My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2008 06 24
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2001-2009 City Council Study Sessions
>
2008 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2008 06 24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 11:35:41 AM
Creation date
9/8/2008 1:10:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
5F6
Supplemental fields
Test
SSAGPKT 2008 06 24
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
PAGE NINE <br />SUBJECT: DISCUSSION -BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS -GREEN <br />BUILDING <br />DATE: JUNE 24, 2008 <br />Fiscal Impact <br />The fiscal impact could range from no new dollars spent to the cost of one full time <br />employee. If the City chooses to use a third party type program similar to a Built Green <br />Colorado or require and energy audit system similar to HERS these required minimal support <br />from Building Safety Division Staff. With the Built Green Colorado or similar system the cost <br />is to the contractor. With the HERS type program the cost is to the homeowner. If we <br />choose to create our own or implement some version of a points program both require <br />heavy involvement for administrative staff, inspection staff and tracking from staff resulting <br />in one full time employee. <br />Consideration <br />Included with this information area Resolutions from the Building Code Board of <br />Appeals (BCBOA) and the Louisville Resource Conservations Advisory Board (LRCAB). <br />The BCBOA resolution requests specific direction from the City Council. The LRCAB <br />resolution requests that the City enforce specific directives. Both of these resolutions require <br />your consideration before moving forward. <br />The options available to the City are: <br />1. Develop our own system from the available information <br />2. Adopt a City administered proc~ram already created <br />3. Adopt a third party program already available <br />4. Adopt a modified program from existing programs <br />5. Let the market dictate the use of green building practices <br />Op tion Description Pros Cons <br />1. Louisville created Ownership Very expensive <br />2 City Administrated Quick to implement Requires additional staff <br /> Uniformity in area <br />3. Third party Quick to implement Costly to homeowner <br />4. Modified Specific to Louisville Requires additional staff <br />5. Market driven Market driven Enforcement <br />The Building Code Board of Appeals recommends the following methods of enforcement for <br />each type of construction: <br />New Residential <br />The Contractor or homeowner would be required to bring in some locally recognized <br />or nationally accepted program certification for each home or multifamily building. This <br />requires minimal Building Safety Division staff time and puts the administrative cost on the <br />contractor or home owner. The City would not require a specific program but the Building <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.