environmental quality and
may also incur greater costs, the grant program should
offer tiered incentives based on the level of
certification achieved. Furthermore, because the costs
associated with achieving “LEED Certified” status is
City of Columbus development patterns over the years
marginal compared to traditional development costs,
Source: Community Research Partners
buildings must achieve a minimum “LEED Silver” rating
to qualify for this financial incentive.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team
8

9. Policy Proposal
"greenfill" grant incentive program
City of Columbus “GreenFill” Grant Incentive Geography of the “GreenFill” Incentive Program
Program
In order to fulfill the urban infill requirement of the
In order to encourage the private development and incentive program, which ensures that the City’s
redevelopment of green buildings in sustainable resources contribute to truly sustainable green
areas, the City of Columbus should implement a building development, LEED standard buildings must
tiered grant program for LEED-certified buildings in meet Criteria 1 and 2 of the LEED Checklist’s
urban infill areas. The tiered system will help cover “Sustainable Sites” standards to qualify. These criteria
the soft costs of obtaining LEED certification and require buildings to be redeveloped on sites that have
reward developers that achieve high levels green already been developed at one time or another, are
design. built away from environmentally sensitive areas such
as wetlands and floodplains, do not occupy prime
Newly built and existing buildings in urban infill areas farmland, and are within more densely developed
attaining “LEED Silver” certification would be eligible areas (see Appendix for full “Sustainable Sites”
for 90% reimbursement of additional soft costs criteria).
related to obtaining certification; “LEED Gold”-
certified buildings would qualify for 100% Using the LEED “Sustainable Sites” criteria also
reimbursement; and buildings meeting the highest ensures that the City’s goals of encouraging
“LEED Platinum” certification would be eligible for a sustainable infill development are met without placing
110% reimbursement of additional soft costs to any additional burdens on building developers, as
reward this high achievement which would greatly meeting these criteria directly contribute to
benefit the City. Buildings must obtain LEED development’s overall LEED rating.
certification for New Development or Existing
Building to qualify (see Appendix for LEED criteria). Cost Scenarios for “GreenFill” Incentive Program
These recommended grant amounts are a
modification of the tiered percentages outlined in While it can be difficult to determine the annual costs
the City’s “Building Greener” document (see of the proposed GreenFill Incentive Program, as
Appendix). developer demand and project-specific eligible soft
costs will vary, a variety of scenarios can be used to
Only soft costs associated with LEED certification estimate the size of the grant program the City should
would be eligible. These costs include LEED adopt.
registration and verification fees, resource costs for
documenting compliance, and additional design and Using the City’s building permit data from 2007, the
consulting costs associated with LEED certification.19 total square footage of major commercial buildings
Eligible soft costs associated with LEED certification that could potentially seek LEED certification totaled
should not exceed 2-3% of the total development about 2,674,901.20 Given USGBC’s costs of verification
budget. based on building area for new construction and
19 Developers would have to conform to all other Department of Development standards existing buildings, respectively, the following
and demonstrate in a grant application that applicable soft costs are above and beyond calculations reflect the total costs of LEED
the costs that would normally be applied for non-LEED standard development. The certification paid to USGBC if every building issued a
Department of Development should develop criteria for determining eligible costs as permit in the City in 2007 sought registration
needed. (complete calculations are available in Appendix).
20 Year 2007 Building Permit Data was used as the number of permit issued significantly
declined in 2008 and 2009. The 2007 data is believed to be the most recent “typical”
estimate of building permits issued by the City of Columbus annually.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team
9

10. Policy Proposal
"greenfill" grant incentive program
As Table 1 illustrates, if all of the eligible commercial buildings seeking a permit in the City of Columbus in
2007 achieved LEED certification of some kind, the cost of verification reimbursable by the City through the
GreenFill Incentive Program would be $147,119.56 if all building were new construction; $106,996.04 if all
buildings were pre-existing; and $127,057.80 of half of the buildings (based on square footage) were existing
Project Type Square Footage Verification Cost per Total LEED
Square Foot[21] Verification Cost
New Construction (NC) 2,674,901 $0.06 $147,119.56
Existing Building (EB) 2,674,901 $0.04 $106,996.04
Half NC/Half EB 1,337,450.5 (NC) $0.055 (NC) $127,057.80
1,337,450.5 (EB) $0.04 (EB)
However, developers typically incur additional soft costs in addition to LEED certification costs paid to USGBC,
including compliance tracking costs and additional design/consulting expenses as described earlier. Applying
the average soft cost premium of 2.3% for LEED described in the Research section of this report to the City’s
2007 building permit data, we can estimate the potential eligible LEED soft costs as follows22:
Building Type Building Value Average LEED Premium (2.3%)
Stores/Mercantile Buildings $93,389,066 $2,147,948.52
Hospitals/Institutions $3,787,119 $87,103.74
Office/Banks/Professional $79,335,832 $1,824,724.14
Industrial $18,194,800 $418,480.40
Hotels/Motels $39,898,160 $917,657.68
TOTAL COSTS $5,395,914.47
Thus, we can estimate that if every major commercial building seeking a permit in 2007 achieved LEED
certification (minimum “Silver” certification), and the City subsidized all soft costs associated with LEED
certification, the cost to the City would be about $5.4 million. There are several caveats to these estimates,
however. First and foremost, these estimated costs would likely decrease significantly since only buildings in
qualified urban infill areas would be eligible for the grant incentive. Secondly, the average soft cost premium
for building to LEED standards (2.3%) is an estimate from the year 2003 and is likely to be lower as green
building development becomes increasingly mainstream; Finally, these estimates include all buildings which
could conceivably seek LEED certification, but office/professional buildings are by far the most likely
commercial category to use green design. The City may wish exclude some types of buildings that are unlikely
to seek LEED certification, such as stores that are likely to be relatively small, from these calculations.
Given these potential cost estimates, the City may choose to establish a program fund of about $100,000
(annual grant allotment) to cover only LEED verification costs paid to USGBC for developments in eligible urban
infill areas. Again, the City would use a tiered system to award 90% reimbursement for LEED Silver buildings;
100% for LEED Gold buildings; and 110% for LEED Platinum buildings. This amount is likely to be well above
necessary given the number of building permits that can potentially be expected in eligible infill areas. If the
City wishes to subsidize the total soft costs associated with LEED certification for buildings in eligible areas, it
may wish to limit program costs by capping eligible expenses at 2-3% (or less) of total soft costs and instituting
a competitive grant process with a maximum available program fund. For instance, the City of Portland caps
its green building fund program at $435,000 annually.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team 10

11. Policy Proposal
"greenfill" grant incentive program
Potential Funding Sources Another funding approach may be to seek bond
funding for the grant program and perhaps include
In order to finance the GreenFill grant incentive the Green Building Fund in the City’s next
program for LEED buildings, the City should establish infrastructure levy. The City’s commendable AAA bond
a dedicated Green Building Fund, which can be rating puts it in a unique position over other
funded in a variety of ways. The following scenarios municipalities to secure this type of funding for this
are examples of funding schemes used by other proposed grant program.
municipalities to fund similar grant incentive
programs despite general economic constraints. The City of Portland, Oregon, has several unique
There are also a number of state-level green building funding mechanisms for its green building and
programs, such as Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener infrastructure incentive programs. Its “1% for Green”
fund that provides a variety of funding mechanisms fund collects one percent of the construction budget
to local governments, but this report will focus on for city projects within the city right-of-way to fund
what municipalities can do to fund green buildings in green infrastructure projects that benefit the
the absence of such state programs. The City should surrounding community. Columbus could institute a
identify what measure(s) to finance its Green similar program by dedicating a percentage of its
Building Fund may be most feasible given its unique construction project budgets to the Green Building
situation. Fund for private LEED building development. Because
the City has committed to developing all of its
Many of the green building incentive programs government buildings to LEED standards, dedicating a
described earlier in this report set aside a portion of portion of its construction project budgets to the
sewer and water fees and/or building permit fees to Green Building Fund would be partially offset by the
be used towards the program fund. Because LEED- reduced operating budgets of these buildings.
standard buildings usually reduce stormwater runoff
and water and sewer maintenance costs, these cities Portland has also established a Green Investment
invest their utility maintenance cost savings into a Fund (GIF) particularly to award grants for soft costs
revolving green building fund. If the City of Columbus associated with private green building projects. The
were to use this method of financing its Green GIF was established in 2000 and is funded in a variety
Building Fund, it may wish to consider requiring that of ways including residential and commercial solid
eligible buildings meet LEED’s water-related criteria waste fees; grants from private foundations; fees
in addition to the Site Selection and associated with intergovernmental service
Density/Community Connectivity criteria to ensure agreements; and sponsorships from high-profile
that these specific savings are realized. events held by the Green Building committee.
For instance, the City could require incentivized This multi-pronged approach may be the best funding
buildings to meet LEED’s 30% Water Use Reduction mechanism for Columbus to establish its Green
criterion, which would decrease the City’s overall Building Fund. The City may be able to assess a small
water and sewer maintenance costs. The City could portion the water and sewer fees (and potentially
then afford to divert a percentage of its water and building permit fees) it collects in tandem with
sewer fees from non-LEED buildings towards the dedicating a percentage of its construction budget for
Green Building Fund, which would continue to City projects, securing some bond funding, and
decrease the burden of the City water supply and seeking private grant funding to establish a Green
treatment services. Building Fund. The Columbus Foundation and other
private foundations that have a history of supporting
environmental-related programs may form a
partnership with City to establish the Fund.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team 11

12. Policy Proposal
"greenfill" grant incentive program
Prospective Impacts of the “GreenFill” Incentive Program
While the exact energy, environmental, and economic benefits of encouraging private development of LEED
buildings will vary, the GreenFill Incentive Program is certain to have a significant impact on catalyzing
widespread development of green buildings in the City of Columbus and focusing development within core
urbanized areas.
A Duke University study on the impacts of the City of Cincinnati’s LEED tax abatement program found that the
number of new LEED-registered buildings dramatically increased after the program was established.24 All of
the developers involved in the study indicated that the incentive program was the primary reason they chose
to pursue LEED certification, even above marketing value and operational cost savings. The developers also
indicated that LEED incentive program motivated them to develop in the central city rather than in
surrounding municipalities.
Thus, in addition to the many environmental and utility maintenance cost benefits associated with
LEED-standard buildings, the City of Columbus could also realize increased market attention in building
development, especially in its urban infill areas, as a result of the proposed LEED incentive program.
Such a program could give the City a competitive edge in attracting development as well as businesses
seeking to occupy highly desirable green buildings, which in turn creates jobs and tax revenues within
the City.
24 LaJeunesse, Katherine J. “Cincinnati Takes the Lead in LEED: Effects of a real estate tax abatement for LEED certification on development and green
building”. (2009). <http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/10161/1005/1/LaJeunesse_NSOE_MastersProject.pdf>
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team 12

13. NextSteps
additional research. implementation.
Next Steps for Green Buildings Incentive Policy
In addition to exploring funding mechanisms for
the GreenFill Incentive Policy, there are several
areas for further study that may be investigated
before the program is instituted:
1. Use Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
modeling to determine which areas of the City
are eligible for the incentive grant using the
LEED Sustainable Sites criteria as
recommended. By generating an incentive zone
map, developers will be able to easily determine
where urban infill sites are and where the
GreenFill incentive applies, making it easier for
developers to build green. In addition, after
mapping GreenFill-eligible sites, the City may
wish to add to or further limit eligible sites based
on any of its own additional development
priorities.
2. Consider mandating additional LEED criteria
to the GreenFill incentive grant. If the City
determines that using a portion of utility fees Source: U.S. Green Building Council
would be part of the financing mechanism for the
GreenFill incentive program, it may be
4. Gain insight on GreenFill policy
appropriate to research other City green building
recommendations from other local officials as
priorities and add relevant LEED criteria to the
well as developers. It may be useful for local
incentive program.
officials, such as those within the Department of
Development, to review this policy
3. Continue researching green building funds
recommendation report in order to gain additional
and related grant programs in other cities to
insight on its feasibility. As this policy
inform the funding mechanism for the GreenFill
recommendation evolves, it may also be useful for
incentive grant. Though this report provides
some local developers to weigh in on how this
research and suggestions for financing the
policy meets their perception of barriers to LEED-
GreenFill incentive program, it may be necessary
standard and urban infill development.
to continue researching the financing of similar
grant-making programs in other cities. This will
likely require interviewing program administrators
and other research to elucidate innovative
approaches to funding grant programs.
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team
13

14. Beyond GreenFill
future considerations. additional recommendations.
In addition to the GreenFill incentive program The site may also include suggestions and best
recommendations made here, the City of Columbus management practices for creative green building
may also wish to consider the following policies to features, such as rooftop gardens, stormwater
achieve truly sustainable green building development: management techniques, rain gardens, and other
desirable features. This information is either already
LEED Scorecard for All City Developments available from the City in some form or can easily be
linked to from other web sources. The One Stop Shop
The City should strongly consider requiring all would serve to compile all of this information on one
developments applying for a building permit to webpage to provide developers with all the
complete a LEED Scorecard, the LEED criteria information they need to build green. One example
checklist, as a mandatory part of the development model for such as webpage is the City of Seattle’s
process. This would be an expansion upon the City’s “City Green Building” website.26
policy to require developers to demonstrate energy
efficiency measures in order to receive a tax Create Regional Partnerships
abatement package. A similar program is instituted
with the City of Arlington, Virginia, and is designed to While adopting an incentive policy like “GreenFill” to
encourage green building development.25 This policy encourage sustainable infill development will have
would also fulfill the City’s Green Strings initiative to important environmental and economic impacts on
tie all City incentives to green commitments. the City, implementing such a policy on a regional
scale is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainable
A policy such as this also serves to accelerate the growth of the Central Ohio area. It is therefore
pace at which local developers become accustomed recommended that City develop partnerships with its
to green design, thus institutionalizing these surrounding suburbs as well as the Mid-Ohio Regional
standards beyond the life of the grant program. This Planning Commission (MORPC) to institute incentives
may also enlighten developers to their building’s for green infill development.
eligibility for LEED certification when then may not
have otherwise known they would qualify. The success of the City’s incentive program will serve
as a model to surrounding communities, and the City
One Stop Shop for Green Development can mentor these communities in developing their
own infill policies that reflect regional cooperation.
In order to streamline the development process Central Ohio communities have already demonstrated
specific to green building design, the City should a willingness to collaborate as a region on important
include a webpage on the Department of planning issues, such as watershed partnerships
Development website that serves as a One Stop Shop including the Big Darby Accord and the Olentangy
for Green Development. The One Stop Shop would River Watershed Planning Partnership that is currently
provide City resources and technical assistance forming under MORPC. As the urban anchor of the
information for green/LEED buildings and may area, the City of Columbus is perfectly suited to lead
include: a listing of City LEED Accredited a regional cooperative effort to promote sustainable
Professionals that may be able to provide consulting infill development and preserve diminishing open
services during the planning and development spaces.
process; a list of local suppliers of green building
25 “Green Building Site Plan Conditions in Arlington (Private Development)”
materials; and other available City resources for
http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/epo/EnvironmentalServi
meeting LEED standards, such as construction
cesEpoGreenBuildings.aspx
material recycling facilities. The site would also link
26 “City Green Building”
to neighborhood/area profiles of priority geographic
http://www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/GreenBuilding/Commercial/IncentivesAssistance/defau
locations for green development.
lt.asp
"GreenFill" Policy Proposal - City of Columbus Green Team 14