Letter to the Editor: Builder backs green ideas, shuns municipal mandates

I voted “No” on the question of mandating Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification for city-owned buildings because I believe this to be no different than mandating only one cable company to serve Springfield residents – and that is a bad choice for our community.

As chair of the Home Builders Association of Greater Springfield’s Green Building Committee, I strongly agree with green building. But I do not support a policy mandating a specific green building certification program for the following reasons:

1. The policy is unnecessarily restrictive. The policy implies that the U.S. Green Building Council LEED program is the only nationally recognized “standard” for excellence in facility design.

There are other equally well-respected and established certification programs available, including Energy Star by the Department of Energy and Green Globes by the Green Building Initiative. LEED is the most expensive of these certifications. As far as qualifying as a “standard” of excellence, the GBI commercial-building program is currently going through the American National Standards Institute’s rigorous process to conform to the most widely recognized definition of a “standard.” USGBC has not opted to submit LEED to the ANSI process.

2. The current policy drafted by the city states that while the building would be built to a specified LEED certification, “actual certification of buildings by USGBC is not required.” It is important to clearly note that this statement does not say the buildings “will not” be certified. This error leaves the door open for that process but strategically avoids public debate about the substantial cost of the LEED certification process and whether or not the additional tens of thousands of dollars in public funds should be spent for certification of public buildings. For example, the cost to LEEDcertify a 6,300-square-foot building I completed this year was approximately $40,000. That seems relatively small in comparison to the potential size of a public facility. Equally important to note is that those initial certification dollars (and future recertification dollars) add nothing to the performance of the building.

3. Any proposed policy that contains the word “require” from a governmental entity should require additional scrutiny and public input. When something is required, or mandated, it is an absolute – we have no choice but to comply. As far as I know, there was no opportunity provided for public input during the time this policy was drafted. In the city’s recent multifamily housing development policy, it adopted language promoting green building by rewarding points to a project that adheres to one of several nationally recognized green building programs. Why wouldn’t this policy be consistent with that?

—Sam Bradley, Sam Bradley Homes