carver county public works facility

Post Occupancy Evaluation

Carver County Public Works Facility

Prepared for the

Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board

Prepared by the

Center for Sustainable Building Research University of Minnesota

John Carmody

Kathleen Harder Virajita Singh

Jonee Kulman Brigham Katherine E. Dale

December 22, 2004

SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Carver County Public Works Facility

Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota 1

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 1: INTRODUCTION 7

Project Description Background Methodology Objectives

2: SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES 12

Site Water Energy Indoor Environmental Quality Materials Waste

3: PROCESS 21

Introduction Evaluation by Key Participants

4: OUTCOMES 27

Economic Environmental Human Community

APPENDICES 33

A: Specifications Review B: Outcome Data Sheets C: Key to Life Cycle Assessment Units D: Occupant Survey Form



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Carver County Public Works Facility Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is one of five studies of sustainable building pilot projects by the University of Minnesota team. We would like to thank the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) for funding these studies, and the SWMCB committee for their guidance and direction. Committee members included Leslie Wilson, Carver County; Warren Wilson, Dakota County; Sue Doll, Anoka County; Paul Kroening, Hennepin County; Nicky Stewart, Washington County; Cathi Lyman-Onkka and Michael Reed, Ramsey County; Erin Barnes-Driscoll and Laura Millberg, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance; and Jan Lucke, Richardson Richter and Associates. The study would not have been possible without the participation and cooperation of numerous individuals at Carver County. We appreciate the time and input of Leslie Wilson, Solid Waste Specialist/HHW Coordinator and Bob Darnell, Facilities Manager, Carver County Public Works Facility. We thank the Carver County Public Works Facility staff who participated in user surveys and a focus group interview. We also thank Carver County staff, Leslie Wilson and Kathleen Hennessey, who provided energy, water, waste and occupancy data for the POE. We appreciate the insight and assistance provided by the architects, Peter Vesterholt and Ted Macleod, Architecture Alliance, and the construction manager’s representative, Gordie Schmitz at Greystone Construction Company.



Executive Summary The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) is committed to the reduction of non-municipal solid waste (non-MSW) specifically generated through building projects in its constituent counties. To address this issue, the SWMCB funded the Center for Sustainable Building Research (CSBR) at the University of Minnesota to provide design assistance to the counties on several pilot projects. To learn from these projects, the SWMCB asked CSBR to conduct Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) of selected projects across the counties. The Carver County Public Works Facility was selected as one of these projects. The POE research methodology consisted of general building data gathering, observational walkthroughs, plan and specification reviews, and collection of energy, water and waste data. Interviews were conducted with key participants including County project managers, facility managers, architect, contractor, and building occupants. Surveys on indoor environmental quality were given to building occupants.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Carver County Public Works Facility is an 86,000 square foot facility on a 45-acre site located in the City of Cologne. It includes a main office/maintenance garage building with heated, semi-heated or unheated storage areas. The Public Works facility provides an office for County staff and houses the operations staff and equipment for Carver County for maintenance of Carver County infrastructure. The total project cost was $8.3 million. Preserving the two wetlands on site were a major consideration for the location of the building. All landscaping involved use of native species. Extra grading and piping was done with project costs similar to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) ponds. Grant money was sought and received for monitoring, grading and planting. The goal was to incorporate stormwater treatment without being obvious through a gradual infiltration basin and dry pond. The dry pond is planted with prairie grasses. There is no stormwater sewer connection to the site. Curbs were eliminated in the parking lot to allow water to flow into the dry pond for treatment. The design utilizes high performance glazing selected to maximize daylighting, a sunscreen (galvanized steel grating shade device) for office windows to reduce glare, and large roof overhangs to provide shading. Clerestory windows used in the west-facing lobby hall and conference rooms bring in daylight. Frit patterns on the glass assist in reducing glare. Toplighting is provided in the maintenance garage via clear smoke vents that also act as skylights. Other features include high-efficiency fluorescent lighting fixtures, task lighting, and occupancy sensors in certain rooms. Sustainable materials include recycled concrete, recycled tire carpet tile, and 100 gallons of recycled paint used as a primer coat in the office areas and as the finish coat in the storage/garage areas. Precast concrete wall and floor panels have the potential for disassembly and reuse in future development. Concrete was sealed as the finished floor to reduce finish material use. Conference rooms at the facility are shared by other county groups for their meetings. The sheriff’s office uses the County garage for storing their vehicles. The program areas in other facilities have been reduced because of shared space use in this building.



SUSTAINABLE PROCESS Carver County has not yet made substantial efforts in its building delivery process to incorporate sustainable design and achieve its implementation throughout the project. Some issues noted during this project are:

• Limted use of sustainable design tools such as the Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide (MSDG) or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).

• Limted use of outside technical assistance to achieve implementation of the sustainability goals with the exception of stormwater issues that were quite successfully addressed.

• Lack of strong commitment of the County and the presence of champions of sustainable design within the County staff who had decision making authority. A few interested and committed people did not receive necessary support.

• No requirement of the architect to demonstrate experience in sustainable design or strong RFP language.

SUSTAINABLE OUTCOMES Environmental • During the first 8.1 months from March 2003 through October 2003, Carver Public Works Facility

used a total of 37.6 KBTU per square foot. Of that 44% was electricity and the remaining 56% was natural gas. During this same period the peak electric demand was 2.2 Watts per square foot. Note that the total energy use is assumed to be generated for the total conditioned space (70,450 gross square feet) of which 16% is semi-heated area. Cold storage and salt/sand storage area was not included in the square foot calculations.

• The total electric and gas energy use during this period resulted in environmental outcomes of 63.5 KBTU/sq.ft primary energy, 1.7 lbs./sq.ft. solid waste, an air pollution index of 0.98/sq.ft., a negligible water pollution index, 9.5 lbs./sq.ft. global warming potential, and 22.3 lbs./sq.ft. weighted resource use.

• The ratio of estimated net building area (area of main building excluding circulation, mechanical, and toilets) to main building area is 79%. The ratio of gross building area to site area is 4.3%.

• The total gross area per person (FTE employee) is 2468 square feet. The conditioned area/person is 2116 sq.ft. Note that the occupancy density varies in different areas of the building such as office versus maintenance garage.

• According to waste bills analyzed over an eleven month period from June 2003 through April 2004, the average monthly quantity of waste produced was 12.8 cubic yards Of the total waste produced, 46% was recycled including glass, plastic, aluminum and cardboard. Total waste generated per person is 0.36 cubic yards per month. Note that the quantity of waste is based on container size and may not accurately represent amount actually collected since the container may not be filled to capacity at the time of pick-up.

• None of the documents collected had water meter readings, but according to the City of Cologne the well water usage is metered in order to calculate the cost and quantity of municipal sanitary sewer use. The water quantity was determined by the cost of sewer using the known charge of $6 per 1000 gallons. Over approximately 11 months from June 2003 through April 2004, the average monthly building water consumed was 32,696 gallons. Note that there is an on-site vehicle wash bay which could account for the high consumption..



Economic • During the 8.1 month period from March 2003 through October 2003, Carver Public Works Facility

spent a total of $37,617 or $0.51 per square foot on total energy costs. Note that the total energy costs are assumed to be generated by the total conditioned space, 70,450 gross square foot of which 16% is semi-heated area. Cold storage and salt/sand storage area was not used in the floor area calculations.

• The total construction cost (building and site improvements) for the Carver Public Works Facility was $96.10 per square foot of building. A breakdown of the building construction costs versus site construction costs is unavailable at this time.

• According to waste bills analyzed over an eleven month period from June 2003 through April 2004, the average operation waste cost per month is $254.83. Carver Public Works Facility was charged $29.07 per cubic yard of landfilled waste and $9.26 per cubic yard of recycled waste. By recycling, over the course of 11.2 months, this resulted in an average monthly savings of $116.38 per month. Both rates include a fuel charge which is not taxed for recycled waste. The landfilled waste fuel charge is taxed in addition to a solid waste management tax applied to the landfilled waste cost. The total waste cost per person is $7.28 per month.

• No costs are associated with water use because the facility’s water is supplied by an on-site well. The facility is however connected to a municipal sanitary sewer system run by the City of Cologne and is billed for sewer based on water consumption. Over a 4.9 month period from November 2003 through April 2003, the average monthly sewer cost was $463.74. Verification is needed to know if the facility has a permanent irrigation system, but it is unlikely that irrigation is an issue during the winter period analyzed.

Human A survey addressing indoor environmental quality in the Carver County Public Works Facility was administered to employees who work in the building. The survey contained general questions regarding employee perceptions of the sound environment, lighting, thermal comfort, air quality, health, etc. In general, though respondents did not express dissatisfaction with a number of dimensions integral to indoor environmental quality, they did not express satisfaction either. There is room for improvement. Community • The County took special care to the make sure that the stormwater drainage design did not result in

flooding the neighboring parkland. The stormwater features are intended as an educational demonstration for other projects that will have to follow the more stringent stormwater rules taking effect.

• The facility is shared by many County organizations including the Sheriff’s office.

• A turn lane was added to Highway 212 to make the access safer for the highway traffic.

• Reduced water and energy use result in less demand for new infrastructure to treat water and wastewater, as well as build new power plants.

• Waste recycling, recycled materials and less material use through efficient planning all contribute to less need for landfills.

RECOMMENDATIONS There are several key elements that enable a County to successfully design, build and maintain sustainable projects while creating an ongoing process of improvement. These are listed below with recommendations for the County to achieve them.



1. Adopt sustainable design guidelines or standards and ensure they are followed on all projects.

It is recommended that the County consider adopting the new Minnesota Building Design Guidelines (B3 project). These guidelines provide a detailed process and method of tracking project outcomes that will be used consistently for state funded projects (www.msbg.umn.edu). These guidelines are also transparent to LEED which counties may wish to use to receive national certification of exemplary green building projects.

Note: No guidelines were required at the time of this project. There was an effort to use the Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide in the beginning of the project.

2. Select consultants with sustainable design experience.

Counties should have language in their Request for Proposals that requires an experienced sustainable design team.

Note: For this project, sustainable design experience and qualifications were not included in the RFP.

3. Find and empower a champion within the County to ensure follow through and success.

A successful sustainable project needs an informed and enthusiastic champion with decision making authority. Even if there is a champion leading sustainable design, there must be clear support from the County and all parties must buy in to the process.

Note: While there were supportive individuals, there was no significant commitment by the County to achieve exemplary sustainable design on this project.

4. Follow an integrated design process beginning in early planning stages.

Integrated design means involving the entire team as early as possible in the process. Ideally, sustainable design goals should be set at a kick-off meeting during planning stages before program and budget are firmly established.

Note: The design process was underway and the budget was set before sustainable strategies were identified.

5. Conduct energy analysis and specification review.

During the design phase in all projects, it is particularly important to conduct energy use analysis during to identify and document savings. In addition, conduct a rigorous specifications review and require that sustainability criteria be included in the specification sections as appropriate.

Note: Energy analysis was not performed in this case.

6. Conduct periodic post occupancy evaluations on all buildings.

Post occupancy evaluations should be conducted periodically on all buildings as a tool for continuous improvement and to assess actual building performance. Whenever possible, performance results on one building should be compared to those for other similar buildings. Key performance indicators include energy and water consumption and waste generation. If possible, track employee satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover, and health care costs. Identify appropriate measures of productivity and assess employee performance. Track performance of sustainable design strategies over time and document the costs and benefits of particular features to inform future facility development.

7. Educate the public.

Continue to educate staff and public on sustainable strategies used to increase awareness of the benefits of sustainable design, and encourage public support of investing in sustainable design for the benefit to the community now and in the future.



Chapter 1. Introduction The Carver County Public Works Facility was selected as one of several County building projects to be evaluated in the metropolitan area served by the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB). In this section, the building project is described followed by background information, methodology and objectives of the study. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Carver County Public Works Facility is an 86,000 square foot facility on a 45-acre site located in the City of Cologne. It includes a main office/maintenance garage building with heated, semi-heated or unheated storage areas. The Public Works facility provides an office for County staff and houses the operations staff and equipment for Carver County for maintenance of Carver County infrastructure. The total project cost was $8.3 million. Preserving the two wetlands on site were a major consideration for the location of the building. All landscaping involved use of native species. Extra grading and piping was done with project costs similar to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) ponds. Grant money was sought and received for monitoring, grading and planting. The goal was to incorporate stormwater treatment without being obvious through a gradual infiltration basin and dry pond. The dry pond is planted with prairie grasses. There is no stormwater sewer connection to the site. Curbs were eliminated in the parking lot to allow water to flow into the dry pond for treatment. The design utilizes high performance glazing selected to maximize daylighting, a sunscreen (galvanized steel grating shade device) for office windows to reduce glare, and large roof overhangs to provide shading. Clerestory windows used in the west-facing lobby hall and conference rooms bring in daylight. Frit patterns on the glass assist in reducing glare. Toplighting is provided in the maintenance garage via clear smoke vents that also act as skylights. Other features include high-efficiency fluorescent lighting fixtures, task lighting, and occupancy sensors in certain rooms. Sustainable materials include recycled concrete, recycled tire carpet tile, and 100 gallons of recycled paint used as a primer coat in the office areas and as the finish coat in the storage/garage areas. Precast concrete wall and floor panels have the potential for disassembly and reuse in future development. Concrete was sealed as the finished floor to reduce finish material use. Conference rooms at the facility are shared by other county groups for their meetings. The sheriff’s office uses the County garage for storing their vehicles. The program areas in other facilities have been reduced because of shared space use in this building.



PROJECT DATA Project Name: Carver County Public Works Facility

11360 Hwy 212 West P.O. Box 300, Cologne MN 55322

Building type/function: Public Works Building Area: Main Building: 62,555 gsf

Semi Heated Storage: 11,495 gsf Cold Storage: 7,175 gsf Salt/Sand Storage: 5,145 gsf Total: 86,370 gsf

Site Area: 45 acres Number of stories: 1 story Owner: Carver County Owner’s Project Manager: Dave Hemze, Carver County Administrator Current Facility Manager: Bob Darnell Full Time Equivalent Staff: 35 Total Payroll: estimated $2.5 million Annual Operating Cost: $150,000 Schedule:

Start planning: 1998 Start design: 2000 Complete construction: 2003

Total Project Cost: $8.3 million



Architect: Architectural Alliance Ted MacLeod, Project Architect 400 Clifton Ave. S Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 email: [email protected]

Electrical, Mechanical Dunham Associates & Structural Engineer Scott Reiger (Electrical) Randy Olson (Mechanical)

Mark Cackoski (Structural) 8200 Normandale Boulevard, Suite 500 Bloomington, MN 55437

Civil Engineer: Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates (TKDA)

Brad Jones 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza Saint Paul, MN 55101

Landscape Architect: Martin Walsh Carver County

Site Construction: Chard Tilling and Excavating Jim Voda 26239 State Highway 25

Belle Plaine, MN 56011 Construction Manager: Greystone Construction Company Gordie Schmitz

1221 East Fourth Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379

email: [email protected]

Energy Consultant: The Weidt Group David Eijadi 5800 Baker Road Minnetonka MN 55434 email: [email protected] Consultant (In-house): Carver County Public Works

Francis Kerber 11360 Hwy 212 West

P.O. Box 300, Cologne MN 55322 email: [email protected] Stormwater Management Carver County Planning and Zoning Consultant Paul Moline 600 E. 4th Street

Chaska, MN 55318 email: [email protected]



BACKGROUND The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) is committed to the reduction of non-municipal solid waste (non-MSW) specifically generated through building projects in its constituent counties. To address this issue, the SWMCB funded the Center for Sustainable Building Research (CSBR) at the University of Minnesota to advise on several pilot projects. To learn from these projects, the SWMCB asked CSBR to conduct Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) of selected projects across the counties. This report will contribute to a knowledge base that county agencies can use to provide more sustainable buildings that represent the best investment of county money over the lifecycle of each project. According to data collected by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the region landfilled approximately 1.2 million tons of non-MSW, in construction, demolition, and special waste landfills in 1997. In addition to landfilling, non-MSW was managed through processing, incineration and beneficial reuse (e.g. land application). The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan is the basis for managing the six-county metropolitan area's solid waste through the year 2017. The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan was prepared by the SWMCB, a joint powers board of the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington in conjunction with the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The Master Plan recognizes, for the first time, that non-MSW should receive greater attention in regional decision making. It recognizes that in order to develop non-MSW policies and programs, however, it will be necessary to collect data, evaluate environmental impacts and regulatory issues, and identify best management practices. It also establishes expectations that government, businesses and the waste industry take responsibility and make decisions in a manner that will minimize environmental harm and encourage reuse, recycling and resource recovery. The Intermediate Non-MSW Management Outcome #5 in the Regional Master Plan states that by 2005, 80% of the region's public entities will evaluate and where feasible, incorporate sustainable architectural guidelines in the planning process for construction and remodeling of government buildings. It also states: “Hennepin County anticipates completion of the Sustainable Design Guide and Rating System by the end of 1998. The University of Minnesota has received a grant to continue enhancing the Sustainable Design Guide and Rating System and establish case studies and training programs. From this model, guidelines will be developed. In order to achieve this outcome, the SWMCB will need to collaborate with others, provide input into guideline development, and adopt guidelines as a regional policy. These guidelines will 1) help reduce the amount of waste generated from construction and deconstruction of buildings, 2) reduce the toxicity of the materials used, 3) encourage the use of recycled products, and 4) provide reuse options for construction materials.” The Negotiated County Outcomes in the SWMCB Regional Master Plan include the following specifically with respect to Dakota County: “Ramsey, Carver, Dakota and Washington Counties will: • Evaluate and, where feasible, incorporate by December 31, 2005, sustainable architectural guidelines

in the planning process and procurement of architectural services for the construction and remodeling of all County government buildings and other County projects using public financing.



• Undertake efforts so that public entities in the county incorporate sustainable architectural guidelines in the planning process for the construction and remodeling of all government buildings, including projects using public financing.”

METHODOLOGY The intention of a Post Occupancy Evaluations (POE) is to learn from an existing building so it's operation may be improved and lessons can be applied to future projects. The design and delivery of buildings is a complex process whose outcomes are affected by numerous factors not all of which are within the control of team or individuals responsible for the process. The scope of a POE can vary widely. Within a limited budget and scope, the SWMCB POEs attempt to integrate an assessment of sustainability with the building performance concerns of traditional POEs. The research methodology consisted of general building data gathering, observational walkthroughs, plan and specification reviews, and collection of energy, water and waste data. Interviews were conducted with key participants including County project managers and staff, facility managers, architect, contractor, and building occupants. Surveys on indoor environmental quality were given to building occupants. OBJECTIVES Sustainable development seeks a balance between first cost and lifecycle economics, environmental responsibility, health and well being of human occupants, and community values and needs. To relate these broad concepts to the building development process, sustainable development goals are often organized by categories of Site, Water, Energy, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Materials, and Waste. All phases of development potentially affect sustainable performance from planning, pre-design (site selection and programming), design, construction and commissioning, and operation. To assess how well these goals are achieved on a particular project, the report is organized around these fundamental questions: • What sustainable strategies were used? Were there any issues or barriers with implementation of the

strategies? • How effective was the process used to achieve the sustainable development? • What are the outcomes of sustainable development in terms of the “Quadruple Bottom Line” —

economics, environment, human occupants, and community? The SWMCB POE analysis team describes The Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) as “a variation on the commonly referenced ‘Triple Bottom Line’ used in sustainability literature. The ‘Triple Bottom Line’ refers to accountability to all of the value systems of a sustainable society -- human and ecological performance in addition to economic performance. The ‘Quadruple Bottom Line’ divides the ‘human’ category into ‘human occupant’ and ‘community’ in order to reflect the very different way architecture affects individuals who inhabit the building versus the buildings impact on the larger local and global communities.



Chapter 2. Sustainable Strategies In this section, the sustainable strategies considered and implemented on the Carver County Public Works Facility project are listed with reference to the strategies of Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide (MSDG) <www.msdg.umn.edu>. The team had knowledge of the MSDG from previous projects which influenced the design. However, sustainable design tools were not used in a consistent manner on the Carver County project. SITE STRATEGIES

MSDG Strategy 1.1: Direct Development to Environmentally Appropriate Areas Description • The two wetlands on site were a major consideration for the location of the building. Effort was made

to avoid the wetlands while siting the building. • There were County regulatory restrictions early in the process regarding siting of the building. These

restrictions were later removed but the building siting remained the same as planned earlier. • The site was chosen for its central location in the County, appropriate from the point of view of public

works maintenance. Implementation Issues • Site selection has worked well so far. Plowing and other trucks start at this facility. This arrangement

is more efficient with the facility centrally located in Carver County. MSDG Strategy 1.2: Maintain and Enhance the Biodiversity and Ecology of the Site Description • The site was farmland. All landscaping has involved enhancement by using native species. It was a

goal was to keep the landscape looking natural.

Implementation Issues • No issues have been reported. MSDG Strategy 1.3: Use Microclimate and Environmentally Responsive Site Design Strategies Description • Terracing and planting was done to the northwest to shield from snow. • Cut-off light fixtures were used on the site to reduce light pollution.

Implementation Issues • No problems have been reported with the cut-off light fixtures. MSDG Strategy 1.4: Use Native Trees, Shrub, and Plants Description • Native plantings and trees have been used throughout the site. • There is no irrigation system on site.



• There is no lawn provided on site. • The dry pond is planted with prairie grasses.

Implementation Issues • It is assumed that native prairie plantings around the building will require a controlled burn every

other year. • Some watering is required to establish plantings.

MSDG Strategy 1.5: Use Resource Efficient Modes of Transportation Description • Carpool parking was not designated on the drawings. • There is no busline access to the site. • No bike racks have been provided at the building. • Shower facilities have been provided in the building for shop workers. • No alternate fueling stations have been provided on the site. Implementation Issues • No issues.

WATER STRATEGIES MSDG Strategy 2.1: Manage Site Water Description • Stormwater planning was started early enough to be included in the RFP. • Extra grading and piping was done with project costs similar to National Urban Runoff Program

(NURP) ponds. Grant money was sought and received for monitoring, grading and planting. • The goal was to incorporate stormwater treatment without being obvious through gradual infiltration

basin and dry pond. There is no stormwater sewer connection to the site. • Storm water treatment areas included restoration of wetland in northwest corner of site, created

infiltration basins with drain tile on the south end of site along 212. The building was moved back from Highway 212 so that stormwater would run to the dry pond and to the wetland. • Erosion control efforts included installation of silt fence along site contours. Silt dikes were installed

as temporary ditch checks. Temporary inlet protection was provided by drop inlets. • Curbs were eliminated in the parking lot to allow water to flow into the dry pond for treatment. • The building was placed at a high point to drain into the dry pond. Significant grading was needed

for this purpose since about two-thirds of the site drains to the dry pond. • The dry pond has drain tile to help water infiltrate. The goal is to prevent water from ponding for

more than 3 days. • One-third of the site drains to the wetland on the northwest corner. Terraces help treat the water on

the way to the wetland. Terraces slightly slope back to help infiltration, a method that has been used by farmers for a long time. Trees will be planted on terraces to reduce water loads on wetland.

• Run off from the roof, parking lot, and the salt and sand structure are captured and treated.

Implementation Issues • Work on stormwater management is ongoing by the County.



• There is an issue that money was set aside for capital costs and not for operating costs for the stormwater system.

• Stormwater will be monitored in the south pond after the pre-filter, and at the end of filtration. Sediment load, phosphorus, and chloride from salt will be monitored.

• The stormwater management plan required extra meetings with the engineer therefore adding to design costs.

• Some changes were made during construction to site work due to wrong material being used in the trenches. The drain needed to be re-angled

MSDG Strategy 2.2: Use Gray Water Systems Description • There was initial discussion about capturing rainwater and reusing it for carwash, but the idea was

eliminated due to budget considerations. • No gray water system was used. Implementation Issues N/A MSDG Strategy 2.3: Use Biological Waste Treatment Systems Description • Initially on-site sewage disposal was considered for the project. Ultimately, connection to city sewer

for sewage disposal was chosen because it was available and convenient. • No biological waste treatment systems were used. Implementation Issues N/A MSDG Strategy 2.4: Conserve Building Water Consumption Description • Low flow/infra-red faucets were listed but not specified in the construction documents. Low-flow

toilets and low-flow faucets have been used throughout the building. • The building has its own well and is not connected to city water. • The site fire protection system involves a 33,000 gallon holding tank.

Implementation Issues • No problems have been reported.

ENERGY STRATEGIES

MSDG Strategy 3.1: Optimize Building Placement and Configuration for Energy Performance Description • Office areas were located on the south and east to ensure maximum daylighting. • Trees were planned on west side to provide shelter from snow and northwest winter wind • A windbreak using semi-mature trees on west side was cut due to budget considerations.



Implementation Issues N/A MSDG Strategy 3.2: Optimize Building Envelope Thermal Performance Description • The glazing type specified is Viracon Low-E insulating glass to reduce thermal loss and unwanted

heat gain (U-value of 0.29 and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient is 0.37). The Visible Transmittance is 0.70 to maximize daylighting opportunity.

• Sunscreen (galvanized steel grating shade device) for office windows reduce glare. • Large roof overhangs are provide shading. • There is an air infiltration barrier on the outside and vapor barriers on the inside.

Implementation Issues • Some glare issues have been reported (See survey results in Chapter 4) MSDG Strategy 3.3: Provide Daylighting Integrated with Electric Lighting Controls Description • Some exterior fixtures are specified to be photocell controlled but none on the interior. • Window head height goes up to the ceiling to maximize daylight penetration. • West facing clerestory windows in the lobby hall and conference rooms bring in daylight. • Frit patterns have been provided to avoid glare on some windows. • Toplighting is provided in maintenance garage via clear smoke vents that also act as skylights. Implementation Issues • People seldom turn on the electric lights in the daylit lunchroom. • No issues have been reported. MSDG Strategy 3.4: Provide Efficient Electric Lighting Systems and Controls Description • Occupancy sensors were specified for certain conference rooms, either wall or ceiling mounted. • High-efficiency fluorescent lighting fixtures and electronic ballasts are used. • Conference rooms have several lighting switches for multiple lighting combinations. • Work stations are provided with the opportunity to use task lighting in addition to ambient light.

Implementation Issues • No issues have been reported.. MSDG Strategy 3.5: Maximize Mechanical System Performance Description • A high-efficiency furnace is used. Implementation Issues • No efficiencies are specified for the furnaces in the specifications document. • Unit heaters have been added since occupancy at doors to help to control heat loss and prevent

freezing of the sprinkler pipes. • No other issues have been reported.



MSDG Strategy 3.6: Use Efficient Equipment and Appliances Description • No energy efficient equipment was specifically specified in the building. Implementation Issues N/A MSDG Strategy 3.7: Use Renewable or Other Alternative Energy Sources Description • In very preliminary meetings, there were discussions about doing a demonstration for fuel cell or

wind powered backup but these ideas were dropped due to budget considerations. • No renewable energy is used in the building. • The building does not purchase Green Power.

Implementation Issues N/A MSDG Strategy 3.8: Integrate All Systems and Reduce Total Energy Use Description • A routine energy load calculation was done on the building by the mechanical engineer. • The Weidt Group prepared a proposal for analysis of Energy/Daylighting Strategies for the Carver

County Public Works Facility but it was not accepted. • An energy management system is used on the facility.

Implementation Issues • No issues have been reported.

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (IEQ) STRATEGIES MSDG Strategy 4.1: Provide a Clean and Healthy Environment Description • Pollutants are either isolated or eliminated as much as possible. Implementation Issues • See survey responses in outcomes section. MSDG Strategy 4.2: Control Moisture to Prevent Microbial Contamination Description Moisture control best practices such as vapor barriers in stud and batt insulation system are used in the building.



Implementation Issues • There have been numerous leaks in roof and windows (over 50) in the building during the start-up

phase of the facility. • The carpet was replaced in the conference room due to water damage. MSDG Strategy 4.3: Provide Ample Ventilation for Pollutant Control and Thermal Comfort Description • Air intakes are separated from pollution sources. • Vehicle exhaust removal system was specified. Overhead hose reels were specified for containment

of diesel engine exhaust. • Under floor exhaust system is used for removal of automobile tailpipe exhaust. • Programmable monitoring alarm and ventilation activation system is used. • The number of vents was doubled in vehicle maintenance area to avoid use of smoke screen. The

architects proposed vents with clear top to provide natural light. • Carbon dioxide monitors are installed in vehicle maintenance and are connected to ventilation

controls. • Blowers in vehicle maintenance doors help air circulation. Implementation Issues • Some issues on air quality have been reported by the users. See survey results in Chapter 4. MSDG Strategy 4.4: Provide Appropriate Thermal Conditions Description • Thermal comfort was designed based on ASHRAE 55 guidelines. • The building is zoned to separate the shop zone and office zone. • Temperature controls are set by the energy management program throughout the building.

Implementation Issues • Fans may need to be added to the office area to help warm air circulate through the room to help

prevent the cold areas next to the west windows. • A radiant heater was added to the mud-room after the building was opened to prevent pipes from

freezing. • Some people mentioned issues with thermal comfort. See survey results in Chapter 4. MSDG Strategy 4.5: Provide Effective Lighting Description • There is substantial daylighting from windows throughout the building. • Smoke vents with clear tops were used to allow a lot of natural light in the maintenance garage. • Sunscreens, overhangs, and blinds provided in the building to control daylight and reduce glare.

Fritted glass is also used in the conference room. • Light fixtures in the office portion of the building have louvers that help to block glare of lamps. • Electric lighting control has been provided through stepped switching and dimming in the conference

rooms.

Implementation Issues • Sometimes there is glare from lights on the computer. See survey results in Chapter 4.



MSDG Strategy 4.6: Provide Appropriate Building Acoustic and Vibration Conditions Description • Offices and vehicle maintenance areas are separated by concrete walls to help acoustic separation.

Implementation Issues Some issues have been reported with acoustic quality by a few of the users. See survey results in Chapter 4. MSDG Strategy 4.7: Provide Views, Viewspace and Contact with the Natural Environment Description • Vehicle maintenance areas have views to the natural environment-both vertically to the sky, and

through glazed doors to the surrounding landscape. • There was an attempt to visually connect different communities within the building using interior

glazing. • Window connections to the outside environment are provided in some of the office areas. • The lunch room has large windows for views to the exterior.

Implementation Issues Some issues have been reported with respect to view. See survey results in Chapter 4. MATERIALS STRATEGIES

MSDG Strategy 5.1: Use Materials with Low Impact During Their Life Cycle Description • No formal life cycle assessment of materials was conducted using tools such as ATHENA BEES.

Implementation Issues • Comments from interviews indicate that emphasis on first cost rather than operating cost or

environmental issues influenced decision-making.

MSDG Strategy 5.2: Use Salvaged and Remanufactured Materials Description • No salvaged nor remanufactured materials were used. MSDG Strategy 5.3: Use Recycled Content Products and Materials Description • Eight inches of recycled concrete is used for cost reduction. • Recycled tire carpet tile is used in the project. • One hundred gallons of “whipped white” recycled paint from Amazon Environmental from the

County is used in the building as a primer coat in the office areas and as the finish coat in the storage/garage areas.

Implementation Issues • No issues have been reported.



MSDG Strategy 5.4: Use Materials from Renewable Sources Description • No materials from renewable sources have been used. MSDG Strategy 5.5: Use Locally Manufactured Materials Description • Precast concrete panels were locally made (FabCon). MSDG Strategy 5.6: Use Low VOC-emitting Materials Description

No materials were specifically chosen for their low-VOC content. MSDG Strategy 5.7: Use Durable Materials Description • Concrete is used for precast panels and in the flooring. MSDG Strategy 5.8: Use Materials that are Reusable, Recyclable or Biodegradable Description • Concrete and carpet tile are recyclable. • Concrete panels can be reused. • Precast concrete planks used in the mezzanine can be reused. WASTE STRATEGIES

MSDG Strategy 6.1: Reuse Existing Buildings Description • No existing buildings were reused. Existing farm building was demolished and used for fire drill

training by the Cologne Fire Department. Trees were cut down and broken down into chips and hauled to an off-site location to be used as mulch.

MSDG Strategy 6.2: Design for Less Material Use Description • Initially the conference room was to be larger with the ability to be divided into several smaller

rooms. Upon further examination of needs, this program area was reduced to its current size. • Conference rooms at the facility are shared by other County groups for their meetings. The sheriff’s

office uses the County garage for storing their vehicles. The program areas in other facilities have been reduced because of provision for in this building.

• Concrete was sealed as the finished floor to reduce finish material.



MSDG Strategy 6.3: Design Buildings for Adaptability Description • Offices areas have been designed with an open office plan for adaptability to different arrangements. • Building design allows for future expansion.

MSDG Strategy 6.4: Design Buildings for Disassembly Description • Most of the building elements are deconstructable and can be salvaged for reuse. • Precast concrete panels have potential for disassembly and reuse in future development. MSDG Strategy 6.5: Salvage and Recycle Demolition Waste Description • The farm building on site was not salvaged or recycled but was used for fire drill training by the

Cologne Fire Department. MSDG Strategy 6.6: Reduce and Recycle Construction Waste Description • No record of construction waste was maintained. No waste (with the exception of cardboard) was

recycled.

MSDG Strategy 6.7: Reduce and Recycle Packaging Waste Description • Cardboard from packaging was recycled. • No special efforts were made (to reduce and recycle other packaging waste.

MSDG Strategy 6.8: Reduce and Recycle Waste from Building Users Description • Designated areas for recycling have been incorporated into the building.

MSDG Strategy 6.9: Reduce and Properly Dispose of Hazardous Waste • Description • There is a waste oil collection system with three collection points along the wall that have rolling

carts for transport. The waste oil is then pumped to a storage tank. • There are traps in the waste water system to make sure no oil or gas gets into the waste system. • Collection and proper disposal of all hazardous waste occurs in the facility.



Chapter 3. Process Issues INTRODUCTION This portion of the post occupancy evaluation is directed at the building delivery process. As key participants in the process were interviewed, they were also asked some general questions about the building design. Interviews were conducted with Bob Darnell, Carver County’s Facility Manager; Ted Macleod, Project Architect from Architectural Alliance; Paul Moline, a planner with Carver County who served as an in-house stormwater consultant for the project; Alan Hermann, Occupant representative that also served on a building advisory group that included occupants and facilities representatives, and contractor Gordie Schmitz of Greystone Construction Company. Leslie Wilson, who works with the Carver County Project Manager Dave Hemze, sat in on many of these interviews and her comments are also included. In each interview, participants were asked the following questions: 1. How was sustainable design included in the design process? (i.e. committee structure, decision

makers, timing issues) 2. Who were the champions of the process that led to successful sustainable design? 3. What were the barriers to including sustainable design? 4. Were sustainable design tools or standards used? Which ones and to what extent? 5. How did outside technical consulting firms contribute to the sustainable design process? 6. Were there any issues related to regulatory requirements that affected sustainable design? 7. Were there any capital budget issues? 8. Were sustainable requirements incorporated in the RFP and contract requirements? If so, were they

followed? 9. What was the role of first cost versus life cycle cost analysis in decision making? 10. What are the best features of the building? of the process? 11. What are the worst features of the building? of the process? 12. Are there major or common complaints from the users of the building? 13. Have there been any building alterations? 14. What do you think are the important lessons from the project?



EVALUATION BY KEY PARTICIPANTS 1. How was sustainable design included in the design process? (i.e. committee structure, decision

makers, timing issues)

The facility manager referred to the original hazardous waste facility project as a preceding sustainable design effort at Carver County. The original pilot project had more sustainable design incorporated, but it was never built and so sustainable design was shifted to the Public Works project. He also pointed to the fact that though the priority to make the Public Works project sustainable was shifted in the beginning of the process, the budget was set first and this was a limitation. He also felt that within the committee, the democratic process was lost. Often a decision-maker would make a decision for the committee, and sustainable design issues were often ignored and underrepresented in committee. The in-house stormwater consultant said his group, Carver County Planning and Zoning along with the Soil and Water Conservation District initiated a grant early on for the stormwater measures. These were reviewed by the occupant/facilities committee who had some concerns about the aesthetics of native plantings and other design elements, but the stormwater group “coached” them through their questions and concerns.

The occupant representative said that the occupant/facilities committee wanted to keep as much sustainable design as possible but it kept getting cut due to budget constraints. In the group meetings, ways to cut costs were discussed. For example, the size of the water tank for fire was discussed, but ultimately it was kept large in case a fire actually happened. The architect said that both the client and the architect were interested in sustainable design.

2. Who were the champions of the process that led to successful sustainable design? The facility manager said that Leslie Wilson championed the cause for sustainable design on the project. He felt that after initial committee meetings, she was no longer invited due to her push for sustainable design. The goal of the building seemed to be to stay under budget and the spirit for sustainable design was not there. He added that he himself tried to push for sustainable strategies in early committee meetings along with Leslie, but both were not included on the committee. Bob also pushed for an energy management system. He wanted a system he could access from his desk and worked hard to convince the committee to allocate funds to make it happen. He referred to consultant Joel Schurke who came in at the beginning loaded with information, but began his own company at the time and therefore was shifted off the project. The occupant representative mentioned Bob Darnell and also felt that Commissioner Ische was a champion for sustainable design. He felt that he understood the process, and wanted to do the best he could but was pressured by other members to meet the bottom line. Another person mentioned by the occupant representative who contributed to sustainable design was Dave Hemze, County Project Manager. The in-house stormwater consultant felt the Director of Public Works, Roger Gustafson, was a key supporter of sustainable design on the project. Also getting the support of the occupant/facility committee was crucial.

Leslie added that she thought Paul Moline was also instrumental in getting the stormwater measures implemented. Paul and his planning group along with the Soil and Water Conservation District initiated the stormwater grant and helped the design team through the technical issues. Through on-site visits, the planning department and soil and water group were able to catch some



problems and get them corrected: the wrong material was used in trenches and the drain needed to be re-angled.

The architect perceived both the County and the architect as the champions. In addition, it was mentioned that Leslie Wilson from Carver County championed recycled paint and other County staff championed site grading and stormwater issues on the project.

3. What were the barriers to including sustainable design? Project management was pointed to as a barrier to sustainable design by the facility manager. It was felt that there was no leadership on the issue due to budget constraints and that no one wanted to take the time to talk about it because they didn’t see the point. Another barrier was that the architecture firm was going to bill time for going through the sustainable design guide. A third barrier was not having sustainable design items before budgeting, which was done earlier. Sustainable materials and strategies had been identified for use, but budget constraints eliminated them right away. Budget was also mentioned by the occupant representative as the key barrier to sustainable design on the project.

The in-house stormwater consultant mentioned that for stormwater there was some resistance from engineers who weren’t sure if it was going to work. The consultant met with them separately to go through the design and answer their questions. The cost of the stormwater management system may have been a barrier had it not been for the $50,000 grant He thought that parts of the stormwater management may have happened without the grant. but it eliminated any concern for cost. Without the grant, the team may have struggled more to preserve the stormwater systems when they were cutting costs.

When asked about barriers to sustainable design the architects response was “none in particular.” He felt there were the usual operating issues that influenced decisions.

4. Were sustainable design tools or standards used? Which ones and to what extent? (i.e. LEED, MSDG, owner standards)

Leslie Wilson noted that MSDG was used in an early goal setting session, but not after that.

The occupant representative said he learned about sustainability primarily through tours and examples. He looked at other buildings that used sustainable materials. The architect led the materials discussion.

One of the architects and some members of the team were aware of the Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide (MSDG). The architect said that tools or standards were “not explicitly” used.

5. How did outside technical consulting firms contribute to the sustainable design process? The Planning Department and the Soil and Water Conservation District initiated the stormwater management grant from Met Council. The planning department acted as a technical consultant for stormwater issues throughout the project. The architect also referred to The Weidt Group, energy and environmental consultants, who were involved initially but not during the project.



6. Were there any issues related to regulatory requirements that affected sustainable design? Wetland Conservation Act requires wetland mitigation. New stormwater requirements for the County will be more stringent in the future. The County used this project as a showcase for ways to meet new requirements. The architect referred to the following regulatory areas addressed by project: wetland mitigation, additional smoke curtains, building code.

7. Were there any capital budget issues? The facility manager said that the committee didn’t look at lifecycle costs, but did many things that were cheaper in the beginning. For example, the boilers were chosen for lower first cost and won’t be as efficient or last as long as the ones he would have preferred. Another example was the rooftop units that he estimated will last 10-15 yrs exposed to the outdoors, whereas if they had HVAC units inside a building, they would last longer (25-30 yrs), but the up front costs led them to the rooftop units.

The stormwater grant covered the stormwater management features, but the stormwater management consultant also noted that there was an added monetary benefit of using “overland flow” instead of curbs.

The architect said “Yes!” – there were a lot of capital budget issues.

8. Were sustainable requirements incorporated in Request for Proposals (RFP) and contract requirements? If so, were they followed?

Architectural Alliance was the firm already chosen for the project and several other projects for the County. There were no sustainable design requirements that dictated architect selection.

Leslie Wilson worked on specifications language to include recycled paint. Carver County would like to make the entire county use recycled paint - so the paint that Carver County collects for recycling is reused in Carver buildings. Extent of the specifications language was constrained – “use where possible”

The construction manager said that he didn’t recall any specifics about sustainable design, but there was another construction manager in the very beginning. For stormwater design, the additional grading was incorporated into the RFP so that all would be aware of it and would make it a priority. The architect referred to the recycled paint requirement in the RFP.

9. What was the role of first cost versus life cycle cost analysis in decision making? First costs were the focus most of the time. The facility manager said he tried to tell the committee “Give me 1 million up front and I will save you 10 million.” There was no data considered for life cycle costs – except for mechanical systems.

The architect referred to the culture of the design team proposing the philosophy of a 50-year planning horizon. He felt that the choice of a simple palette of durable materials had helped towards achieving the goal of a long-term building.



10. What are the best features of the building? Of the process? The facility manager felt the following features were the best: natural light, openness and the energy management system can be controlled 10 miles away from building. The fire alarm is tied into the management system.” In the process, he felt the best aspect was Commissioner Ische – “his leadership allowed Leslie to talk to the architect to get recycled paint in the specs.”

The construction manager felt the best part of the project was the site with lots of storage and room to work in. He felt that the architect looked at the surroundings and tried to make it fit with the setting. He also felt there were a lot of controls on the energy management systems and that it was a “top notch building” especially the shop area.

The occupant representative also referred to the shops as the best aspect of the building with long term thinking incorporated into its features: one-way-in/ one-way-out doors, big doors, openness, easy access, open bays, mezzanine for storage. He also listed the daylighting in the office building and good indoor air quality as good features of the building. He thought a good feature of the process was the tours of other buildings. The architect listed the following as the best features: the democratic nature of working with the County at bi-weekly meetings with people and talking to future occupants. He also added that the Construction Manager helped by adding a layer between the sub-contractor and the architects. They were involved in the design process and had input in using pole barn systems.

11. What are the worst features of the building? Of the process? The facility manager pointed out that the bollard lights on the sidewalk are difficult to shovel around. The worst feature of the process for him was the lack of coordination in the documents - causing many workers to miss changes made in different places. He noted that another challenge for the process was that there was a discontinuity in the construction management (the first construction manager passed away during the project). He also felt that commissioning should have been a significant part of the process but it was cut due to budget constraints.

For the construction manager, the installation of the HVAC system was difficult – “had lots of kinks.” The occupant representative felt that flat roofs leak in Minnesota: -- the first 6 months had problems: every rainstorm they would have to patch leaks. His advice about the process is to shorten the time frame. (His advisory group met monthly for 2 years.)

The architect said the process “wasn’t that bad.” The frustrating part for him was the four addenda.

12. Are there major or common complaints from the users of the building? The facility manger’s responses were: temperature – HVAC issues, stratification, 50 leaks in the first rainstorm (now corrected), windows leaking, problems with the bifold garage doors – (see building alterations below), the west wall in the office area is very cold in the winter, and water pools on the concrete which can be slippery. He felt that commissioning would have helped to prevent and fix problems. The occupant representative pointed to the number of corrections required after the building was built and noted that they may have been due to speeding up the move-in before they were all ready.

The architect reported the following complaints: Make-up air units, concrete slab not draining, and bi-fold door motors.



13. Have there been any building alterations? The Facility manager responses were: A radiant heater was added in the mud room. They have gone through one motor on both bi-fold doors in the first year. Now someone from the shop fixes them and they haven’t had problems since. There were window and roof leaks in the beginning of operation. They found over 50 leaks during the first rainstorm. All are fixed now but there were quality control issues with the construction. Electrical engineer used 1999 codes, so when it was checked against 2000 codes there were minor electrical design changes that needed to be made. A generator will need to be added for the data room and offices. They may need to add fans to the office area to help warm air circulate through the room to help prevent the cold areas next to windows.

The occupant representative response was that they had to replace the carpet in the conference room closest to the shop due to water damage from leaks.

14. What do you think are the important lessons from the project? Facility Manager: • Need for education and continuity with construction manager. • Design efficiently laid out systems, while maintaining an aesthetically appealing building. • “The most important thing you can do is commissioning.” Commissioning should be included

in the budget. Carver County Project Manager Representative: • To be more effective and save money, design the building as a system, not piecemeal. Contractor: • Extra costs associated with lots of glass, high ceilings. • There were a ton of permits – added turn and acceleration lane to Highway 212, wetland

permits, and gas line. Occupant Representative: • Don’t make a budget based on the prior year’s budget. By the time they constructed the

building, the initial budget was out of date due to inflation. Use materials and systems that will last the 20 years that the building will last.

Stormwater Consultant: • It could have helped to start earlier; all trees on the site were cleared along with the old farm

buildings without a chance to incorporate the trees into the new site design. • Wetland consultant wasn’t on site, so some portions were done incorrectly and had to be

fixed later adding cost to the project. • Collaboration was important to the process. Architect: • Use simple materials well. • Listening to the users of the building was successful. • Think of the environment in an ecological way. • County efforts to assess needs and to concentrate resources.



Chapter 4. Outcomes The intention of sustainable design in the broadest sense is to enhance the environment, the economy, the community, and the health and well-being of people. Sustainable development goals, or strategies are often organized into categories of Site, Water, Energy, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Materials, and Waste. While progress towards sustainability is often measured by achievement of a particular set of strategies, whenever possible they should be measured against the actual “sustainable outcomes.” This chapter attempts to evaluate the “Quadruple Bottom Line” of economic, environmental, human, and community performance for this project. It should be noted that incomplete or unavailable data makes it impossible to do a complete accounting, but this type of information should be collected for future projects.

The outcome statements below summarize the key findings from the outcome data analysis and put them into context. Notes on the outcome units follow afterwards. Some outcome units may not apply to this project if data was not available. The outcomes shown are based on what is tabulated in more detail in the “Outcome Data Sheets” which are included in the appendix.

Operational comparison to similar buildings, or benchmarking, can be a useful comparison point. When benchmarking, it is important to use caution, and take into consideration the many differences that affect operation of a facility, including variations in program specifics, hours of operation, and other factors that influence results, but do not indicate quality of construction or operation. To make benchmarks comparable for buildings of different sizes, the units are often translated into per square foot values or per full time equivalent (FTE) occupant values. Some areas of the facility are unconditioned and unoccupied for the majority of the workday, therefore per square foot values are for the gross conditioned area except where noted. FTE occupant values are based on an estimate from the client of 35, and are assumed to be for 40hrs/wk. Using 40 hrs/wk allows per-person comparisons across buildings which may have different operating hours.

ECONOMIC OUTCOMES As part of the POE, a variety of economic indicators were analyzed to help identify the overall performance of the project towards desired economic outcomes. Documents used in the analysis include: utility bills, waste and recycling hauling bills, third party consultant reports, and other project documentation.

There was no benchmark available for comparison with Carver County Public Works Facility at this time.

Operating Energy Cost Operating energy costs are based on total utility bills including any basic charges, peak demand charges, taxes, etc. Utility bills include gas and electric. To get a good picture of how a building uses energy it is most useful to look at a full year of operation after the first-year start up issues are resolved. However, the operating energy costs that were available at the time of this POE were for only the first eight months of operation. During the 8.1 month period from March 2003 through October 2003, Carver Public Works Facility spent a total of $37,617 or $0.51 per square feet on total energy costs. Note that the total energy costs are assumed to be generated by the total conditioned space, 70,450 gross square feet of which 16% is semi-heated area. Cold storage and salt/sand storage area was not used in the square feet calculations.



Spatial Cost Impacts: Construction $/FTE occupant, puts the issue of space utilization into economic terms; if the building is half occupied, it cost twice as much per person served. The total construction cost (building and site improvements) for the Carver Public Works Facility was $96.10 per square foot of building. A break down of the building construction costs versus site construction costs is unavailable at this time. Construction Waste Cost: The project has no documentation of construction waste practices or costs available at this time. Operational Waste Cost: Depending on what activities are generating waste, operating waste cost may be more applicable to report in either a per sq.ft. basis or a per/person basis. Waste costs for Carver Public Works Facility include the cost of standard operational waste service provided by Waste Management. Additional service may be provided for specialized vehicle maintenance waste but no documentation has been collected at this time. According to waste bills analyzed over an eleven month period from June 2003 through April 2004, the average operation waste cost/ month is $254.83. Carver Public Works Facility was charged $29.07 per cubic yard of landfilled waste and $9.26 per cubic yard of recycled waste. By recycling, over the course of 11.2 months, this resulted in an average monthly savings of $116.38 per month. Both rates include a fuel charge which is not taxed for recycled waste. The landfilled waste fuel charge is taxed in addition to a solid waste management tax applied to the landfilled waste cost. The total waste cost per person is $7.28 per month. Water and Sewer Cost: Sewer costs are based on total bills and include charges beyond consumption charges; in this case a flat Department Retirement Fund charge is applied monthly to pay for the treatment facility.

Storm water cost impacts were not studied. No costs are associated with water use because the facility’s water is supplied by an on-site well. The facility is however connected to a municipal sanitary sewer system run by the City of Cologne and is billed for sewer based on water consumption. Over a 4.9 month period from November 2003 through April 2003, the average monthly sewer cost was $463.74. Verification is needed to know if the facility has a permanent irrigation system, but it is unlikely that irrigation is an issue during the winter period analyzed. The average cost per person is $13.25 per month for sewer. Note that the facility has an on-site vehicle wash bay which may account for higher costs per person than a typical office facility.

ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES As part of the POE, a variety of environmental indicators were analyzed to help identify the overall performance of the project towards desired environmental outcomes. Documents used in the analysis include: utility bills, waste and recycling hauling bills, and other project documentation. In addition, the estimated energy savings impact on other environmental outcomes was modeled using Athena Life Cycle Analysis Software.



Operating Energy: As noted in section above, it is most useful to look at a full year of operation after the first-year start up issues are resolved. However, the operating energy usage that was available at the time of this POE was for only the first eight months of operation. Given this caveat, the energy results follow for reference: During the first 8.1 months from March 2003 through October 2003, Carver Public Works Facility used a total of 37.6 KBTU per square foot. Of that 44% was electricity and the remaining 56% was natural gas. During this same period the peak electric demand was 2.2 Watts per square foot. Note that the total energy use is assumed to be generated by the total conditioned space (70,450 gross square feet) of which 16% is semi-heated area. Cold storage and salt/sand storage area were not used in the floor area calculations. The total electric and gas energy use during this period resulted in environmental outcomes of 63.5 KBTU per square foot primary energy, 1.7 lbs. per square foot solid waste, an air pollution index of 0.98 per square foot., a negligible water pollution index, 9.5 lbs. per square foot global warming potential, and 22.3 lbs. per square foot weighted resource use. Operating energy impacts are based on Athena™ Environmental Impact Estimator Software Version 3.0 from the Sustainable Materials Institute. The impacts associated with energy generation, distribution, and consumption are typical for Minneapolis. The outcomes are a sum of the gas and electric impacts. See the appendix section “Key to Life Cycle Analysis Units” for more detail Spatial Measures: The ratio of estimated net building area (area of main building excluding circulation, mechanical, and toilets) to gross building area is 79%. The ratio of gross building area to site area is 4.3%. The total gross area/person (FTE employee) is 2468 square feet. The conditioned area per person is 2116 square feet. Note that the occupancy density varies in different areas of the building such as office versus maintenance garage. Depending on what activities are generating waste, operating waste may be more applicable to report in either a per square foot basis or a per person basis. Construction Waste: The project has no documentation of construction waste available at this time. Operational Waste: Waste quantities for Carver Public Works Facility include the standard operational waste service provided by Waste Management. Additional service may be provided for specialized vehicle maintenance waste but no documentation has been collected at this time. According to waste bills analyzed over an eleven month period from June 2003 through April 2004, the average monthly quantity of waste produced was 12.8 cubic yards. Of the total waste produced, 46% was recycled including glass, plastic, aluminum and cardboard. Total waste generated per person is 0.36 cubic yards per month. Note that the quantity of waste is based on container size and may not accurately represent the amount actually collected since the container may not be filled to capacity at the time of pick-up.



Water and Sewer: None of the documents collected had water meter readings, but according to the City of Cologne the well water usage is metered in order to calculate the cost and quantity of municipal sanitary sewer use. The water quantity was determined by the cost of sewer using the known charge of $6 per 1000 gallons. Over approximately 11 months from June 2003 through April 2004, the average monthly building water consumed was 32,696 gallons. Note that there is an on-site vehicle wash bay which could account for a high consumption compared to other typical office facilities. The quantity of water discharged to the sewer is assumed to be equal to water usage based on utility bills. Verification is needed to know if the facility has a permanent irrigation system which would decrease the amount of water entering the sanitary sewer system compared with the amount of water used. The stormwater will be monitored for sediment load, phosphorous and chloride from salt.

HUMAN OUTCOMES A survey addressing indoor environmental quality in the Carver County Public Works Facility was administered to Carver County employees who work in the building. The survey contained general questions regarding employee perceptions of the sound environment, lighting, thermal comfort, air quality, health, etc. Twenty-one Carver County employees who work in the building responded to the survey. The following report presents the findings generated by the survey. [Means and standard deviations (SD) derived from the 7-point category scales are given in parentheses.]

• Survey participants were asked how healthy they feel after completing their work in the building each day. On average they feel somewhat healthy after completing their work in the building each day (Mean: 5.2; SD: 1.4). In comparison they feel healthier when they are not in the building (Mean: 6.0; SD: 0.9).

• When asked “To what extent do you think your productive work is affected by the interior environmental conditions of the building?” respondents said the building has neither increased nor decreased their perceived productive work. (Mean: 4.3; 1.3)

• Respondents are neither very dissatisfied nor very satisfied with the quality of the sound environment in their workspace (Mean: 4.1; SD: 1.7).

• Vibration (e.g., from mechanical systems) does not seem to be a problem in the building. Only three of the 21 respondents notice vibration in the building. However, the three people who notice vibration in the building said the vibration is annoying (Mean: 5.7; SD: 1.2).

• Employees who work in the building are somewhat satisfied with their workspace furnishings (Mean: 5.2; SD: 1.4).

• On average, respondents are midway between having no view and a panoramic view (Mean: 3.7; SD: 1.9) of the outdoors when they are seated in their workspace. The SD indicates that there is considerable variability in responses. The responses are distributed across the response continuum. Most of the respondents (6) have a very slight view of the outdoors while five have a slightly less than expansive view of the outdoors and three have an expansive view.

• Just two of the respondents have an operable window in their workspace.



• The survey respondents are somewhat satisfied with the overall lighting in their workspace (Mean: 5.1; SD: 1.1).

• Respondents reported that they have a moderate amount of natural light in their workspace (Mean: 4.2; SD: 2.0).

• Survey respondents said they experience a moderate amount of glare in their workspace (Mean: 4.2; SD: 2.1).

• Respondents are neither very dissatisfied nor very satisfied with the temperature in their workspace during the heating season (winter months) (Mean: 3.7; SD: 1.6). They are midway between the two extremes and thus could be categorized as neutral.

• Likewise, respondents are neither very dissatisfied nor satisfied with the temperature in their workspace during the cooling season (summer months) (Mean: 3.8: SD: 1.8). Again, the respondents can be categorized as neutral, on average.

• When asked “How satisfied are you with the air quality in your workspace during the heating season (winter months)?” on average survey respondents are midway between very dissatisfied and very satisfied and thus can be considered to be neutral (Mean: 4.4; SD: 1.3).

• As was the case with air quality in the winter in the building, respondents are midway between very dissatisfied and very satisfied with regard to their satisfaction with the air quality in their workspace during the cooling season (summer months) (Mean: 4.1; SD: 1.6).

• Respondents are also neither very dissatisfied nor very satisfied with the ventilation in their workspace. Again they are neutral (Mean: 4.1; SD: 1.8).

Additional comments regarding how the building and/or landscaping could be improved. (All comments are in quotations.)

• gas fumes from floor drains

• we have a smell like sewer gas and it gets very strong and annoying at times. It also gets loud in my office when they are grinding out in the shop, also when they are pounding.

• work harder at getting fresh air in the building.

• ventilation is entirely inadequate in the men’s bathroom adjacent to the office area

• need to plant trees/ shrubs around the office part of the building. This should have been done by now.

• 73-74 degree temps in winter a bit warm

• lack of quality installation of Steelcase furnishings

• lack of sound system

• occasionally a bit stuffy • I would like a more constant temperature through the day (warm from morning to afternoon) -

there is an odor in the building from the water. Bathrooms, hallways, and any place a water faucet is used - this building is tough on plants - existing landscape is very poor at this time

• windows that open. Better heating system. No heat ducts on floor. Heat comes from ceiling, very hot up high, floors very cold. Heat does not sink, it rises. Building isn’t real water tight during rains.

• we are getting new furniture in the summer 04



• I would like to see some trees or something nice outside. The air doesn’t feel like it’s moving at all. I get tired easily. The light is harsh it reflects off of everything and if it’s supposed to help cheer someone up it doesn’t w/me. I also think that it is ridiculous that we can’t listen to a radio unless it’s in the hall because of the steel and low ceilings.

• septic gas – address problem in areas B & C & semi-heated storage 2) floor markings – areas B & C 3) exterior doors – tightness/ water proofing 4) internal signage 5) landscaping – add plantings/ mulch

• We have no landscaping! We could use more custodial service – have very limited! It’s a new building and should be kept cleaner.

• Heating and cooling systems should be programmed to begin earlier and end later to accommodate earlier and later work schedules

• too much sun in the afternoon

Summary In general, though respondents did not express dissatisfaction with a number of dimensions integral to indoor environmental quality, they did not express satisfaction either. There is room for improvement. COMMUNITY OUTCOMES • The County took special care to the make sure that the stormwater drainage design did not result in

flooding the neighboring parkland. The stormwater features are intended as an educational demonstration for other projects that will have to follow the more stringent stormwater rules taking effect.

• The facility is shared by many County organizations including the Sheriff’s office.

• A turn lane was added to Highway 212 to make the access safer for the highway traffic.

• Reduced water and energy use result in less demand for new infrastructure to treat water and wastewater, as well as build new power plants.

• Waste recycling, recycled materials and less material use through efficient planning all contribute to less need for landfills.



Appendix A: Specification Review SECTION TITLE REVIEW COMMENTS Bidding Docs

Advert/Instructions/Supplementary Conditions

No mention of project sustainable goals

Division 1 01010 Summary of Work Waste disposal is to be to “a county certified facility for recycling.” Facility listed; weight tickets required.

01030 Alternates No. 4 Alternate for Energy Management System; No. 8 To add Asphalt Paving @ Stockpile Area.

01200 Progress Meetings No comments about environmental goals, submittals, or procedures required

01300 Submittals No requirements for chain of custody, product verification for compliance with project environmental goals, etc.

01410 Testing Laboratory Services No special requirements or tests to meet project environmental goals

01500 Construction Facilities and Temporary Controls

No requirements for energy conservations during construction.

01600 Material and Equipment Includes comment about no hazardous materials allowed. No special substitutions required.

01710 Final Cleaning Specified cleaning materials with low environmental impact.

Division 2 02510 Asphaltic Concrete Paving No requirements for recycled content, or recycled concrete subbase.

02520 Exterior Portland Cement Concrete

No spec for reused or reusable forms; no fly ash allowed.

Division 3 03100, 03200, 03300 Concrete Formwork, Reinforcement, and Cast-in-Place Concrete

No spec for reused or reusable forms; no minimum fly ash specified.

03415, 03452, 03460 Precast Concrete Hollow Core Planks, Plant Precast Concrete Wall Panels, Precast Concrete Bunker Panels

No fly ash specified; no recycled aggregate.

Division 4 04100, 04300 Masonry Mortar & Grout, Masonry Assemblies

No local manufacturers required; no recycled content identified in masonry units.

Division 5 05120, 05210, 05312, 05400, 05500, 05510 Structural Metals, Deck, Cold-Formed Framing, Miscellaneous & Stairs

No minimum level of recycled content required; no local manufacturers required. Galvanizing required on exterior steel; factory priming specified.

Division 6 06100, 06400 Rough Carpentry, Architectural Woodwork

ACQ preservative specified; but no mention of low-VOC emissions or no formaldehyde. No renewable products specified, or recycled content or recyclable products specified. Factory-finishing specified.



SECTION TITLE REVIEW COMMENTS Division 7 07210 Insulation Fiberglass batt specified; no comments

about precautions during installation. Rigid insulations: No restrictions on HCFC’s or CFC blowing agents.

07465 Preformed Metal Siding Material has some recycled content and is

recyclable, but no mention of minimum levels. Factory finished.

07532 Ballasted Elastomeric Sheet Roofing System

Addendum sets insulation at 4 inches; membrane is 60 mil.

07900 Joint Sealers

Nothing limiting VOC’s specified.

Division 8 08210 Wood Doors

No FSC-certified, or sustainably harvested products (cores, veneers) specified.

08410 Entrances and Storefronts

No U-values indicated other than manufacturer’s standard; no energy efficiencies indicated.

08520 Aluminum Windows

Contain higher recycled content than steel, but no limits specified. AAMA Class C20 performance requirements (not highest level.)

08800 Glazing Argon-filled, double pane, U-value (summer) .28, (winter) .29.

Division 9 09260 Gypsum Board Systems No recycled content paper facing specified; no efficient construction practices recommended to reduce waste; no indication material should be modular of certain size to minimize waste.

09300 Tile Nothing requiring recycled content, low-VOC adhesives, grouts, or sealers.

09510 Acoustical Ceilings No recycled content specified. 09650 Resilient Floorings VCT is specified; rubber base in lieu of

vinyl is specified. 09680 Carpet Adhesives: No low-VOC products

required. 09900 Painting Recycled product requirements are

included. 09912 Reblended Paint Performance requirements for reblended

paint are specified. Division 13 13121 Pre-Engineered Timber Post

Structures No sustainably harvested products, or FSC-certified, timbers are specified. No mention of local harvesting or finishing.

Division 15 15400 Plumbing Fixtures Standard specifications; no indication of ‘low-flow’ requirements.

Division 16 16500 Exterior Lighting Fixtures No explicit requirements for energy efficient equipment or appliances.



COMMENTS:

1. In general, the specifications were entirely traditional, following CSI (Construction Specification Institute) rules for content and format. This standardized format provides a simple way to convey new information so that those using the Project Manual (contractors, subs, suppliers and the design/construction administration team, as well as the Owner) are aware of the typical and a-typical aspects of the Project. The Project Manuals did not, in any example, provide a clear picture of a “sustainable” project, or one which sought to achieve any specific goals related to sustainable design or construction.

2. Quite often, it is perceived by the design community that a “sustainable” or green project will cost more, and so calling attention to the fact that a project will be following sustainable guidelines or complying with specific requirements is hidden in the everyday language of the specifications. Another approach is to lay out quite clearly the expectations for the project, identifying project goals and providing individual sections that support product selection, evaluation, and documentation.

RECOMMENDATIONS The following general considerations should be included in Division 1 – General Requirements - specification sections:

1. Identify where specific administrative requirements change to accommodate project sustainable goals. For example: a. 01010 (or 01100) Summary of Work: Identify the specific guidelines to be followed, and

state the level of compliance required. b. 01030 (or 01230) Alternates: Identify whether Alternates are included to ‘upgrade to’ or

reduce compliance with specific guidelines or goals. c. 01300 Submittals: Identify when additional or non-traditional submittals are required

(for instance, when “Product Data” needs to include information on recycled content or recyclability of products, or what factory a product is manufactured at.)

d. 01310 Project Meetings: Identify that meetings will include discussion of documentation responsibilities, construction site procedures, requirements for off-gassing and specific requirements for scheduling ‘wet’ work.

e. 01400 Testing: Identify qualifications for third-party certification or testing. f. 01500 Temporary Facilities and Controls: Identify clearly that construction site

management, including construction waste management practices, will be different. A separate section on Construction Waste Management, with Submittal forms, may be included to educate the contractor/subs/suppliers to the specific salvage, reuse, and recycling requirements,

g. 01600 Product Requirements: Be definite in listing goals for recycled content, local manufacture, low-VOCs, and other requirements that affect products at large. Include procedures for substitution submittals, outlining how products will be evaluated if substituted.

h. 01700 Closeout: For cleaning procedures, identify if specific products with lower IAQ environmental impacts are to be used.

i. 01800 Commissioning: If typical commissioning (often handled in Division 15 in Testing and Balancing) is the only level required, it still may be necessary to call it out in Division 1 and set parameters for implementation and verification. If additional commissioning is required, it is important to make the entire construction team aware of it by providing and in depth section outlining the Commissioning Plan and its implementation.



Appendix B: Outcome Data Sheets The outcome data sheets that follow show the final outcomes calculated and important calculation notes or limitations to the numbers. The outcome data sheets are generated from other internal spreadsheets and utility and other records sent for each building and in some cases for a comparison benchmark building. The key data and observations from this analysis has been included in the outcomes section of the report. Notes on the units used are in the outcomes section of the report.

Economic Data Key

CPW Carver Public Works TBD

Data not gathered at this time

Not Applicable

Benchmark CPW Notes Comments

CPW % savings

Operating Energy Cost

Electric Consumption $/Sq.Ft.** /Period* 0.17

Electric Peak $/Sq.Ft.** /Period* 0.14

Total Electric $/Sq.Ft.** /Period* 0.31

Gas $/Sq.Ft.** /Period* 0.20

Total Energy $/Sq.Ft.** /Period* 0.51

Total Energy $ /Period* 37,617.31

*Period not representative of 1 year, period = 8.1 months in March 2003- Oct 2003

**sq.ft of conditioned space

Design Energy Improvements Cost

Added Cost Compared to initial

design $

Estimated Annual Energy

Savings Compared to initial $ /Period

Estimated Payback for Added

Features Years

Design/Construction Measures Cost

Total Improved Site Area Sq.Ft. 2,019,600

Bldg Ft. Print Sq.Ft. 79,335

Non-building Improved Site Area only Sq.Ft. 1,940,265

Gross Bldg. Area Sq.Ft. 86,370

Gross Area Conditioned Space Sq.Ft. 74,050

Estimated Net Bldg. Area Sq.Ft. 43,165

Total Construction Cost $ 8,300,000

Buidling Construction Cost $

Site Improvement Costs $

Year Completion 2003

Building Construction Cost- Net Bldg Area $/Sq.Ft.

Building Construction Cost- Gross Bldg Area $/Sq.Ft.

Designed Peak Occupancy (not

including toilets, mech rms)

Number of FTE employee 35

Total Construction Cost per person $/Designed Occupancy TBD

Total Construction Cost per person $/person* 237,143

Total Construction Cost per Sq.Ft $/Sq.Ft 96.10

Unit Cost- Site Improvement

$/Sq.Ft. Non-Bldg

Improved Site Area TBD

*person = FTE employee, assumed 40hr/wk basis

Construction Waste Cost

Recycled Waste $

Landfilled Waste $

Total Waste $

$ Savings from Recycling $

Operating Waste Cost

Recycled Waste $ /Month* 54.41

Landfilled Waste $ /Month* 200.43

Total Waste $ /Month* 254.83

Recycled Waste $/yd 9.26

Landfilled Waste $/yd 29.07

$ Savings from Recycling by yard $/yd /period 9.11

Recycled Waste $/sq.ft** /Month* 0.0007

Landfilled Waste $/sq.ft** /Month* 0.0027

Total Waste $/sq.ft** /Month* 0.0034

* Based on 30 day month, data gathered over 11.2 months from June 03-April 04


Operating Waste Cost by Person (Person = FTE employee)

Recycled Waste $/person /Month* 1.55

Landfilled Waste $/person /Month* 5.73

Total Waste $/person /Month* 7.28


To Be Determined: data gathered but in

process, and/or data needs

Cost per person = $/FTE Employee

Standard waste service provided by Waste Management, billed

by container volume.

Full Time Equivalent staff, 35 (according to Leslie Wilson on

CPW Data Form) Report assumes 40hr/wk FTE basis

Electricity provided by MN Valley Electric Cooperative

Gas provided by CenterPoint Energy

Energy Cost based on 243 days from March 2003 through Oct

2003

Bldg Ft = Total GSF of main and exterior bldgs (semi-heated

storage, cold storage, salt/sand storage)

(62555+11495+7175+5145) - mezzanine GSF (7035) = 79335

Note per sq.ft is based on Gross Conditioned Space

Gross Bldg Area = 62555 (main bldg) + 11495 (semi-heated

storage) + 7175 (cold storage) + 5145 (sand/salt storage) =

86,370 gsf

Gross Area Conditioned = 62555 (main bldg) + 11495 (semi-

heated) = 74050 gsf

$/sq.ft based on conditioned space (occupied space)

$ savings by recycling found based on total waste generated

during 11.2 month period, total cost found if all waste had been

landfilled, divided difference between actual cost (landfilled and

recycled) by total waste generated (yds)

Estimated Net Area = Main Bldg GSF (62555) - Mezzanine

(7035) - Circ/Mech/Toilet ( 6355.5) = 49164.5

No record that construction waste management plan required

special waste sort for recycling.



Water & Site Cost

Total Building Water $ /Month* 0.00

Total Sewer $ /Month* 463.74

Total $ /Month* 463.74

Building Water $/sq.ft** /Month* 0.0000

Sewer $/sq.ft** /Month* 0.0063

Total $/sq.ft** /Month* 0.0063

Irrigation Water $/site Sq.Ft. /Month*

Landscape Maint/ Chemicals/ $/site Sq.Ft. /Month*

* Based on 30 day month, does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 4.9 month period in Nov-Apr


Water & Site Cost by Person (Person = FTE employee)

Building Water $/person /Month* 0.00

Sewer $/person /Month* 13.25

Total $/person /Month* 13.25

Irrigation Water $/person /Month*

Landscape Maint/ Chemicals/ $/person /Month*

* Based on 30 day month, does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 4.9 month period in Nov-Apr

Building water has no operational costs associated because facility water is from on-site well. City of Cologne charges

$6/1000 gal water consumer for sanitary sewer.

$/sq.ft based on conditioned space (occupied space)

Not determined if facility has permanent irrigation.

Facility has truck washing station which may account for high

costs/person

Environmental Data Key

CPW Carver Pulic Works TBD

Data not gathered at this time

Not Applicable

Benchmark CPW Comments

CPW % savings

Operating Energy

Site Energy KBTU/Sq.Ft.** /Period* 37.7

Electric KBTU KBTU/Sq.Ft.** /Period* 16.72

Gas KBTU KBTU/Sq.Ft.** /Period* 21.01

Elec % of KBTU 44%

Peak Electric Demand Peak W/Sq.Ft. /Period* 2.2

*Period not representative of 1 year, period = 8.1 months in March 2003- Oct 2003


Athena Life Cycle Measures (total electric & gas operating energy over period)

Primary Energy Consumption KBTU/ sq.ft.** /Period* 63.5

Solid Waste lb/sq.ft** /Period* 1.7

Air Pollution Index unit/ sq.ft.** /Period* 0.98

Water Pollution Index unit/ sq.ft.** /Period* 0.0001

Global Warming Potential lb/sq.ft** /Period* 9.5

Weighted Resource Use lb/sq.ft** /Period* 22.3

*Period not representative of 1 year, period = 8.1 months in March 2003- Nov 2003


Design Energy ImprovementsEstimated Annual Energy

Savings Compared to initial

design KBTU/Sq.Ft. /Yr

Estimated Annual Energy

Savings Compared to initial % Savings

Estimated Savings from Strategies %

Design Spatial Measures

Estimated Net Area Sq.Ft. 49,165

Gross Area Sq.Ft. 86,370

Gross Area Conditioned Space Sq.Ft. 74,050

Estimated Net to Gross Percentage 57%

Estimated Net to Gross Area Conditioned Space Percentage 66%

Building Footprint Sq.Ft 79,335

Number of FTE Employees 35

Gross Area/ FTE Employee Sq.Ft/ FTE Person 2468

Gross Area Conditioned Space/ FTE EmployeeSq.Ft/ FTE Person 2116

Total Site Area 2,019,600

Area Gross Bldg / Site % 4.3%

Area Bldg Footprint / Site % 3.9%

Construction Waste by sq.ft.

Recycled Waste cu. yds/Sq.Ft.

Landfilled Waste cu. yds/Sq.Ft.

Total Waste cu. yds/Sq.Ft.

% recycled % by volume

To Be Determined: data gathered but in

process, and/or data needs

Net Area = Main Bldg GSF (62555) - Mezzanine (7035) -

Circ/Mech/Toilet ( 6355.5) = 49164.5

FTE Staff = 35, includes office workers and shop workers.

Currently report assumes 40hr/wk FTE basis

Site energy = electric Kbtu/ sq.ft + gas Kbtu/sq.ft

Elec % of KBTU = (electric KBTU/sq.ft.) / (Site Energy

KBTU/sq.ft)

Peak Electric Demand = Converted peak kw to Watts (divided

by 1000), then divided by bldg sq.ft

Athena Measures based on total electric and gas usage over

243 day period from March 2003- Oct. 2003

Gross conditioned space is calculated because GSF of all

buildings includes unconditioned and rarely occupied area.

GSF Conditioned space includes Main bldg + Semi-heated

storage

Note per sq.ft is based on Gross Conditioned Space

Bldg Ft = Total GSF of main and exterior bldgs (semi-heated

storage, cold storage, salt/sand storage)

(62555+11495+7175+5145) - mezzanine GSF (7035) = 79335

No record that construction waste management plan required

special waste sort for recycling.

Energy Assets proposal done, no estimated report available.



Operating Waste by sq.ft.

Recycled Waste cu. yds /Month* 5.9

Landfilled Waste cu. yds /Month* 6.9

Total Waste cu. yds /Month* 12.8

% recycled % by volume /Month* 46%

Recycled Waste cu. yds/Sq.Ft.** /Month* 0.0001

Ladnfilled Waste cu. yds/Sq.Ft.** /Month* 0.0001

Total Waste cu. yds/Sq.Ft.** /Month* 0.0002



Operating Waste by Person (Person = FTE employee)

Recycled Waste cu.yds/person /Month* 0.17

Landfilled Waste cu.yds/person /Month* 0.20

Total Waste cu.yds/person /Month* 0.36


Water & Site by sq.ft.

Building Water Gal /Month* 32,696

Sewer Gal /Month* 32,696

Building Water Gal/Sq.Ft.** /Month* 0.44

Sewer Gal/Sq.Ft.** /Month* 0.44

*Based on 30 day month, data gathered over 333 day period from June 2003 through Apr 2004


Water & Site by Person (Person = FTE employee)

Building Water Gal/person /Month* 934

Sewer Gal/person /Month* 934

Irrigation Water lbs/site Sq.Ft. /Month*

Landscape Chemicals lbs/site Sq.Ft. /Month*

*Based on 30 day month, data gathered over 333 day period from June 2003 through Apr 2004

Operating waste disposal service provided by Waste

Management. Quantiy based on volume of bin, exact weight of

waste unknow, % of bin full at time of pick-up unknown.

Qty of waste water assumed to be equal to consumption. No

meter readings on bills provided, found quantity based on cost.

Contract with City of Cologne states that sewer cost = $6/1000

gal of water used (billing based on actual meter reading).

Divided total sewer cost/ 6 to find 1000 gal water, then by 1000

to find gal of water

Facility has truck washing station which may account for high

consumption/person

Not determined if facility has permanent irrigation.



Appendix C: Key to Life Cycle Assessment Units The following is an excerpt from Athena™ Version 2.02 Software Help Section:

Interpreting Results

As output, the model produces a detailed life cycle inventory for an entered design. It also generates a set of summary results in graphical and tabular form showing:

· aggregate ecologically weighted resource requirements; · embodied energy inputs by type; · global warming potential; · an index of water pollution effects; · an index of air pollution effects; and · solid wastes.

This section briefly describes the six environmental measures used to summarize the environmental assessment results provided by Athena™.

Embodied primary energy is reported in Mega-joules (Mj). Embodied primary energy includes all energy, direct and indirect, used to transform or transport raw materials into products and buildings, including inherent energy contained in raw or feedstock materials that are also used as common energy sources. (For example, natural gas used as a raw material in the production of various plastic (polymer) resins.) In addition, the model captures the indirect energy use associated with processing, transporting, converting and delivering fuel and energy.

Solid waste is reported on a mass basis in kilograms and is generally self-explanatory. No attempt has been made to further characterize emissions to land as either hazardous or non-hazardous.

All other measures are indices requiring more explanation and interpretation. They have been developed because of the difficulty of using and interpreting detailed life cycle inventory results. For example, it takes considerable expertise to understand and appreciate the significance of the individual emissions to air and water. Both categories encompass a relatively large number of individual substances with varying environmental impacts. In the case of raw resource use, there is no real basis for comparison from one material to another in terms of environmental impact. The model therefore compiles related numeric results into indices that summarise the results by indicating potentials for environmental impacts.

Raw resource use can be measured in common units such as tonnes, but a unit of one resource like iron ore is not at all comparable to a unit of another resource life timber or coal when it comes to environmental implications of extracting resources. Since the varied effects of resource extraction, (e.g., effects on bio-diversity, ground water quality and wildlife habitat, etc.) are a primary concern, we want to make sure they are taken into account. The problem is that while these ecological carrying capacity effects are as important as the basic life cycle inventory data, they are much harder to incorporate for a number of reasons, especially their highly site-specific nature.

Our approach was to survey a number of resource extraction and environmental specialists across Canada to develop subjective scores of the relative effects of different resource extraction activities. The scores reflect the expert panel ranking of the effects of extraction activities relative to each other for each of several impact dimensions. The scores were combined into a set of resource-specific index numbers, which are applied in Athena™ as weights to the amounts of raw resources used to manufacture each building product. The Weighted Resource Use values reported by Athena™ are the sum of the weighted



resource requirements for all products used in each of the designs. They can be thought of as "ecologically weighted kilograms", where the weights reflect expert opinion about the relative ecological carrying capacity effects of extracting resources. Excluded from this measure are energy feedstocks used as raw materials. Except for coal, no scoring survey has been conducted on the effects of extracting fossil fuels, and hence, they have been assigned a score of one to only account for their mass. The weighting factor for each raw material is set out below:

Weighted Resource Use

Same as normal resource converted to mass quantities except: 1. LIMESTONE * 1.5 2. IRON ORE * 2.25 3. COAL * 2.25 4. WOODFIBER * 2.5

Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a reference measure. Carbon dioxide is the common reference standard for global warming or greenhouse gas effects. All other greenhouse gases are referred to as having a "CO2 equivalence effect" which is simply a multiple of the greenhouse potential (heat trapping capability) of carbon dioxide. This effect has a time horizon due to the atmospheric reactivity or stability of the various contributing gases over time.

As yet, no consensus has been reached among policy makers about the most appropriate time horizon for greenhouse gas calculations. The International Panel on Climate Change100-year time horizon figures have been used here as a basis for the equivalence index:

CO2 Equivalent kg = CO2 kg + (CH4 kg x 23) + (N2O kg x 296)

While greenhouse gas emissions are largely a function of energy combustion, some products also emit greenhouse gases during the processing of raw materials. Process emissions often go unaccounted for due to the complexity associated with modelling manufacturing process stages. One example where process CO2 emissions are significant is in the production of cement (calcination of limestone). Because Athena™ uses data developed by a detailed life cycle modelling approach, all relevant process emissions of greenhouse gases are included in the resultant global warming potential index.

The air and water pollution measures are similarly intended to capture the pollution or human health effects of groups of substances emitted at various life cycle stages. In this case we used the commonly recognised and accepted critical volume method to estimate the volume of ambient air or water that would be required to dilute contaminants to acceptable levels, where acceptability is defined by the most stringent standards (i.e., drinking water standards).

Athena™ calculates and reports these critical volume measures based on the worst offender -- that is, the substance requiring the largest volume of air and water to achieve dilution to acceptable levels. The hypothesis is that the same volume of air or water can contain a number of pollutants. However, there are concerns about the cumulative or synergistic effects of some substances and we therefore expect to further refine our approach in the future.

Air Pollution Index = maximum of the following, divided by 1000: i) SULPHUR OXIDES (g) / 0.03 ii) PARTICULATES (g) / 0.06 iii) CARBON_MONOXIDE (g) / 6 iv) NITROGEN OXIDES (g) / 0.06 v) VOLATILE ORGANICS (NMHC) (g) / 6



vi) PHENOLS (g) / 2 Water Pollution Index = maximum of the following divided by 1,000,000 i) DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg) / 5000.0 ii) POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (mg) iii) CYANIDE (mg) / 0.05 iv) PHENOLS (mg) / 0.01 v) AMMONIA/AMMONIUM (mg) / 20.0 vi) NITRATE NITRITE (mg) / 20.0 vii) HALOGENATED ORGANICS (mg) / 0.2 viii) CHLORIDES (mg) / 2500.0 ix) ALUMINUM (mg) / 1.0 x) OIL and GREASE (mg) / 10.0 xi) SULPHATES (mg) / 5000 xii) SULPHIDES (mg) / 0.5 xiii) IRON and other HEAVY METALS (mg) / 3.0



Appendix D: Occupant Survey Form

Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board Post Occupancy Evaluation

(1) What is your primary workspace?__________________________________________________________ For the following questions please circle a number from 1-7 that best reflects your response to the question. (2) How healthy do you feel after completing your work in the building each day?

Very unhealthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very healthy (3) How healthy do you feel when you are not in the building?

Very unhealthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very healthy (4) To what extent do you think your productive work is affected by the interior environmental conditions of the building?

Greatly decreased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Greatly increased no effect (5) How satisfied are you with the quality of sound environment in your workspace? This includes sounds like echoes, equipment, HVAC, foot traffic, furniture movement, etc.?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied (6) Do you notice vibration (e.g., from mechanical systems) in the building? (Please check one.) _____ Yes _____ No If you checked Yes, go to Question 7. If you checked No, go to Question 8. (7) If you notice vibration (e.g., from mechanical systems) in the building how annoying is it?

Not at all annoying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Highly annoying (8) How satisfied are you with your workspace furnishings?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied (9) What kind of view of the outdoors do you have when you are seated in your workspace?

No view 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Panoramic view Very slight Expansive (10) Do you have an operable window in your workspace? (Please check one.) _____ Yes _____ No



(11) To what extent are you satisfied with the overall lighting in your workspace?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied (12) How much natural light do you have in your workspace?

None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Almost like the outdoors (13) How much glare do you experience in your workspace?

No glare 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very noticeable glare (14) How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace during the heating season (winter months)?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied (15) How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace during the cooling season (summer months)?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied (16) How satisfied are you with the air quality in your workspace during the heating season (winter months)?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied (17) How satisfied are you with air quality in your workspace during the cooling season (summer months)?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied (18) How satisfied are you with the ventilation system in your workspace?

Very dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very satisfied (19) Do you have any additional comments on building performance? Do you have any suggestions for how the building and/or landscape could be improved? If so, please explain them and rank the improvements in order of importance to you. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________