Grantmaking Blog

With profound apologies to Kermit the Frog, we'd like to ask you about being green...

As you may know, for several years MMT has had a policy encouraging "green" building practices in capital projects that seek funding from us. We have been especially interested in seeing construction that reduces use of fossil fuels and lowers ongoing energy costs for organizations.

We are contemplating strengthening our green building policy. But before we make a decision, we would like to hear from you. How would requiring "green" building practices affect your capital projects?

Is promoting green building a value your organization shares? Do you foresee any unintended consequences that we should know about? What should we know about the challenges your organization might face in meeting "green" building requirements.

This is your opportunity to contribute your wisdom and experience to our decision-making process. Please submit your response here by Jan. 31, 2007.

Comments

Posted by: David Cox | January 12, 2007 11:18 AM

As a board member of Furry Friends, Inc. -- an animal rescue org. -- we would be in full support of a "greener" building policy. We house animals (mostly cats) & would want the greenest possible environment for them. For example, we are extremely careful about the cleaning products we use around the animals. If MMT is willing to fund the additional cost of a greener building, then bravo!

Posted by: Barry Birch | January 12, 2007 11:53 AM

Greetings! And congratulations for pursueing green building efforts.

I was so impressed with the article in the Oregonian summarizing the green building results for the new OHSU building. What an achievement!

Building green is so compatible with our whole phylosophy as we take donated, sometimes distressed, product and pass it on to those who really need it. Last year we distributed 8 million pounds to 670 low-income families and over 50 other local community service agencies.

We long for the day when we could be in a green facility but it just seems so remotely impossible as we struggle daily to survive. At best, we are just searching for any facility we could afford as we are completely out of space and have lost our lease.

Barry Birch
Birch Community Services, Inc.

Posted by: Susan Cross | January 12, 2007 11:58 AM

I love the added impetus to go green in building. I think this would help to keep pressure on everyone to include green options in our new development and renovations.

My concerns center around the addtional time that is required to 1) get permits that are for new techniques...sometimes counties and cities need to be convinced. 2) lenders also tend to push for conventional tried and true building designs and materials to protect thier investments in case of resale in the future 3) green designers and green materials are sometimes hard to find due to demand problems and this can also slow projects down 4) green building supplies and ethical woods are also still more expensive in general and can increase overall costs to a project.

This is a kind of Catch 22 situation and I am totally in favor of building green...but in my own experiences have had some realities rear thier heads that can at the least slow things down... I think as long as the Foundation is prepared to help organizations get through the barriers it would be of great value to have more push toward this style of appropriate technology!! Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Posted by: Cathy | January 12, 2007 01:23 PM

I have a Head Start colleague who is building a new Head Start facility that will meet "green" building practices. In the long run he assures me it will save much in utility costs. The major factor is the amount
that it increases the building costs. For those of us who get CDBG $$ from the state to build new facilities and that is our major source of $$, it means much smaller buildings that may not meet our needs because of the cost of "green" practices. We are currently building a 5,200 square foot building for $800,000 - my Head Start colleague is building one that is less than 4,000 and it is costing him over a million dollars.

Posted by: John Holley | January 12, 2007 02:20 PM

We support a green building policy; however, as a very small non-profit we would hope the "requirement" would be flexible. If it were to add significantly to the cost of a project it may create problems in obtaining funding.

Posted by: John Hayes | January 12, 2007 02:25 PM

As Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and member of the Environmental Studies Department, I can say that Pacific University wholeheartedly supports the Meyer Trust's proposal to require green-building practices. In August 2005, Pacific opened a new library, with generous support from the Meyer Trust, that will receive a Silver LEED certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. In August 2006, we opened a new residence hall and phase one of a new health professions campus in Hillsboro, with applications for Gold LEED certification for both buildings. This will be the first Gold-rated residence hall on the West Coast. We are currently building a professional studies building on the Forest Grove campus and will seek LEED certification for it, as well.
John Hayes

Posted by: Bob | January 12, 2007 04:09 PM

I wouldn't "require green" for a number of reasons, some of which have already been mentioned. My major concern is whose definition of "green" are you using? Trees clean the air, provide wildlife habitat, and keep stream water clean. When harvested, they can immediately be replanted and do it all over again in about 40 years. How many non-renewable natural resources are used up and how much energy is used creating many of the so called green products like steel and aluminum for construction? I'm all for conserving resources and intelligent design and construction techniques, but be careful who's determining your "green" standards. There are way too many folks who never want to see another tree cut down, yet wood is the most efficient, cost effective, AND renewable building material we have.

Posted by: Keith | January 15, 2007 07:41 AM

As in most things, "Green" is a relative word. I believe that it was previously asked, "Who defines Green?" That would be a concern. We are involved in funding for a new building - a 23,000 sq ft men's residence. As we did with our Women's facility - 14,000 sq ft - we are "green conscous" in that we have no central air conditioning or heating; our heating is radiant hot water through coils in the flooring. We used many windows with all of the rooms having overhead fans. Just a couple of the areas that we tried to be sensitive to. Of course, the cost.... Hopefully, the cost will be recovered in 7 to 8 years but when, as a non-profit you are fundraising these are the issues that often meet the raised eyebrow. I would hope that the MMT would enter this fray with great understanding and patience.

Posted by: Virginia Nafus | January 15, 2007 11:31 AM

PeaceHealth is dedicated to the construction of environmentally friendly buildings. However, the current LEED requirements conflict with some basic design needs of a healthcare institution. That is not to say that LEED principals of environmentally responsive design should not been incorporated into Healthcare facilities, or that the research into building products and technologies has not been applied to the unique condition of hospital design. In fact, as environments focused on health and healing, and as large–scale operations consuming a great quantity of resources, healthcare facilities have a tremendous opportunity to make a significant positive impact on their local and global environments.

Since there are several key operational issues that LEED certification does not address properly to be truly applicable to the healthcare environment, I would hope that Meyer Memorial Trust can take the following healthcare facility design factors into consideration.

1. Healthcare institutions are operational 24/7, consuming a great deal of energy and resources. They must therefore be evaluated on the terms of their specific program requirements and building typology, not within the context of an office building or a hotel. Although LEED has begun the process of developing an Application Guide for Healthcare projects, it is in a nascent state at this time.

2. Secondly, infection control plays a significant role in the operations of a facility (including everything from the placement of a sink to the type of flooring installed). This fact limits, or perhaps focuses, the selection of building materials and mechanical systems into a carefully specified range of options – many of which fall outside of the sustainable design parameters available to less demanding program types. For example, natural ventilation is difficult to incorporate for reasons of infection control, and artificial lighting levels are driven by rigid safety standards.

3. The process of obtaining LEED certification requires a significant outlay of financial resources. Third party commissioning of the mechanical systems alone for a large hospital project could cost 100’s of thousands of dollars – money that could also be effectively utilized for patient care. The expense of certification would likely be recuperated within the early life of the building, through energy savings, lower absentee rates for employees, and quicker recovery for patients, but it would require an upfront commitment.

As with all things, there has been an evolution of sustainable design thinking and practice surrounding healthcare environments. GGHC (GREEN GUIDE for Health Care) is a similar program to LEED, developed specifically for Healthcare facility design. GGHC, a self-administered set of guidelines, is currently available as a pilot program. Several healthcare intuitions are researching and testing its viability before an official rating system (Gold, Silver, Bronze) is established.

PeaceHealth wholeheartedly supports the use of green building guidelines, but would ask Meyer to seek out the most appropriate requirements that properly address patient needs for the design of environmentally safe and sound healthcare facilities.

Posted by: Kathie Minden | January 15, 2007 12:07 PM

I think it will add value to the entire discussion of "green" for MMT to take an interest in this issue. The long-term needs have to be considered, but hopefully, we can lay out an approach that will take immediate costs into consideration. As a supporter of the environment through parks and recreation, People for Parks is finding ways to educate the public through eco-roof designs over projects in The Imaginative Children's Garden, and other ways of being environmentally conscious. This could be the "norm" that will continue to sustain us all, well into future generations.
Kathie Minden
Chair, People for Parks

Posted by: Judith Anne McBride | January 15, 2007 08:53 PM

We at Willow Wind Community Learning Center, Ashland, Oregon would whole heartedly embrace a "green" componant to capital projects. Our community has chosen to recycle an 1894 barn on our property as a large group assembly hall and venue rather than tear the building down and start anew. We are also incorporating a ground source heat pump for heating and cooling which is reputed to save us 60% in our energy bill.

Posted by: Tawnya | January 17, 2007 03:15 PM

Organizations and corporations that are choosing to Green Build are considered to be on the “fridge�? and the change makers. Many would like to get on board with these ideas, but there are still those that doubt Green Building technology. The concerns voiced, that I have heard relating to green building fit into these two categories:

(A)Technology is still relatively new and not mass produced and therefore can be expensive.
(B)There can be limited information about the newer technologies and how they serve in the long run (cost effectiveness/otherwise).

It can be challenging to convince people to take a perceived/real risk. Often Green Building projects can seem more like a dream then anything that could actually become reality. If Green Building is required, Meyer Memorial Trust (MMT) might consider an educational piece for those that are new to Green Building.

Requiring Green Building will help to turn the tables in many organizations that are still running up against opposition to sustainable practices. Requiring organizations to build green is an environmentally responsible stance and one the MMT should feel proud to initiate.

Tawnya Durand
Americorps VISTA

Posted by: Julie Daniel | January 18, 2007 04:11 PM

MMT is right. It really ain't easy being green. We know firsthand since we're a grassroots non profit doing green redevelopment project. I appreciate the chance to comment on MMT's question about requiring capital development projects to be green.

First, we strongly support green building and conservation, but hesitate to endorse requiring it for all projects.

I would support requiring green construction for large capital projects---institutions, museums, hospitals, university buildings and so forth. These are quasi public in nature, often have public funds (govt $$) as part of the funding package (taxpayer $$ should go to green!), are large buildings with high usage and a big environmental impact. Requiring green for these types of projects makes sense. It sends a message to major donors about the importance of conservation. It offers opportunities for community education if part of the requirement is to quantify the conservation measures and publicize the green features and why they are important--I'd think most institutions would want to do this for the PR advantage anyway. The large organizations engaged in these projects are more likely to have access to wealthy donors, so raising the extra money green building requires is less of a hurdle.

Requiring green for grassroots and community based organizations is another matter, and I am much more hesitant to endorse that despite my personal committment and my organization's mission.

Going green is not easy. Drawing from our own experience, we found:
1) permits can be tricky. We had a lot of trouble with our on site stormwater permit, despite the fact it was funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board as an example of best practices.
2) Design is more expensive. For big institutions, this is less of an issue, but for smaller agencies, it could be a barrier. Agencies outside major urban areas may have trouble finding architects and engineers with enough background in LEED and green building. Agencies will need technical assistance to separate green from greenwash, and to help them decide which green strategies offer the best environmental bang for the buck. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
3) Building green is more expensive, and the savings may not pay off for many years. Many important green strategies have no real payback in terms of saving an agency operating costs over the life of the building
4) Access to materials, and greater cost of green materials. All these factors could make a green building requirement very difficulty for small agencies.

It would be great if MMT strongly encouraged community non profits to look for green opportunities, and provided some technical assistance and referral help. Many agencies could benefit from BETC credits for example, and local utilities may have incentive programs to install super energy efficient lighting.

Posted by: Gina Franzosa | January 26, 2007 02:47 PM

I am part of an organization that seeks to change green building from a ‘fringe’ or ‘country-club’ (as Oprah described it) movement to a societal norm. Cascadia Region Green Building Council is the local Chapter of the US Green Building Council and the most influential organization helping to advance sustainable building in the Pacific NW. That said, as you might expect, I enthusiastically support a requirement to build green. BUT, I support it for very important reasons: it is the best long-term investment one can make in their facilities, it is the biggest opportunity to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (read stop climate change), and it is conveys the most important message to the broader community, especially youth.

In reading everyone’s comments so far, it is obvious many have at least a basic understanding of green building principles. It is better for people who occupy buildings by reducing toxins that the medical community is increasing associating with human health problems. It is better for bottom lines because reduced operating costs typically pay back investments in 5 years or less. It is better for the environment because green house gas emissions are reduced or even eliminated (yes eliminated!). It is also better for the environment because materials are sourced from sustainably harvested and renewable sources, water use is reduced and wastewater (storm and sewage) is cleaner and lessened through recycling. Green building even supports local economies by recommending locally available goods and services – you would be surprised at how many materials that go into a building can be found locally at reasonable prices.

To the question of what definition of green should be used: LEED. It is the best tool on the market today – with one exception: the Green Communities Standard for affordable housing offered by the Enterprise Foundation. LEED is the volunteer labor of some of the most thoughtful members of the building industry. And everyone who reads this should be proud to know that many of these influential leaders live and work in Oregon and Washington. It is not perfect – however it has created a common language and I can assure you is in constant development to become a more flexible, user-friendly and effective tool.

It is my job, thanks in part to the Meyer Trust’s support, to help inform and educate people on sustainable building practices. We organize free and fee-based events where you can learn just about anything you could want to know – one of the best and easiest ways is to go on a free green building tour. Please visit our website (www.cascadiagbc.org) or drop me an email (gina [at] cascadiagbc [dot] org) and I would be happy talk more about it. Hope to see you at an event soon!



Posted by: George Myers | January 28, 2007 09:20 AM

The Board of Florence Habitat for Humanity discussed the question of "Green Building" at its monthly meeting on Jan. 24, 2007. The consensus was that they were strongly in favor of building our homes as "Green" as possible as long as increased costs did not significantly lower our rate of providing low income families the opportunity to own homes.

I strongly suspect that would be the attitude of most, perhaps all, Habitat affiliates because the number of families in need of our homes always exceeds the rate at which we can build the homes.

I should note that Florence Habitat already does take small but significant steps toward "Green Building", as demonstrated by the following note that our construction supervisor sent me:

Things that we do now


1. Salvage and utilize salvaged roof sheathing, trusses, beams, 2 x 4’s in our homes.

2. Present sites are wind protected by dunes and trees on two sides of small development

3. Utilizing slab construction to reduce the cost and save on wood materials for floors, and floor post and beam construction.

4. Utilization of wood chips from site vegetation and topsoil from site to improve the growing capability of the beach sand fill.

5. Utilize building dimensions that minimize waste of standard building materials. Recycle cut-offs from construction as blocking and form braces and stakes for the next house.

6. Utilize, where feasible, used and donated materials such as doors, windows, etc.

7. Fill wall cavities and around tub showers with scrap insulation. (Reduces waste at landfill.)

8. Provide small scraps of lumber to seniors and volunteers for kindling. When clearing provide firewood to individuals who utilize wood for heating.

9. Provide additional insulation in the ceiling to reduce heat loss.

10. Utilize zonal electric heaters in individual rooms to allow heating only where it is required.

11. Utlize low E windows.


Things that we could do


1. Fill wall cavities where there is no plumbing or wiring with scrap drywall. (Reduces waste at landfill.)

2. Utilize cellulose insulation in walls and ceiling as a more environmentally friendly material than rock wool and fiberglass bats. More efficient.

3. Site buildings, where possible, to take advantage of solar heating and cooling.

4. Install point of use water heaters rather than conventional tank water heaters.

Posted by: Douglas Beauchamp | January 30, 2007 01:43 PM

“Green�? in itself is not an end; it is a means. The “Green Building�? question is a good one but is very much in the comfort zone. Opening the discussion plumbs a deeper question: to what end does the means aspire? And what process of choice contributes to moving profoundly toward the aspiration.

Perhaps the question becomes: What role does MMT as a leading funder seek to play in fostering appropriate design, or further, appropriate choice, by and with the people and organizations with which it plans its endeavors?

By appropriate I mean decisions and actions that meaningful enhance well-being for all life forms -- human, other animals, plants -- and for the natural systems that contribute to that well-being.

Other examples (from a much longer and more complex list) of practical “means�? where MMT could play a leadership role:
--Tele-Commuting: to reduce the impact of autos and road travel.
--Tele-Convening: to reduce the impact of auto and air travel.
--E-mail: other e-communication: to reduce use of paper and postage.
--Bulk-buying: to reduce packaging and shipping.
--A do-more-with-less grant option rather than a stream of do-more-with-more “solutions.�?

Humankind in this century is on the verge of a mind-boggling alteration in its life-ways. Clearly, thousands of life forms and millions of beings are at risk, are suffering, or soon will suffer, due to human choice re its use of the planet’s finite resources. The Green discussion indicates awareness that some choice and (perhaps) making some difference is an option.

How much further is MMT willing to go?

Douglas Beauchamp
Executive Director
Sitka Center for Art and Ecology

Posted by: Mike Houck | January 30, 2007 03:48 PM

Not sure if you really wanted input from those of us without capital projects, but since I feel part of the MMT family I think it's appropriate for the non-capital folks to weigh in on this.

As an advocate of better integrating the built and natural environments---in the city--I believe, in general, you should require or at least encourage your grantees to at least address what are becoming standard green building practices. I just returned from an ecoroof brown bag at the City of Portland at which Tom Liptan of Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services recounted the short, ten-year history of ecoroof research and construction in Portland. It was interesting to note that in many places in Germany it's now required to install an ecoroof in all new construction. Here, we are in the "early adoption" phase of ecoroof construction and it will likely be another decade before such a requirement will be in place.

We will never get there if we all, including the nonprofit community, don't insist on pushing the envelope.

There are many other examples of green building practices that even non-profits should be encouraged--required---to at least consider. Providing an impetus for such consideration is not onerous, assuming that you keep the process relatively simple. If you don't suggest or require such consideration there are many who would not have even considered bioswales, ecoroofs, landscaping or other approaches to integrating stormwater management into their projects.

Finally, green building considerations should not stop at the building envelope. Where the building is located, with regard to transit, fish and wildlife habitats, and other environmental considerations should also be part of the green building mix.

Mike Houck
Urban Greenspaces Institute

Posted by: christina | January 31, 2007 01:34 PM

Our organization is in the process of securing funds to renovate a home for folks with Developmental Disabilities. All the comments on this site have been most helpful in trying to ascertain how "green" to go. I really appreciate the conversation!

Commenting on this Blog entry is closed.