S.W.I.M. Coalition

We haven’t received any surveys from projects that have actually received the tax credit yet. The survey was directly sent to hundreds of stormwater and green roof professionals, posted on Greenroofs.com as well as the CUNY Sustainable Cities blog, and broadcast in the latest GreenHome NYC newsletter.  If you know of anyone who should be represented in this survey, please urge them to chime in! It is very brief! Below find a few snippets…         -> Go to the survey <-

Respondent 1: …in order to qualify for the credit, a building permit must be granted. But a permit is not required to install a green roof. And since the cost of applying for a building permit is so high, it ends up not being worth the money and time lost waiting for most building owners. [I]n order for it to be a realistic incentive, the tax abatement needs to either provide more money, or the permit process needs to change… (credit pending)

Respondent 2: The tax incentive is not practical for small-scale green roof installations. The tax abatement would have given us a $3,600 rebate. Most architects, engineers, and expediters quoted $2000-3,500 to go through the process, even though we had done drawings and already done most of the leg-work. In addition, we were told that a modular system might not qualify for the credit making that up front cost of hiring a filing professional quite a gamble…Every person you speak with has different information (or misinformation)… (credit pending)

Respondent 4: None of the roofs I have installed have applied for the credit. It appears that unless you want to pay a ton of extra cash (which adds up to more than the credit – architect fees, landscape arch fees, and the engineer fees) it makes no sense to apply. I think it only works out on very very large projects….10,000 sq.ft +.  I would however be curious to see how many people have actually used this credit…

Respondent 5: …a big part of the reason for doing it…was that we thought we could offset a decent amount of the increased costs via the tax credit. If we’re going to lose ½ or more of that credit because of filing fees/costs, then this benefit ceases to really be a benefit. In addition, from a psychological perspective, when the city and green roofers promote this as an incentive to do a green roof and then you learn the facts, it creates a very negative attitude towards green initiatives…

Respondent 6: On small buildings, the $4/sf barely covers the cost of the required filing with the DOB… It’s just not enough money to be worth it. For a 5,000 sf roof, a green roof would cost minimum $90,000, probably more when you add in structural issues, new roofing, and possible asbestos abatement. The tax abatement would be $20k but the required filing would cost at least $7,500 for an architect, structural engineer and expeditor and that $20k would be paid back over 4 years assuming the building paid that much in property taxes.­­­­­­­

More from Respondent 1: Other incentives out there – Washington D.C.: $7/sq. ft., Chicago: Expedited permitting for projects containing a green roof, Portland: Increases buildable space, tax credit, expedited permitting for project. No special green roof application, Philadelphia: Business Privilege Tax Credit that covers 25% of all costs $100,000 cap

S.W.I.M. Coalition is seeking feedback on your experience with obtaining a tax credit for a green roof project in NYC.  Are you a home owner, architect or engineer who has gone through this process?  Did it work for your project?  Please take a moment to run through this short survey, and pass this on to all the green roofers you know!

Click here to take survey

…or copy and paste this address: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/THN898G

Public hearings begin this week on Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) proposed water rates for FY 1010-2011.  The annual rate-setting process follows on the heels of DEP’s Water and Sewer Rate Study (link downloads PDF of study), which examined various possible changes to the water rate structure, including the creation of a separate stormwater charge.  Such a charge could be used to more equitably allocate the estimated 10% to 20% of DEP’s annual expenses that are attributable to stormwater management (including combined sewer overflow abatement) and create incentives for the use of sustainable “green infrastructure” approaches to stormwater management that, ultimately, will achieve cost-savings for DEP.

The S.W.I.M. Coalition is encouraged by the proposed Parking Lot Facility Pilot Program, which is included in DEP’s FY 2010-2011 rate proposal, and would institute a stormwater fee for stand-alone, outdoor parking lots on parcels that do not have potable water hookup, basing the amount of the fee on the area of each lot.  Under the current fee structure, these parking lots do not currently pay any water service charges to DEP, notwithstanding the burden that stormwater runoff from such large impervious surfaces adds to the sewer system.  Clearly, certain “free riders” on NYC’s sewer system will be captured by this stormwater charge. Critically, the proposed pilot program also includes a credit system, to be developed by the time the fee takes effect, to reduce the charge for property owners that install “green infrastructure” retrofits that retain stormwater onsite. The S.W.I.M. Coalition supports a collaborative and transparent approach to the development of this credit program.

We hope that feedback from the parking lot pilot will help determine how best to craft a citywide stormwater charge that covers  DEP’s stormwater costs, while encouraging sustainable stormwater management. The current rate structure, which generates revenues to cover nearly all of DEP’s expenses (including those related to stormwater), charges customers based only on the amount of potable water used; that charge bears no relation to the amount of stormwater runoff a given property actually discharges to the sewer system.  Separating out from this fee structure a charge for stormwater based on the amount of impervious area on a property that drains to the city sewer system would distribute the costs more equitably.  Properly structured, a separate stormwater fee would also provide an effective financial incentive to implement sustainable stormwater management techniques that capture and retain stormwater onsite.  (We note, however, that the Water and Sewer Rate Study did not analyze the potentially huge cost savings that could accrue to DEP by using the new fee as an incentive for property owners to retain stormwater onsite, which would lessen DEP’s costs of building and maintaining municipal stormwater management infrastructure).

We also encourage DEP and the Water Board to direct stormwater rate payments into green infrastructure retrofits on public property that will provide for the long term health of our city’s infrastructure and urban ecosystems, while providing the maximum benefit to communities in the form of open space provision, cleaner, cooler air, and improved quality of local waterways.

In summary, we support the concept of a stormwater charge for New York City with several caveats – that the fee be paired with an efficient credit program to offer rate payers relief in exchange for on-site stormwater management, that the DEP offer clear instruction  and economically feasible ways to obtain the credit, and that the revenues generated by the stormwater charge support the implementation of Green infrastructure in New York City.

The S.W.I.M. Coalition looks forward to an ongoing dialogue with the NYC Water Board and the DEP to address these issues.

Philadelphia’s water department  is implementing an innovative new program, adding a stormwater charge for nonresidential customers as an incentive for greening paved areas to reduce runoff.  This tax will be based on the amount of impervious surface, charging customers for the runoff they generate.   Turning paved surfaces such as schoolyards  green provides the added benefit of shaded and healthier places to play.  

http://changingskyline.blogspot.com/2009/06/phillys-need-for-green-acres.html