My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resource Conservation Advisory Board Minutes 2008 06 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
RESOURCE CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD (RECYCLE)
>
2008 Resource Conservation Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Resource Conservation Advisory Board Minutes 2008 06 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:10:59 AM
Creation date
10/3/2008 4:09:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
RCABMIN 2008 06 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Open Space Advisory Board <br />Minutes <br />DATE <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Cons: <br />• Green points has no mandatory requirements or outcomes, so it may be <br />less effective than performance based programs. <br />• Builders may pick items based on cost rather than on environmental <br />values. <br />• Because Green points inspections are done as part of city building <br />inspections, more time may be required from city inspectors. <br />• All items deal with very specific existing technology, materials, and <br />practices. The evolution of new technology, materials, and practices will <br />require frequent updating of codes, and forms, and additional training for <br />inspectors. Until codes are updated, new technology will be considered by <br />subjective analysis. <br />• Some items do not accomplish much, for example, replacing eight <br />incandescent bulbs with eight compact fluorescent bulbs provides 2 <br />points. Just because the builder installs CFL bulbs does not mean that the <br />homeowner will use them. <br />• Points may not reflect values, e.g., conserving energy, promoting cleaner <br />air, limiting water use. <br />• Many items require only self-certification, without receipts or verification of <br />any kind. <br />Boulder County's BuildSmart Program <br />Pros: <br />• BuildSmart has mandatory requirements and outcomes verified through <br />the HERS rating system, so may be more effective than Green points <br />programs. <br />• Inspections are performed by a HERS certified inspector and not be city <br />inspectors. <br />• Because BuildSmart is concerned with outcomes, builders/owners have <br />the freedom to choose the technologies and materials they will use to <br />achieve their required outcome. <br />• BuildSmart's plan is simple, brief, and easy to follow. <br />• HERS rating criteria are updated by an external agency and do not require <br />city staff time for updating codes and forms, or training inspectors. <br />• Standards are higher for larger buildings and lower for smaller buildings. <br />Cons: <br />• BuildSmart is newly implemented, but not yet proven, in Boulder County. <br />• HERS inspections may cause longer building timelines. <br />• Cost of HERS inspections will be borne by builder/owner. <br />• Program assumes the availability of HERS-certified inspectors. <br />City of Louisville <br />Parks & Recreation Department 749 Main Street Louisville CO 80027 <br />303.335.4735 (phone) 303.335.4738 (fax) www_ci_louisville_co_us <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.