HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-16 Planning & Economic Development Committee Meeting AgendaPEDC Meeting
Planning and Economic Development Committee
Ithaca Common Council
DATE: July 13, 2016
TIME: 6pm
LOCATION: 3rd floor City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA ITEMS
Item Voting
Item?
Presenter(s) Time
Start
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
2) Public Comment and Response from
Committee Members
3) Special Order of Business
a) Presentation: Ithaca 2030 District
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
5) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council)
a) Mural proposal: “Portals to Peace”
b) Public Art Projects: Commons Electrical
Boxes and Rainwater Art
c) Residential Energy Score Project
6) Discussion
a) Community Investment Incentive Tax
Abatement Program (CIITAP) – Diversity
Requirements
b) Off-Street Parking Rentals
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) May and June 2016
8) Adjournment
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Seph Murtagh, Chair
Peter Bardaglio, Ithaca 2030 District
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
Megan Wilson, Planning Staff
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator
Nels Bohn, IURA
Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning
Administration
6:00
6:05
6:15
6:45
6:50
7:00
7:15
7:40
8:10
8:30
8:35
If you have a disability and require accommodations in order to fully participate, please con tact the City Clerk at 274-6570 by
12:00 noon on Tuesday, July 12th, 2016.
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
DATE: July 6, 2016
RE: Mural Proposal: “Portals to Peace” by Lachlan Chambliss
In 2010, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) created a mural and street art program to
beautify blank walls within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community
an opportunity to showcase their work. As part of this program, artist Lachlan Chambliss submitted
a mural proposal for the Green Street Parking Garage.
Earlier this year, a group of community members, led by Nagiane Lacka Arriaza, issued a call for
proposals for a mural that celebrates Muslim culture, and Mr. Chambliss’s proposal was selected
from a pool of entries. The mural is proposed for installation on the west-facing entry wall of the
Green Street Parking Garage (on the right side as one enters the ramp to the upper levels).
The PAC has sought public comment on the proposal through notification of surrounding property
owners, Downtown Ithaca Alliance members, and City staff. The project organizers, including a
PAC member, also sought letters of support from the public. A public comment period was held at
the June 22nd PAC meeting to gather input on the proposed design and location, and the comments
received were supportive of the project. There was some disagreement among PAC members about
the appropriateness of the location for the design, the quality of the artwork, and the proposal itself.
A quorum was not present at the meeting, but the majority of members in attendance supported
advancing the proposal for Common Council’s consideration.
The mural proposal is attached for your review. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact me at 274-6560 or mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Proposed Resolution
July 13, 2016
Resolution to Select Artwork for a Mural Installation on the West-Facing Entry Wall of the
Green Street Parking Garage
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among
other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display
of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls
within the city, while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to
showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street
art, including walls in the City garages on Green Street and Seneca Street, by resolution on May
19, 2010, and
WHEREAS, local artist Lachlan Chambliss has submitted his mural proposal “Portals to Peace”
as part of the PAC’s Mural and Street Art Program, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Chambliss was selected by a group of community members to paint a mural
that celebrates Muslim culture, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a public comment period on the mural design and location at its
meeting on June 22, 2016 to gather input on the proposed installation, and the public responses
to the proposal have been positive, and
WHEREAS, the mural will be privately funded, and the installation will be budget-neutral to the
City, and
WHEREAS, while a quorum was not present at its meeting on June 22, 2016, a majority of the
members in attendance supported sending the proposal to Common Council for its
consideration; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca Common Council selects Lachlan Chambliss’s mural
proposal “Portals to Peace” to be installed on the west-facing entry wall of the Green Street
Parking Garage and to be added to the City of Ithaca’s public art collection; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the selected artist may proceed with the installation of his mural upon the
execution of an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney.
Mural Proposal for the Green Street Parking Garage: “Portals to Peace” by Lachlan Chambliss MURAL DESCRIPTION: “Portals to Peace” creates five doorways that pull the viewer into different scenes representing the journey to peace. The scenes are inspired by Muslim culture yet represent universal themes; they include details to celebrate various international geographic areas and traditions. The detailed archway of each portal reflects the accurate architecture of the respective regions referenced below. Doorway 1) Market scene with money, goods and food items symbolic of charity/alms giving. Items like coconuts, bananas and dates salute West African ideas of charity and sustenance. Doorway 2) Journey to truth with scene of mountainous valley references North Africa. Doorway 3) Meal under moonlight hosts a Western European picnic spread; symbolic of sharing with others and the body as a vessel of peace. Doorway 4) Tranquil domestic scene reflecting the daily effort to find peace. The scene implies a space to mediate, relax and read with a library in vision. Window design and decor salute Asia. Doorway 5) Light. Our internal light of peace we seek to discover, the external guidance from the universe we seek to know. This mural would be completed by Summer/Fall 2016 at the Downtown Ithaca Green Street Parking Garage. The mural is a door design, a path to someplace which is appropriate for a ramp space literally meant to take you into a different space. The mural will brighten the dark area and the dark area will add to the whimsical nature of the design.
TO: Planning & Economic Development Committee
FROM: Megan Wilson, Senior Planner
DATE: July 7, 2016
RE: Public Art Commission’s 2016 Projects
The Public Art Commission (PAC) has been working on two exciting projects this summer and would
like to recommend artwork for Common Council approval.
Commons Boxes: An Electrical Box Mural Project
As part of a third installment of the successful 21 Boxes project, mini-murals will be installed on the
three new electrical boxes on the Commons. The PAC worked with the Commons Management Team
to issue a call for proposals and select three designs for the boxes. The selected designs were distributed
for public comment, and the response to the proposed artwork has been mostly positive. A quorum was
not present at the special meeting on July 7, 2016, all PAC members in attendance supported Common
Council’s approval of the designs submitted by Erica Brath, Jennifer Gioffre and David Todd, and
Catherine Montgomery for installation on the three new electrical boxes on the Commons. The project
will be funded through a grant from the Community Arts Partnership of Tompkins County.
Rainwater Art Project
The PAC is proposing the installation of rainwater art on City-owned sidewalks. To create the artwork,
a stencil is placed on an area of sidewalk that is then sprayed with a paint that seals the concrete to
moisture. When it rains, the area surrounding the stenciled design changes color from the moisture while
the stenciled area remains dry, revealing the artwork. Rainwater art appears only when the ground is
wet; it is completely invisible during dry weather. The installation is temporary, and the paint wears
away with foot traffic, weather, and shoveling. Examples of this type of work are attached and a short
video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBwpON6HIR8 The Board of Public Works
approved nine locations around downtown Ithaca for the project in April 2016.
While the PAC will ultimately install the artwork themselves, they wanted community involvement in
the project. Members developed a list of possible designs – images, phrases, and quotes – and released
an electronic survey for the community to vote on their favorite ideas. Nearly 100 people voted, and the
PAC is now seeking approval for the top 10 designs. The project will be funded by a grant from a
private foundation.
Staff will attend the July 13th Planning & Economic Development Committee to discuss the projects and
answer any questions. If you have any questions, please contact me at (607) 274-6560 or
mwilson@cityofithaca.org.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PHYLLISA A. DeSARNO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559
Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558 Fax: 607-274-6558
2
3
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Proposed Resolution
July 13, 2016
Resolution to Select Artwork for Commons Boxes: An Electrical Box Mural Project
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among
other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display
of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the PAC created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls
within the city while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to
showcase their work, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved several locations for future murals and street
art, including municipal electrical boxes throughout the city, by resolution on May 19, 2010, and
WHEREAS, in 2012 the PAC launched a project to beautify 21 municipal electrical boxes
through the creation of mini-murals by selected artists, and a second round of the project was
completed in 2014, and
WHEREAS, due to the success of the two projects, the PAC has initiated a third round of
electrical box murals to be completed in 2016, including the three new electrical boxes installed
on the Commons, and
WHEREAS, the project will be funded through a grant from the Community Arts Partnership of
Tompkins County and will be budget-neutral to the City, and
WHEREAS, the PAC issued a Request for Proposals earlier this spring and after reviewing all of
the submissions with the Commons Management Team, distributed 3 proposals for public
comment, and
WHEREAS, the PAC held a special meeting on July 7, 2016 to review public comment, and
while a quorum was not present, all members in attendance as well as the liaisons supported
Common Council’s selection of the artwork submitted by Erica Brath, Jennifer Gioffre and
David Todd, and Catherine Montgomery to be installed on the 3 new electrical boxes on the
Commons; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the submissions of the following
artists for Commons Boxes: An Electrical Box Mural Project: Erica Brath, Jennifer Gioffre and
David Todd, and Catherine Montgomery (as shown in “Common Boxes Mural Proposals
(2016)”); and be it further
RESOLVED, that the selected artists may proceed with the installation of their murals on their
appointed electrical box upon the execution of an agreement with the City (as reviewed by the
City Attorney).
With grant support by New York State Council on the Arts, administered by the Community Arts Partnership
Commons Boxes Mural Proposals (2016)
Box #1 – North Cayuga Street: “Commons’ers” by Erica Brath
Description: “With this design I hope to illustrate the energy of the newly redesigned Commons, a
central gathering spot for people from around Ithaca and beyond. I’ve incorporated several elements
of downtown culture, including the Ithaca Festival parade, with the main dancers and performers;
Press Bay Alley with the strung lights, Circus Culture acrobats and, probably the most popular new
attraction for the block-long stretch, the now-annual Wizarding Weekend with a Quidditch rider on
a Boxy Bike; and the Apple Festival—the stilt walker is juggling apples. I’ve also incorporated the
surrounding elements of Taughannock Falls in the center, and Cornell University and Ithaca College
by red in the left (Cornell side of the Commons) corner and blue (Ithaca College side of the
Commons) on the right.”
With grant support by New York State Council on the Arts, administered by the Community Arts Partnership
Box #2 – Bank Alley: “Cayuga Migration” by Catherine Montgomery
Description: “This figurative work features the silhouettes of local birds set in a black and copper
background. This piece has a sense of place bringing a graphic urban ascetic and softening it with
out abundant and prominent local fauna.”
With grant support by New York State Council on the Arts, administered by the Community Arts Partnership
Box #3 – North Aurora Street: “Shockingly Delicious!” by Jennifer Gioffre & David Todd
Description: “We’d like to transform the North Aurora street electrical box into a delicious display
of treats. Inspiration came to us from two sources. First was the proximity of the electrical box to
Madeline’s, everyone’s favorite dessert stop on the commons. Second, the shape and metallic case
of the box itself reminded us of a classic dessert refrigerator. We think this design is unique because
instead of simply covering the electrical box, we would be incorporating the form into the design,
including its locked doors as part of the art work.”
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Proposed Resolution
July 13, 2016
Resolution to Select Artwork for the Public Art Commission’s Rainwater Art Project
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Public Art Commission (PAC) has been established to, among
other duties, review and advise the Common Council on proposals for the exhibition and display
of public art in the City’s public spaces, and
WHEREAS, the PAC has proposed the installation of rainwater art – artwork that is only visible
during periods of rain – on City-owned sidewalks around downtown Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, the installation will be temporary, and the artwork will wear away with foot traffic,
weather, and shoveling, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved nine locations for the project by resolution on
April 25, 2016, and
WHEREAS, the PAC wanted community involvement in the project and released an online
survey in June 2016 that allowed the public to vote for the favorite rainwater art designs, and
WHEREAS, the project will be funded through a grant from a private foundation and will be
budget-neutral to the City, and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on June 22, 2016, the PAC reviewed the top 10 designs selected by
the community and unanimously voted to recommend that the Common Council approve the
designs, as shown in “2016 Rainwater Art,” for installation on City-owned sidewalks around
downtown Ithaca, as approved by the Board of Public Works; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the design shown in “2016
Rainwater Art,” as recommended by the Public Art Commission, for installation on approved
City-owned sidewalks around downtown Ithaca as part of the Rainwater Art Project.
2016 Rainwater Art
#1
“Some people feel the rain. Others just get wet.”
- Bob Marley
#2
#3
Life isn’t about waiting for a storm to pass.
It’s about learning how to dance in the rain.
Public Art Commission
2016 Rainwater Art
#4
#5
“Let the rain kiss you.”
- Langston Hughes
#6
Public Art Commission
2016 Rainwater Art
#7
Without the rain, there would be no rainbow.
#8
#9 “The world is mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful.”
- e.e. cummings
#10
Find freedom standing still in the storm.
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF ITHACA
108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690
MAYOR’S OFFICE
NICK GOLDSMITH, SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR
Telephone: 607-274-6562
Email: ngoldsmith@cityofithaca.org
Fax: 607-274-6558
To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator
Date: July 7, 2016
RE: Residential Energy Score Project
The purpose of this memo is to provide background information for the upcoming Residential
Energy Score Program discussion at PEDC.
The main deliverable of this project is the attached report, Tompkins Residential Energy Score
Program and Implementation Plan, which describes the voluntary program. The grant contract
with NYSERDA requires our project team to present this report to the governing boards of each of
the five partner municipalities for “consideration of adoption, including a formal vote.” Adoption
is no longer appropriate, since the program is entirely voluntary, but with PEDC approval, we are
hoping to have a resolution of endorsement considered at the August 3, 2016 Common Council
meeting. This endorsement will help in the upcoming search for outside funding for this project.
Extensive outreach to the public and to municipal boards guided the creation of the first draft
report of the program. The second draft was informed by more than 250 comments collected from
additional public outreach. The second draft was presented to the governing boards of the five
partner municipalities between May 23 and June 15 for feedback.
To address this feedback, several changes and clarifications were incorporated into the Tompkins
Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan. A summary of the changes made is
attached, along with a version of the report with changes tracked. Additionally, there is one new
attachment (#11) to the main report that was created in response to concerns about helping low-
income homeowners improve energy efficiency. At the last PEDC presentation, a committee
member requested the list of comments received on previous drafts; these internal documents are
attached here as well. The documents mentioned above (except for the comment lists) and other
RESP documents can be downloaded at the project website: www.town.ithaca.ny.us/resp.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions at ngoldsmith@cityofithaca.org or on my cell at
917-270-1683.
Attached:
1. Draft resolution of endorsement of Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and
Implementation Plan
2. Summary of changes made to RESP document since draft two
3. Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan – Final version with
changes tracked
4. Attachment 11. Related Programs and Financing Mechanisms in New York and Tompkins
County
5. Summary of public comments on first draft of RESP Program
6. Summary of municipal board comments of second draft of RESP Program
Page 1 of 2
DRAFT Resolution to Endorse Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program - July 13, 2016
WHEREAS the City of Ithaca has goals of reducing energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and
according to the March 2016 Tompkins County Energy Roadmap, in order to meet the goal of reducing
GHG emissions 80% by the year 2050, the community will need to achieve at least a 35% reduction in
energy use in existing buildings through retrofits and upgrades; and
WHEREAS the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City “collaborate with Tompkins County
and/or local municipalities to explore required disclosures of energy use for all properties” and the
adopted Energy Action Plan recommends to “investigate point of sale energy audits” and to “explore
voluntary certification programs and incentives such as Energy Star or HERS Index;” and
WHEREAS the NYS Reforming the Energy Vision initiative has a goal of helping consumers make better
and more informed energy choices; and
WHEREAS a residential energy score program would benefit residents of all income levels by providing
the ability to better understand and reduce energy-related living costs; and
WHEREAS a project team, composed of representatives of the Towns of Caroline, Danby, Ithaca, Ulysses
and the City of Ithaca, with consultation from Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County and
the Tompkins County Planning Department, was formed in 2013 to work on a residential energy score
project; and
WHEREAS the Town of Ithaca, working on behalf of the project team, submitted and was awarded grant
funding from NYSERDA’s Cleaner, Greener Communities program, and contracted with subject matter
experts Performance Systems Development to develop deliverables for the project; and
WHEREAS the original project proposal was to develop and adopt a local law or ordinance to require a
home energy rating to be disclosed at the time of listing for sale, however due to pubic feedback and
the lack of incontestable legal authority to enact such a law, the project team opted to develop a
voluntary program and phased implementation plan; and
WHEREAS extensive public outreach guided the creation of the first draft report of the program and
implementation plan, completed on February 24, 2016. The second draft was informed by more than
250 comments collected from additional public outreach, and was presented to the governing boards of
the five partner municipalities between May 23 and June 15, 2016, with a comment period ending on
June 17, 2016, and comments on the second draft were incorporated into the final report, titled
“Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan;” and
WHEREAS the grant contract with NYSERDA requires the project team to present the final report to the
governing boards of each of the five partner municipalities for consideration of adoption, including a
formal vote; and
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS funding for implementation of the RESP program will be primarily sought from outside
sources, and the City’s endorsement of the program will strengthen funding requests; now therefore be
it
RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Ithaca endorses the Tompkins Residential Energy Score
Program and Implementation Plan, dated July 6, 2016.
July 6,2016
Residential Energy Score Program
Summary of changes to the Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and
Implementation Plan (since draft two)
1. Updated information on home assessment in the Home Value section of Consideration of Concerns.
Based on discussions with the Tompkins County Department of Assessment,energy efficiency
features historically have not affected market value.There are a number of barriers that would have
to be overcome before a home energy score could be factored into an assessment or show an effect
on assessed value (4.7).*
2. Added language relating to local and state wide programs that facilitate home energy
improvements for low income homeowners,as well as a new attachment:Attachment 11.Related
Programs and Financing Mechanisms in New York and Tompkins County.The document contains an
example of information that could be used on the Home Energy Label and in outreach efforts for the
RESP program (4.3.1,4.7,and Attachment 11).
3. Added language to the Program Overview section and to the Home Energy Label Recommendations
section to clarify that the Tompkins Residential Energy Score and associated information should only
be made available to the public at the homeowner’s discretion (3.0 and 4.3.1).
4. Added language to Privacy section in Consideration of Concerns,clarifying that rating information
would be disclosed only at the discretion of the homeowner,and included the following statement
from the RESNET Code of Ethics:
o “Raters,Home Energy Survey Professionals or a rating organization shall not disclose
information concerning the rating or home energy survey for a specific home to parties
other than the client or the client's agent without the written permission of the client or the
client's agent except to report to the Rating or Home Energy Survey Provider for the
purposes of registration,certification or quality assurance”(4.7).
5. Added language stating that an average home score in Tompkins County could be calculated and
displayed without having to disclose each individual’s home score to the public (4.7).
6. Added additional language to the Evaluation and Adjustments section to recommend that program
evaluation look for skewed data based on types of homes or types of individuals that participate
(5.5.3).
7. Added language to the Home Energy Label Recommendation section,to consider including basic
assumptions used in calculating the Tompkins Residential Energy Score (4.3.1).
8. Added clarifying language in the Executive Summary stating that although “Tompkins”is included in
the name,the score and units are applicable anywhere.The usefulness of the score is not limited to
Tompkins County (1).
9. Added an Acknowledgements Page.
10. Changed the formatting of glossary words throughout the document from italics to small caps (all
sections).
11. Edited glossary terms (7).
*Numbers in parentheses following change descriptions denote section numbers.
All program documents are available for download at www.town.ithaca.ny.us/resp.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score
Program and Implementation Plan
Second Draft
Prepared for:
New York State Research and Development Authority
Sam Kraemer, Project Manager
Prepared by:
Emelie Cuppernell, Performance Systems Development,
for The Residential Energy Score Project Team
CFA #CGC30040/Contract #39504
Deliverables 8.2 and 8.3
Submitted: July 6, 2016
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
1
NOTICE
This report was prepared by Emelie Cuppernell in the course of performing work on the Residential
Energy Score Project for the Town of Ithaca,contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (hereafter “NYSERDA”).The opinions expressed in this report do
not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York,and reference to any specific
product,service,process,or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or
endorsement of it.Further,NYSERDA,the State of New York,and the contractor make no warranties or
representations,expressed or implied,as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any
product,apparatus,or service,or the usefulness,completeness,or accuracy of any processes,methods,
or other information contained,described,disclosed,or referred to in this report.NYSERDA,the State of
New York,and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product,apparatus,process,
method,or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any
loss,injury,or damage resulting from,or occurring in connection with,the use of information contained,
described,disclosed,or referred to in this report.
NYSERDA makes every effort to provide accurate information about copyright owners and related
matters in the reports we publish.Contractors are responsible for determining and satisfying copyright
or other use restrictions regarding the content of reports that they write,in compliance with NYSERDA’s
policies and federal law.If you are the copyright owner and believe a NYSERDA report has not properly
attributed your work to you or has used it without permission,please email print@nyserda.ny.gov.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
2
Acknowledgements
The Residential Energy Score Project Team consisted of the following individuals:
Katie Borgella Deputy Commissioner of Planning,Tompkins County
Matt Cooper –former Code Enforcement Officer,Town of Danby
Emelie Cuppernell –Project Manager,Performance Systems Development
Nick Goldsmith Sustainability Coordinator,Town and City of Ithaca
Paul Hansen –Code Enforcement Officer,Town of Danby
Darby Kiley Planner,Town of Ulysses
Mike Niechwiadowicz Director of Code Enforcement,City of Ithaca
Anne Rhodes Community Organizer,Cornell Cooperative Extension TC
Greg Thomas –CEO,Performance Systems Development
Irene Weiser Town Board Member,Town of Caroline
Prior to completing this report,the Residential Energy Score Project Team completed three (3)formal
meetings with the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and received valuable feedback and support.
The committee included industry experts and professionals from a diverse background to help shape
and evaluate program options.These members included:
Kristin Ahlness –Realtor,Audrey Edelman RealtyUSA
Cliff Babson –Facilities Manager,Ciminelli Real Estate Corporation
Carol Chernikoff Chief Lending Officer,Alternatives Federal Credit Union
Diana Drucker –Realtor,Greenstreet Real Estate
Will Graeper Home Energy Advisor,Halco
Jon Harrod –President,Snug Planet
Frank Howe –Director of Energy Services Department,Tompkins Community Action
Norma Jayne Executive Officer,Ithaca Board of Realtors
Brent Katzmann Real Estate Broker,Warren Real Estate
Joseph Laquatra Professor,Department of Design and Environmental Analysis,Cornell
University
Roxanna Marino Senior Research Associate,Cornell University
Greg May Residential Mortgage Lending and Operations Manager,Tompkins Trust Company
Craig Modisher Owner,Ironwood Builders
Sherry Nedrow Customer Advocate,NYSEG
Art Pearce –Consultant
Scott Reynolds Director for Real Estate Development,Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services
Lou Vogel –President,Taitem Engineering
The Residential Energy Score Project Team would also like to acknowledge the support from NYSERDA,
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,The Tompkins County Department of Assessment,The U.S.
Department of Energy,and The Residential Energy Services Network.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
3
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................5
1.Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................6
2.Background ...........................................................................................................................................7
3.Program Overview ................................................................................................................................9
4.Program Elements ...............................................................................................................................11
4.1.Home Rating................................................................................................................................11
4.1.1 Rating System.............................................................................................................................11
4.1.2 Recommendations .....................................................................................................................13
4.1.3 Timing.........................................................................................................................................13
4.1.4 Recommendations .....................................................................................................................13
4.2.Tompkins Residential Energy Score ............................................................................................13
4.2.1 Recommendations:....................................................................................................................15
4.3.Home Energy Label .....................................................................................................................15
4.3.1 Recommendations:....................................................................................................................19
4.4.Cost .............................................................................................................................................19
4.5.Value ...........................................................................................................................................20
4.6.Program Administration and Design ...........................................................................................21
4.7 Consideration of Concerns ..........................................................................................................22
5.Implementation ..................................................................................................................................26
5.1.Phase One:Secure Funding ........................................................................................................27
5.2.Phase Two:Hire Program Implementer .....................................................................................27
5.3.Phase Three:Complete Program Design ....................................................................................27
5.3.1 Design the Label .........................................................................................................................27
5.3.2 Design Education and Outreach Plan.........................................................................................28
5.3.3 Determine Alignment of HES to HERS Energy Predictions ........................................................28
5.3.4 Set up Database System for recording and tracking data .........................................................28
5.3.5 Data Infrastructure Requirements .............................................................................................29
5.3.6 Creating MLS Data Connection ..................................................................................................31
5.3.7 Infrastructure Deployment ........................................................................................................33
5.3.8 Staffing .......................................................................................................................................33
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
4
5.4.Phase Four:Pilot .........................................................................................................................34
5.5.Phase Five:Voluntary Launch .....................................................................................................35
5.5.1 Start Accepting Ratings ..............................................................................................................35
5.5.2 Begin Marketing and Education Plan Including Label ................................................................36
5.5.3 Evaluation and Adjustments –Policy Optimization ...................................................................36
5.6.Phase Six:Revise Program based on Evaluation .........................................................................36
6.Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................37
7.Glossary ...............................................................................................................................................38
8.Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................40
9.List of Attachments .............................................................................................................................41
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
5
List of Figures
Figure 1:Residential Energy Score Program as a cyclical process ................................................................6
Figure 2:An energy score provides a simple metric to help understand the energy use and efficiency of a
home.............................................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3:A step by step look at the Home Energy Score Process...............................................................10
Figure 4:The RESNET Home Energy Rating Systems Index vs.the DOE Home Energy Score ....................14
Figure 5:Image of One Label Design Considered in Vermont ....................................................................18
Figure 6:The Home Energy Labeling Information Exchange (HELIX)can facilitate the delivery of the score
from the program database to the multiple listing service ........................................................................31
Figure 7:SEED Platform Concept of Operations .........................................................................................32
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
6
1.Rating
Performed
on Home
2.Label
Generated
3.
Consumers
Fully
Informed
4.Market
Values
Energy
Efficiency
5.Owners
Invest in
Energy
Efficiency
Upgrades
1. Executive Summary
The Residential Energy Score Project (RESP)team1,a consortium of five (5)municipalities in Tompkins
County,received a grant from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
to develop a Home Energy Rating and Disclosure Program.The team is proposing a voluntary,residential
energy score program for homes within Tompkins County.This project is aimed at increasing consumer
and homeowner awareness and understanding of energy use and energy efficiency in homes.The
program is designed to support the region’s energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals by
increasing energy efficiency in the housing sector of Tompkins County.
As described in this document,homes in
Tompkins County will have the option to receive
an energy rating that generates a numerical
score.The score,and accompanying information,
will allow homeowners,homebuyers,realtors,
and others to understand the energy use of the
structure,and to compare the energy use of
homes across the county.While there are many
ways to describe the energy efficiency of a house,
some descriptions prove more useful than others.
An asset rating,a key part of the proposed
program,provides one clear metric that removes
the influence of occupant behavior,fuel price and
weather fluctuations.It’s helpful to think of this
as an EnergyGuide Label for a home,similar to
those provided for major appliances.The asset
rating provides homebuyers a way to compare
the estimated energy use of homes they are considering and the estimated annual cost to run them.
This transparency provides homeowners and buyers an opportunity to value energy efficiency in the real
estate transaction,motivates homeowners or sellers to improve their score,and allows greater
opportunities to highlight investments in energy efficiency at time of sale (Figure 1).Policymakers gain
reliable data about status,progress,and target areas for needed assistance and opportunities for
reducing emissions in the community.
This document describes a proposed home energy score program for Tompkins County,including
recommendations for designing a home energy label,phases for implementation of the program and an
evaluation plan for policy optimization going forward.
1 The RESP team consists of representatives from the Towns of Danby, Caroline, Ithaca and Ulysses, and the City of
Ithaca, as well as support from the Tompkins County Planning Department and Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Figure 1:Residential Energy Score Program as a cyclical process
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
7
The recommendations include:
1. Two nationally recognized,industry backed rating systems should be incorporated to allow for
including new and existing homes and multifamily units while still providing the value of one
consistent number for comparison across homes.The team has named this one number the
TOMPKINS RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SCORE.Although “Tompkins”is included in the name,the score and
units are applicable anywhere,not limited to Tompkins County.
2. The Score should range from roughly 0 200+in units of energy use per year in MMBtu’s of site
energy.
3. The program should incorporate ratings at any time,but encourage ratings at significant points
in the homeownership life cycle.These points include:time of home energy audit,retrofit,or
renovation;time of home inspection;time of code inspection;and time of real estate
transaction.
Phase 1 involves securing funding for development and implementation to move the program forward.
Funding allows Phase 2,securing an implementer to drive the program forward,to take place.The
Program Implementer will work with the Project team to complete Phase 3,including program design,
marketing,education,and program infrastructure.Rolling out the actual program and allowing
participation starts with a pilot (Phase 4)and then moves to a voluntary program accompanied by heavy
marketing and education (Phase 5).During the transitions from phase 4 to 5,the Implementer should
evaluate progress,data,and public feedback to make appropriate adjustments to the program going
forward.Finally,in Phase 6,we suggest evaluating the program and local readiness or need for a home
energy scoring mandate or law.Here we present these stages in detail for a comprehensive
understanding of the proposed program,implementation,and the ability to manage data and evaluate
effectiveness.
A recent white paper by Better Buildings®identified the invisibility of energy efficiency and the lack of a
standardized data field to incorporate into the Multiple Listing Service (MLS)as the two top barriers to
valuing energy efficiency in residential real estate transactions.(Elizabeth Stuart,November,2015)The
proposed program in this document,with wide spread adoption,would remove these barriers in
Tompkins County.
Other expected outcomes of this project include the following:local job development;reduced
greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions;increased comfort and safety for homeowners;durability of the
housing stock;partnerships with Realtors and other key industry professionals;and increased energy
and economic security.
2. Background
Tompkins County has a goal of an 80%reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 levels by 2050.
Where will these reductions come from?The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)estimates that
roughly 20%of the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from our
homes.According to the March 2016 Tompkins County Energy Roadmap:Evaluating Our Energy
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
8
Resources,it will be critical to reduce energy demand in order to meet emissions goals.The Roadmap
determined that to meet emissions goals by 2050,the community will need to achieve at least a 35%
reduction in energy use in existing buildings through retrofits and upgrades.This project is aimed at
helping meet the region’s energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals by increasing energy
efficiency in the housing sector of Tompkins County with a residential energy score PROGRAM.2 The
practice of providing a metric to represent the relative energy efficiency or energy use of a home is
often referred to as home energy scoring,or labeling.
This project is in line with other efforts across New York State,the Nation,and the Globe.New York
State is currently undergoing huge changes with Governor Cuomo’s comprehensive energy strategy,
Reforming the Energy Vision (REV),which is a major overhaul of the state’s current approach to energy
efficiency and programs.REV is designed to help consumers make better and more informed energy
choices,enable the development of new energy products and services,protect the environment,and
create new jobs and economic opportunity throughout New York State.Very recently on the national
level,the Senate on April 20th 2016 overwhelmingly passed the Energy Policy Modernization Act,which
included language from the SAVE Act and includes many substantial energy efficiency provisions.And
beyond the United States,a Global “Universal Climate Agreement”was reached on December 12,2015
in Paris to support the creation of growth,innovation and solutions for a low carbon world.
A home energy score brings these efforts to homes and the homeowner,buyer,and renter level in a
real,tangible way.The score or rating allows the market to view the estimated annual energy use of a
home in one comparable metric.Scores,or ratings,have become standard practice for many items in
our lives:we have miles per gallon ratings for cars,energy guide information for major appliances,
credit scores for our finances,and cholesterol levels for our bodies.(Figure 2).The value of a score is
that it provides a quick,consistent,and clear way to see where something falls in comparison with
others or with a certain standard or goal.Awareness of a metric often inspires and allows for changing
that metric.Without a home energy score,homes and real estate transactions lack a way to value or
compare the energy efficiency of homes.Energy efficiency often becomes invisible.Home energy
labeling and disclosure programs aim at making this information visible,giving homeowners more
incentive to invest in energy efficiency.
The Residential Energy Score Project (RESP)team,a
consortium of five (5)municipalities in Tompkins County,
received a grant from New York State Energy Research
and Development Authority (NYSERDA)to develop a
Residential Energy Score and Disclosure Program.Current
residential energy disclosure programs around the world
use a range of approaches to evaluate the relative energy
efficiency of a home and make this information available
to relevant parties.A detailed review of these programs
2 Italicized wordsWords in SMALL CAPS are defined in the Glossary.
Figure 2:An energy score provides a simple metric to
help understand the energy use and efficiency of a
home.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
9
was performed as part of this project,and can be found in Attachment 2.
The momentum of labeling initiatives around the country is growing rapidly.Ratings are currently being
adopted by a dozen or so states either as a regional pilot initiative or in some cases,like Vermont,
Connecticut,and Massachusetts,as part of a state wide home labeling program.While this concept is
relatively new to policies in the United States,in some places like Denmark and the Australia Capital
Territory,residential energy rating disclosure programs have been around for over 15 years.
Prior to completing this report,the Residential Energy Score Project Team completed over a dozen
outreach events including:three (3)formal meetings with the project’s Technical Advisory Committee,
four (4)targeted meetings with representative realtors,two (2)meetings with the Tompkins County
Climate Protection Initiative,one (1)public presentation,one (1)meeting with the County Assessment
Department,and one (1)meeting each with the Ulysses Town Board,the Danby Town Board,the Ithaca
Town Board,and the City of Ithaca Planning Committee.The team had two (2)meetings with the
Tompkins County Council of Governments,one (1)meeting with Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships (NEEP),a presentation to the Northeast Home Energy Rating Systems (NEHERS)Alliance,
and a meeting with Attorney Susan Brock to discuss legal issues surrounding a law or ordinance.Surveys
were sent out following most of these events to solicit additional ideas and feedback.
The Technical Advisory Committee for the RESP is made up of experts from targeted industries of
relevance to this project including realtors,lending officers,builders,raters,home performance
professionals,engineers,brokers,utility representatives,and low income advocates.
After looking at numerous evaluations of existing energy disclosure programs,the following are the key
recommendations for programs to be most effective:
1. Engage with local real estate agents and other stakeholders;
2. Create consistent targeted outreach via public communication,education,and marketing;
3. Rely on existing,nationally recognized rating systems,which ensures quality assurance;
4. Allow disclosure before or at time of listing to allow homeowners and buyers to use the
information more effectively;
5. Link participants to appropriate resources to drive home efficiency improvements
(contractors,incentive programs,do it yourselfers);
6. Create a strong implementation plan for confirming participation;
7. Have a quality assurance process in place;
8. Create a written plan for evaluating and updating the PROGRAM;and
9. Work toward wide spread adoption by the majority of homes.
3. Program Overview
In this PROGRAM,a certified energy rater would visit a home to perform a rating,or a comprehensive
home energy assessment,which often includes diagnostic testing using specialized equipment,such as
a blower door,duct leakage tester,combustion analyzer and an infrared camera,to evaluate the home’s
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
10
energy related assets.A complete list of the data collected during these inspections can be found in
Attachments 4 and 5.The information collected during the rating can be used to not only generate a
score,but also to calculate estimated annual energy costs for the home and provide recommended
energy improvements.This information is delivered to the homeowner,builder,Realtor,or other
interested party,on a report or LABEL.The LABEL provides valuable information on how the home is
operating from an energy use standpoint and where improvements can be made to increase the homes
energy efficiency.The label and score can be made available to the public at the homeowner’s
discretion,at time of sale or rental.When a house is for sale,a LABEL communicates investments made
that may not be visible,such as added insulation,and potential home buyers can anticipate the costs of
energy bills and future efficiency upgrade needs.The label gives Realtors a standard way to discuss the
energy features of a home. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)explains how these policies
provide needed information to consumers,“like miles per gallon ratings on automobiles,or nutritional
labels on food,energy performance disclosure gives consumers the tools to make informed choices and
inform themselves upfront about poor buildings and building components,higher than anticipated
energy bills,discomfort,or unplanned renovation needs.”(Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,
2013)
Figure 3:A step by step look at the Home Energy Score Process
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
11
4. Program Elements
At the heart of this program is the use of a home energy rating,specifically an asset rating,which
evaluates the energy efficiency of a home.The rating is intended to provide a simple way for
homeowners and buyers to distinguish between high efficiency homes and lower efficiency homes and
to provide guidance on the savings potential of various improvements.A rating is done by a trained and
certified rater,who will spend roughly two (2)hours in an existing home taking measurements and
performing diagnostic tests,such as the blower door test,to determine the leakiness of the structure.
This information is then entered into computer simulation software to create an energy model of the
home and determine,among many other things,the rating.In addition to the rating,the rating software
may be used for code compliance,estimated annual energy use,and potential savings as a result of
home performance improvements.Energy efficiency and use in homes is complicated,and there are
many ways to think about and capture energy savings and efficiency of a home,such as behavior change
(turning down the thermostat),embodied energy (looking at the sum total of the energy necessary for
an entire home life cycle),and energy source (coal vs.wind).In this project we focus on the efficiency of
the assets that make up the structure itself,such as insulation,infiltration levels,and heating
equipment,and use this to estimate the average energy use per year,assuming typical fuel prices,
typical occupants,and typical weather3.
Asset ratings create a score by evaluating a home’s actual physical structure and mechanical systems,
and major lights and appliances.The physical structure includes size,window properties,insulation
levels,shading,infiltration,and home location,to name a few.Mechanical systems include the home’s
heating,cooling,and hot water heater,as well as some large appliances.A rating is a similar process to
what most people know of as an energy audit,however,unlike an audit,a rating provides a clear metric
to compare homes to each other and generally involves stringent third party quality assurance and
oversight of the rating data and the individual inspector’s certification.An audit often focuses on a
specific occupant and opportunities for that occupant,whereas a rating focuses more on the structure
itself,independent of the current occupant.A rating requires additional data collection beyond what is
needed for a typical NYSERDA home performance or weatherization program.Homes participating in
NYSERDA’s low rise new construction program already receive a rating,as described below.
An ASSET RATING removes occupant behavior and use patterns from the assessment,allowing the energy
performance of buildings to be easily compared to each other for a prospective buyer.Currently in New
York,the “New York State Truth in Heating Law,”which has been in effect since 1981,requires sellers
3 Both rating systems use national standard assumptions about the standard or average occupant, weather averages for a
specific area, and usage assumptions. The actual assumptions used can be found in the Mortgage Industry National Home
Energy Rating Systems Standards for HERS: http://www.resnet.us/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/RESNET_Mortgage_Industry_National_HERS_Standards.pdf or the DOE Home Energy Score
http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/home-energy-score-calculation-methodology
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
12
and landlords to provide prospective buyers and tenants with the past two years of utility bill
information upon request.This can be informative,but energy use in a particular home can vary
significantly depending on who lives there and how they operate the home.The ASSET RATING removes
this wild card.ASSET RATINGS are used in other national labeling and compliance programs across the
nation,such as ENERGY STAR homes,and come with third party certification and quality assurance (QA).
The nationally accepted rating system used for residential new construction is the RESIDENTIAL ENERGY
SYSTEMS NETWORK (RESNET)HOME ENERGY RATING SYSTEM INDEX (HERS INDEX).More than one million new
homes have been rated using HERS since 1995.The HERS Index is the nationally recognized system for
inspecting and calculating a home’s energy performance.It is the standard used to qualify homes for the
ENERGY STAR,Passive House,LEED,and the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home.A HERS rating is required for
homes participating in NYSERDA’s low rise new construction program.In April of 2016,New York joined
nine other states and adopted the voluntary performance compliance path for the 2015 International
Energy Conservation Code (IECC)State Energy Code,which will go into effect in October of 2016.
Currently New York is on the 2009 IECC.This Energy Rating Index Compliance Option establishes a new
voluntary performance compliance path for the 2015 version of the IECC.This means that a home can
meet the state’s energy code by obtaining the required HERS Index.The HERS Index can be used on
single family buildings,duplexes,townhomes,and units within multifamily buildings.
While the HERS Index is well suited for very high efficiency homes and new construction,the rating
system used for most existing homes of average to low energy efficiency is the U.S.DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY’S (DOE)HOME ENERGY SCORE (HES).HES,launched in 2012,is an asset rating developed to show
energy efficiency and opportunities for improvement in existing homes.As of January 2016,more than
32,000 homes have received the Home Energy Score.HES is currently being adopted by a dozen or so
states either as a regional pilot initiative or,in some cases,as part of a state wide home labeling system.
Connecticut launched the nation’s first statewide Home Energy Score Program in April of 2015.
The team performed considerable research to determine the appropriate rating system(s)to use for the
program.More detailed information on programs across the country that are considering,or have
already implemented,residential energy rating and disclosure programs can be found in the Residential
Energy Score Project’s “Report on Existing Home Energy and Disclosure,”included here as Attachment 2.
The report looks at these programs to see the various ways energy efficiency has been evaluated and
how and when this information has been made available to influence consumers.Based on this
research,the project team recommends generating a “Tompkins Residential Energy Score”from either
of the two national rating systems the Residential Energy Services Network’s Home Energy Rating
Systems Index (HERS Index)and the Department of Energy’s Home Energy Score (HES Score)for this
project.
Both the HERS Index and the HES Score provide a standardized,nationally recognized method for
conveying the energy performance of a home.Using both systems will allow the program to capture
both new and existing homes,single family detached homes,as well as units in multifamily buildings.
These systems come backed with quality assurance oversight,training options for certifying Raters,and
connections to national programs,such as ENERGY STAR and LEED.For detailed information on the data
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
13
collected during a Home Energy Score rating see Attachment 4,“Home Energy Scoring Tool Data
Collection Sheet”and for a HERS Index Rating Attachment 5,“RESNET HERS Index Rated Features.”
The program should use both the HERS and the HES rating systems to generate a projected Millions of
British Thermal Units per year (MMBTU/year)value.Using two rating systems is optimal for greatest
participation in the program,while still providing the value of one consistent number for comparison
across homes.
A home rating can take place at any point in time,but to maximize the benefit and limit the interruption
to occupants,the program would encourage ratings at significant points in the homeownership life
cycle.For an existing home,these points include:time of home energy audit;HVAC tune up;retrofit or
renovation;time of home inspection prior to home sale;time of code inspection for renovations or
additions involving a building permit;and the time of real estate transaction such as listing or sale.For
new construction,the rating often involves at least one inspection during construction and a final
inspection once built.
These all represent times when an outside agent is in the home performing evaluations or work and a
rating could be an added service without a lot of added time or resources.The professionals performing
these other services are also great candidates to become certified raters and expand their business
offerings.These are also times when homeowners are considering home improvement options and
could benefit from information that would help them understand the opportunities for energy related
improvements and influence the rating.Feedback from the project’s Technical Advisory Committee
suggested that soon after a home purchase is the perfect time to offer homeowners a rating because
that is when people are thinking about making home improvements.Many programs across the nation
that are adopting home energy rating and disclosure programs are bundling them with either the real
estate transaction or home performance programs.
The program should incorporate ratings at any time,but encourage ratings at significant points in the
homeownership life cycle.These points include:time of home energy audit;HVAC tune up;retrofit or
renovation;home inspection;code inspection;time of real estate transaction such as listing or sale;and
new construction.
The purpose of the TOMPKINS RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SCORE,or “THE SCORE,”is to provide one metric for
understanding and comparing the energy use of homes and provide some context for where a home lies
in a range of homes.After considering public feedback and research done on this topic,a score based on
millions of British Thermal Units per year,or MMBTU/year,is recommended for this project.MMBTU is
the industry standard for discussing units of residential home energy use,and is in line with other
scoring/labeling efforts,such as the Vermont example (Figure 5).A lower score is associated with lower
MMBTUs,indicating lower energy use and anticipated utility costs.Using a score based on an energy
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
14
unit is beneficial because it does not change with the changing cost of fuels.Estimated energy costs can
be generated from the rating based on the current or area average fuel rates at the time of the rating
and can be revised later if rates change.While annual energy cost is one of the primary interests of
prospective buyers or renters,the Score based on energy,rather than dollars,is more meaningful for
comparing the energy use of one home to another.If a homeowner generates 100%of the energy used
on site,looking at costs could be very misleading when trying to understand the expected energy use of
the home.
Using MMBTU/year also allows translating different rating systems into a single score.When looking at
the HERS Index (Figure 4,left),a lower number is associated with higher energy efficiency.In contrast,
the DOE HOME ENERGY SCORE (Figure 4,right)uses a higher number to indicate lower energy use.In
addition,both scores are based on different assumptions and used for different purposes,which makes
comparing one to the other impossible.For example,one cannot say that a HERS Index of X is equal to a
HES Score of Y.Both rating systems,however,use software that generates estimated MMBTU/year for
the home based on the assets of the home evaluated in the rating.Using an MMBTU/year score allows
the incorporation of either system,and includes all residential housing stock in the program with the
same scoring system.
Energy use in MMBTUs can be expressed in two distinct ways:“SITE ENERGY,”which is the energy used at
the home and measurable by the utility meter or fuel tank,and “SOURCE ENERGY,”which includes all
energy used in generating and delivering the energy to the home.Another way to think of SOURCE ENERGY
is that it includes where the energy came from (e.g.New York,Canada)as well as what form it was in
(e.g.wind,coal,oil)before it arrived on site.SOURCE ENERGY takes into account transmission losses and
the efficiency of creating that form of energy.For example,electricity use measured at the home (SITE
ENERGY)does not include the raw energy used to create the electricity in the first place.When we create
Figure 4:The RESNET Home Energy Rating Systems Index vs.the DOE Home Energy Score
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
15
electrical power,approximately two thirds of the power is lost.The inefficiencies involved in producing
and distributing electricity are significant,but electric heat and appliances are nearly 100%efficient at
transferring heat within the home.Source based energy use factors are applied to the SITE ENERGY,
dependent on fuel type,to account for generation and transmission losses or the energy used to extract
and deliver the fuel.While there are benefits to using each method,the lessons learned by the Vermont
Working Group with their statewide labeling initiative should be considered.They eventually went with
SITE ENERGY “to keep the explanation of the energy score relatively simple,avoid controversies regarding
which source based factors to use,and in order to give full credit to on site renewables.”(Energy
Futures Group,2013)
Credit for renewables and on site energy generation was identified as an important element during
outreach for this project.The current recommendation for this project is to use estimated MMBTU/year
to include both new and existing home rating systems,and display these in SITE ENERGY units,unless an
appropriate alternative way to credit or highlight renewables in the program is identified.The presence
of renewables and onsite power generation can be included on the label,as described later in this
document.
The program should use the MMBTUs derived from either the HERS Index or the HES Score to convert
the rating data into one comparable number,creating the home’s TOMPKINS RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SCORE.
The Score would range from roughly 0 200+,and would reflect the projected annual site energy use of
both new and existing homes.
Once a rating is completed on a home,the calculated Score and other relevant information should be
presented on a LABEL or report.While the rating itself,in the absence of a PROGRAM,can produce a score,
the PROJECT TEAM is suggesting a LABEL that would be more relevant and informative than just a number.A
label provides a visual and a descriptive explanation of what the score means in terms of energy use,
estimated energy costs,and where the score falls in relation to other scores in the area.It can also guide
the owner by suggesting cost effective improvements or list the biggest energy uses in the home.A label
would allow for including ratings on the entire range of housing stock in Tompkins County (new and
existing,high and low efficiency),and serve to facilitate home energy improvements.To view more
detailed information on the local housing stock,see Attachment 3,“Review and Analysis of Preliminary
Data in Tompkins County.”A LABEL provides information to help understand the home’s score,and
provides additional relevant information and resources,such as access to local weatherization and
assistance programs,resources for homes in the historic district,or home performance contractors.
While the Score of MMbtu/year is a projected annual energy use,other information such as the
presence of renewables,an efficiency metric such as MMbtu/year per square foot,and size of the house
can be added to the label.
It is envisioned that this LABEL could be used in various ways for instance as a helpful resource for
homeowners considering making investments,or as a document to display on a sign or electrical panel
but that it would be used primarily in the real estate market to share energy information about homes
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
16
that are for sale or rent.On the following two pages,Figure 5 shows an example of a LABEL used in
designing the Vermont Home Energy Profile as part of their statewide labeling initiative.Vermont,
Massachusetts,and Connecticut are all creating or already have in place statewide voluntary energy
scoring and labeling programs of existing homes.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
17
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
18
Figure 5:Image of One Label Design Considered in Vermont
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
19
The program should encourage,and allow an easy option for,homeowners to disclose the Score and
Label generated from the rating at time of sale or rental.However,no information collected during a
rating can be made available to the public without the written permission of the participating
homeowners.The program should make the Score associated with each address publicly available.All
other information collected could be made available to the public with the written permission of the
participating homeowners.Based on the Residential Energy Score Project’s community outreach and
feedback throughout the project,the label for this project should,at minimum,include the following in
order to be most effective:
1. The home’s TOMPKINS RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SCORE;
2. Where the home falls on a continuum of Scores;
3. Estimated annual home energy costs;
4. The homes efficiency in units of MMBtu/square foot;
5. The presence and source of onsite power generation,such as solar and wind;
6. If the home is located in a historic district;
7. Basic home information collected by the rater (address,square footage,year built);
8. Information on where to access local support such as financial incentives and subsidies to
support low income population and to improve a home’s score;and
9. Date when energy score rating was performed.
Numerous state and local programs exist to support low income and low to moderate income
homeowners access resources and financial support for home energy improvements,however many
homeowners are not aware of them or how to participate.The back of the label can provide basic
information on what these programs are and how to contact.For a list of programs and financial
support,see Attachment 11,“Related Programs and Financial Mechanisms in New York and Tompkins
County.”
Along with the date of rating,a disclaimer or language should be included that "this rating represents
the state of the house on Date and is subject to change with major home renovations,replacement of
major appliances,and any significant change to the home’s structure."
When generating the annual home energy costs,or costs by fuel type,the fuel price assumption should
be listed on the report.The team should also consider using the state level fuel and electricity rates
available from Energy Information Exchange (EIA)by eGRID subregion.Emissions &Generation
Resource Integrated Database (eGRID)has a more comprehensive look at the environmental attributes
of electric power systems in different regions.Also possible to include are occupant behavior
assumptions,a link to assumptions,and/or a statement that annual energy use is based on typical
occupants,occupant behavior,and meteorological year.
The cost of hiring a Rater to perform the Home Rating may vary from house to house,and from one
rating provider to another,but based on the team research,the expected range is $300 $500 per home
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
20
if performed independently (not as an add on to another service).The cost could be less if the rating is
performed at the time of another service,such as a home energy audit,or home inspection.The rating
process involves 2 4 hours within a typical home,followed by 1 4 hours of computer modeling and
reporting.The time involved depends on the size and complexity of the home and the rating system
used (HES or HERS).All certified raters must belong to a provider,and fees cover software licensing,
mandatory quality assurance inspections and registering the ratings with the national database.
To encourage voluntary participation,the cost of the ratings could be covered by outside funding or be
subsidized to reduce or eliminate the cost to homeowners.Outreach and education in the community
will help individuals,businesses,non profits,agencies,and municipalities understand the value of
having multiple homes scored.These entities may be willing to consider incentives to fund part of the
rating costs.There is value to multiple groups in having homes scored in a community.These benefits,
described below,would be communicated to these groups as part of the outreach around the program,
and they would be encouraged to consider incentives to fund a part of the rating costs.Pursuing funding
options and partnerships through local and statewide agencies should be part of the phased roll out of
the program.Some of these agencies include NYSEG,NYSERDA,municipalities,local corporations,and
local foundations.
The Residential Energy Score Project Team sees the project providing value to many groups.Some of
these benefits are described below.
1. Homeowners:This rating will identify energy and cost saving priorities for home energy
improvements.Homeowners will receive recognition and visibility of existing energy efficiency
features and improvements in the real estate market.
2. Homebuyers and Renters:The Score and Label will help consumers avoid the “surprise”of
higher than expected energy bills or unplanned renovation needs.The program will provide
consumers with more information about the projected operational costs of owning the houses
under their consideration as well as opportunities for improvement.Expected monthly energy
costs is a big piece of missing data for many new homeowners and renters in Tompkins County,
many of whom move from areas that are not climatically similar to the Northeastern United
States,or don’t have as old of a housing stock.On March 29th of 2016,Fannie Mae announced
their new “HomeStyle Energy Mortgage”loan designed to support borrowers in their efforts to
increase energy efficiency and reduce utility costs for their homes.In order to qualify for this
loan,a home must have either a HES or HERS Rating performed.An FAQ for the new HomeStyle
Mortgage in included with this document as Attachment 6 as well as the announcement as
Attachment 7.
3. Realtors:Realtors will benefit from more credible information for their clients.They will be
“better informed on documenting and quantifying how energy efficient a home is,allowing
them to more confidently market energy efficient features.”(American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy,2014)In Chicago,preliminary analysis of an energy disclosure policy found
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
21
that home listings that disclosed energy costs spent less time on the market and had a higher
closing rate,regardless of how much or how little energy they used.(Elevate Energy,2014)This
supports the idea that consumers value more information,even if that information is not
favorable.There is value in understanding the full picture of home ownership.During outreach
for this project,a Realtor reported that she often hears from newcomers to the area that they
are concerned about costs to operate inefficient old homes in Tompkins County.This program
would help explain and reassure people that some of these old houses have been retrofitted
and are indeed energy efficient.
4. Policymakers:Policymakers will get more access to data on the energy use of the existing
building stock,to both inform future policy development and track progress toward meeting
local climate and/or energy reductions goals for buildings.The program creates opportunities to
target homes in need and create more synergies between policies,programs,and the actual
housing stock.Over time,ratings also allow for tracking improvements and savings.
5. Home Performance Contractors and Auditors:These trades will benefit from a new business
opportunity.They have the option to become raters themselves and add this service to their
existing service as a value added offering.They may also benefit from the assumed increase in
demand for home improvements.A rating pre and post energy efficiency retrofit work is a great
way to validate the results beyond a simple payback.
6. Builders:Builders can benefit by being better prepared for code and future code requirements.
The rating compliance option is part of the 2015 energy code,which newly permitted homes
must comply with starting in October of 2016,and has already been written in to the 2018 IECC
language.Having a rating on a new home also gives energy efficient builders recognition for a
home performing above code requirements.
7. Related Agencies:Having the rating data stored and easily accessible supports other agencies
that can benefit from accessing rating information,outside of a proposed sale of a home.These
agencies include the Tompkins County Department of Assessment,municipal planning boards,
and home performance programs.Activities associated with this might include supporting
energy code compliance,or making better energy policy decisions about a given area.
8. Everyone:For the entire population,the Tompkins Residential Energy Score would give people a
common language to discuss energy efficiency and energy use in homes,and create a
population more aware of its energy consumption.This serves as a base for discussing and
encouraging efforts to increase energy independence and economic security as a community
and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Although ratings are already available and happening,there is value in having a local HOME ENERGY
RATING and Disclosure PROGRAM.Working with two existing national rating systems and developing our
own program gives us the most advantages.The proposed program,ideally implemented by one central,
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
22
local agency,would provide one consistent Score,the TOMPKINS RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SCORE,(derived out of
either the HES or HERS rating system)and a locally meaningful LABEL to provide context.The Program
would provide important infrastructure,including a centralized database to track all Scores and allow for
easy transfer to a Multiple Listing Service (MLS).The central database allows controlled access to data to
compare and verify Scores,the ability to analyze the set of Scores to educate policy decisions moving
forward,and the ability to evaluate and determine program effectiveness.
The central agency,or PROGRAM IMPLEMENTER,would complete the program design and drive the process
forward.An energy efficiency program implementer generally oversees and facilitates the local
education and marketing efforts on the value of participation,facilitates training of local certified raters,
generates the Score and LABEL,provides quality assurance,engages with local contractors and real estate
professionals,and provides periodic evaluations of the program.This role of program implementer and
the details of the program design are described in more detail in this report in Phase 3.
Goals for Effective Program Administration
The infrastructure used to oversee,process,and support the PROGRAM should address four keys goals:
1. Cost Effectiveness The overall administrative process of performing the rating,generating the
LABEL,and getting it into the MLS must be cost effective.If the cost is too high,then there will be
pushback from homeowners and Realtors.A high cost for a voluntary rating will result in little
participation.
2. Quality Assurance The system needs to establish confidence in the rating numbers.A system
with little or no quality assurance will eventually reduce consumer confidence in the usefulness of
the Score.
3. Time Efficiency The administrative process needs to be timely.A synchronous process where
ratings can be done along with other events,such as energy retrofit or solar installation,and data
stored for retrieval when the house is to be sold,will also help reduce time pressure to deliver a
rating when a house is going on the market.If the rating takes place at some point during the
home sale process,a fast process will reduce the chance that the rating is responsible for delays
in sales.Selling a house has many steps and there is reluctance to add to this burden.
4. Sustainability The administrative process needs to be sustainable.Startup costs may be more
significant than can be funded by transaction fees,and external funding may be needed.Ongoing
administrative costs will need a source of continued revenue,most likely through transaction
fees.
In presentations to the public and various groups of stakeholders,several issues were raised as concerns
by both the RESP team and feedback from the Technical Advisory Committee and public about the
design and implementation of the program.These include:
1. Consider how the program may impact a home’s assessed value and taxes;
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
23
2. Avoid creating disproportionate negative impacts on the low income population;
3. Homeowner privacy concerns;and
4. Considerations for historic districts.
These concerns are described below,along with related information relevant to this project.
1. Home value:Importance of considering the impact of a score on the assessed value and sale price
of a home.
Concerns were expressed that a Score may affect the assessed value of a home and/or the sale price of
a home,with possible implications on property taxes.
Assessed value is based on market forces;values are adjusted when there are obvious changes in the
local housing market that can be applied across similar properties.
Based on discussions with the Tompkins County Department of Assessment (“Assessment”),energy
efficiency features historically have not affected market value.There are a number of barriers that
would have to be overcome before a home energy score could be factored into an assessment or show
an effect on assessed value:
Assessment would need to have access to and confidence in the energy score.
a. For example,if score data is stored in MLS,Assessment does not have an easy,
automated way to access that information.Assessment does not have access to
disclosure documents from sellers,so if that technique is used,a system may be needed
to share the score with Assessment.
b. Assessment would also need to be confident in the quality and validity of the data
because the data are coming from a third party and not generated by Assessment staff.
Assessment would need a system to track and manage energy score data.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance specifies what data are collected and
stored in the assessment database.Individual county or municipal assessors cannot add fields,
and therefore there is no way to collect or store additional information,such as an energy score,
in its Image Mate database.A separate database would need to be developed,which would add
complexity to the process of determining assessed value.
In order to find a correlation between variations in energy score and variations in value,there
would need to be enough homes scored and sold in same market area.“Enough”could be a
small number of homes in one area,but the difference in sales price would have to be large
enough to appropriately quantify and attribute to the score.
If in the future there is a sale price change that can be attributed to the energy score,
Assessment would need to develop a method to apply value changes to homes without a score.
Concerns were expressed that a Score may affect the assessed value of a home and/or the sale price of
a home,with possible implications on property taxes.
Tompkins County Department of Assessment staff made it clear that a Tompkins Residential Energy
Score,or any home energy rating,will not affect the assessed value of properties now or in the
foreseeable future.Assessed value is based on market forces;values are adjusted when there are
obvious changes in the local housing market that can be applied across similar properties.Until ratings
are extremely widespread –common enough to show specifically how a good rating,bad rating,or no
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
24
rating at all impacts market value –it will be impossible to apply the results equitably across all
properties in the County,according to the Department of Assessment.
Furthermore,the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance specifies what data are collected
and stored in the assessment database.Our County Department of Assessment cannot add fields,and
therefore has no way to collect or store additional information such as an energy score in its Image
Mate database.
It is worth noting that energy efficiency upgrades such as a new furnace,or increased insulation,are
treated as normal maintenance,and do not influence the assessed value of a home.
Regarding sale price,a Score will be only one factor among many that a prospective buyer will consider,
along with other important information like location,school district,size,acreage,kitchen design,or
age.Although there are reports that show that homebuyers are willing to pay more for newly built
homes with an energy efficiency certification such as Energy Star or LEED for Homes,research
conducted as part of this project found no evidence of a relationship between changes in a home’s
energy rating score and changes in its sale price.In other words,no indication was found that a home
with a better (or worse)score would necessarily yield a higher (or lower)sale price.However,there are
other benefits to obtaining a score.As noted in the “Realtors”segment of section 4.5,above,there is
evidence that disclosing a score,even if the score is unfavorable,helps to sell a home.The information
itself,whether positive or negative,is helpful to the buyer.It is hoped that as scores become
widespread,awareness of the energy use of a home will become part of a buyer’s informed decision
making and that we will have more energy conscious and informed consumers in the area.
2. Low Income residents:Importance of avoiding disproportionate negative impacts on the low
income homeowner and renter population.
Concerns were expressed that low income homeowners whose homes score poorly,but who cannot
afford to do the upgrades that would result in a better score,would therefore not be able to sell their
homes.
Issues related to home value and salability are addressed above.The concern that low income
homeowners may not be able to afford energy efficiency upgrades will be addressed by emphasizing the
availability of several programs for low income people to help pay for,or fully subsidize some upgrades.
Attachment 11.Related Programs and Financing Mechanisms in New York and Tompkins County
contains an example of information that could be used on the Home Energy Label and in outreach
efforts for the RESP program.The RESP Program will also create ties with agencies that offer financial
incentives to low income people for energy efficiency upgrades,such as Tompkins Community Action
and NYSERDA.
A score provides valuable information to help low and middle income home buyers and renters by
giving them more information about the energy use and potential utility costs of a home they are
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
25
considering.This is currently a problem when renters unexpectedly face extremely high energy bills
when they move in,which will have to be paid throughout the duration of their occupancy,or when
home buyers realize that they can only avoid high energy bills by either doing upgrades to the property
or living in uncomfortable or unsafe conditions.The RES Program allows low income buyers and renters
to factor in the cost of energy to their decision about whether a prospective property will be affordable.
A recent report released by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,highlighted the
higher energy burdens (percentage of income spent on energy bills)experienced by low income and
minority households when compared to the average household.The report also highlighted that families
with higher energy burdens are at greater risk for respiratory diseases,increased stress,and they can
experience increased economic hardship and difficulty moving out of poverty.One strategy mentioned
in the report for improving energy efficiency in low income communities is incorporating energy
efficiency education into program design.The report states that “state and local governments can set
policy directives that support low income energy efficiency,including disclosure and benchmarking
policies for multifamily buildings.”(Drehobl &Ross,2016)
3. Disclosure and Privacy:Importance of honoring people’s desire to control data about their lives.
Concerns were expressed about how the information collected would be stored and disclosed,and to
whom.
Currently RESNET hosts a website that allows a home to be searched by address to find only the HERS
Rating Index number on a home,if it has received one.The site shows only the address of the house and
the rating,no information about the homeowner,occupant,or other characteristics of the home is
displayed.All RESNET Raters must abide by the RESNET Code of Ethics,which states:“Raters,Home
Energy Survey Professionals or a rating organization shall not disclose information concerning the rating
or home energy survey for a specific home to parties other than the client or the client's agent without
the written permission of the client or the client's agent except to report to the Rating or Home Energy
Survey Provider for the purposes of registration,certification or quality assurance.”The DOE Home
Energy Score currently does not have a publicly accessible database.
There is already a lot of information about homes that could be considered private available to the
public through the Department of Assessment’s online database,Image Mate,as well as through other
sources.Image Mate Basic was created for use by the public and provides free and convenient access to
real property information such as:the property address;a history of assessed value and sale value;year
built;square footage;types of heating/cooling systems and fuel used;presence of a solar energy
system;and general condition of the property.A complete list of data publicly available from the
Department of Assessment can be found in Attachment 10.Any database developed for the Residential
Energy Score project will not add significantly to the information that is already publicly available from
other sources.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
26
Research shows that for a rating project to have the greatest impact on affecting the housing market
and driving energy efficiency,Scores need to be available to prospective buyers during the listing and
sale process,preferably through realtors.Also,if the program is to be effective,citizens will need to
become more aware of what a good Score is,and what Scores near by homes or homes that are similar
to theirs have.The program can collect data on participating homes to determine the average score,
without making each individual home’s score available to the public.Information from a home rating
can be made available only with the homeowner’s written permission.It will be important for everyone
to have a sense about whether their home is “Average,”“Below Average,”or “Better than Average”in
energy use.This awareness will help to encourage home owners to get needed upgrades.
As the project moves into the implementation phase,the Project Team will request more input from the
public to determine the exact means and limits of disclosure.
4. Historic Homes and Homes in Historic Districts:Importance of not jeopardizing homes that are
protected because of their historical significance.
Concerns were expressed that homes with historical value or in a historic district have limited options to
upgrade and improve a potentially poor score.
While some restrictions are placed on upgrades to homes in historic districts and homes protected as
historic,many upgrades are still permitted,and many home performance options do exist.Resources
for historic homes,including information about energy efficiency upgrades and related tax credits,are
available on the City of Ithaca’s Landmarks Preservation Commission webpage.The relevant link will be
listed on the back of the Label.
During program design it will be important to continually consider these four primary topics that have
been raised as concerns by the RESP team,the Technical Advisory Committee,and the general public.As
implementation progresses,additional opportunities will be created for people to help craft strategies
to make the RESP successful and meet these challenges.
5. Implementation
Staging the implementation in phases allows time to develop the PROGRAM in further detail,set up
appropriate infrastructure,and prepare the market to engage successfully in the program.The six
phases of implementation include the following:
1. Phase One:Project Team secures funding for development and implementation to move the
program forward;
2. Phase Two:Project Team acquires a Program Implementer;
3. Phase Three:Program Implementer works with Project Team to complete the program and Label
design,marketing and education plans,program infrastructure including data management,and
evaluation plan;
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
27
4. Phase Four:Program is rolled out with a limited Pilot Program to determine how the program can be
most effective;
5. Phase Five:Voluntary Program begins,accompanied by intensive marketing and education;and
6. Phase Six:Evaluation of program design and possibilities for improvement.
Below,the phases are presented in detail for a comprehensive understanding of the proposed program,
implementation,and the ability to manage data and evaluate effectiveness.
Without adequate funding,the program cannot move forward.Funding options may include private
foundations,NYSERDA,NYSEG,participating municipalities,community based non profit groups,or
other private organizations such as the National Association of REALTORS®(NAR).
Funding consists of stages:
1. Start up funding to complete program and label design,set up infrastructure,and provide
training;
2. Funding for a pilot;and
3. Funding on an annual basis to run the program after initial launch.
Determining where to situate the project and what entity will be responsible for implementing the
PROGRAM and tracking data is critical to initiating the project.The project team has identified Cornell
Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County as one possible candidate.
The PROGRAM IMPLEMENTER would be responsible for:
1. Overseeing and Guiding Program Design;
2. Training and Policy Support;
3. Education and Outreach;
4. Program Optimization;
5. Program Quality Assurance;
6. Results/Data Tracking;
7. Facilitating Connections with Local Workforce and Home Performance Programs;and
8. General Program Administration.
Here we look in detail at the key elements related to designing and implementing the Residential Energy
Score PROGRAM.
The creation and design of the LABEL needs to include stakeholder feedback,consumer input,and
consideration of the local concerns and priorities.LABEL design should strongly consider feedback from
public outreach for this project,as well as the lessons learned from the Vermont Energy Labeling
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
28
Working Group during their development of a voluntary residential building energy label.In Vermont,
realtors,their regional Multiple Listing Service (MLS)organization,home performance contractors,the
U.S.Department of Energy,different states and the public all provided feedback on proposed scoring
metrics and label designs.(Energy Futures Group,2013)
The Vermont group determined that a score in units of MMBTU/year for total estimated energy
production based on an ASSET RATING was the best metric.The LABEL also included projected energy costs
and a general description of the home.Ideas for the LABEL obtained during the RESP team outreach,
outlined in the Home Energy Label Recommendations section of this report,section 4.3.1,should be
included.
Outreach and education must focus on the value of the rating to the homeowner,homebuyer,seller,
buyer’s and seller’s agents,renter,and home performance contractors.It must also highlight the goal
and need for carbon emission reductions and the role this project plays in both achieving that goal and
in the creation of informed policy decisions going forward.For more details supporting outreach and
education to different groups,review section 4.5 of this report.
Using two rating systems is key to allowing incorporation of existing market ratings on new construction,
very high efficiency homes,and multifamily units via the RESNET HOME ENERGY RATING SYSTEM (HERS)INDEX
and a feasible path for the average existing homes to obtain a score via the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S
HOME ENERGY SCORE (DOE HES).Both of these ASSET RATING systems use a modeling tool that will
determine energy use projections in MMBTU’s per year.Research is needed to determine how well
these projections line up to one another for the same house.For example,if we look at the same home
using the two approaches,will they deliver a similar enough projection in energy use?Understanding
how these line up with one another,and the potential margin of error is critical to a score that includes
both.
There are three key types of data that need to be tracked and maintained for a program to be
successful:
1. Available Workforce:A database of local certified raters and Contractors that have an
understanding of the program and are able to asses a home for the Score and perform retrofit
work.The need for additional local qualified contractors to perform the work in a reasonable
time period;
2. Participating Home Data:Data on houses participating,including the Scores,address,date of
rating,and other relevant information;
3. Evaluation Data:Quality assurance and consumer and participant feedback data,including when
and why the rating was performed.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
29
DATA INFRASTRUCTURE refers to the digital structure supporting data storage,sharing,and management.
Data infrastructure may include a web portal and a database.In the design of a process and data
infrastructure for program and data management,it is essential to develop a description of the
requirements and data points needed to meet the overall goal.The following list of requirements for the
infrastructure reflects the Residential Energy Score Project Team’s research on current programs,best
practices,and local needs.
1. Store and Access data on Participating Raters
There will be multiple participating raters,both HERS and HES certified,that will likely represent a range
of public and private organizations.The qualifications for these raters are maintained by RESNET or DOE,
and raters need to verify these qualifications annually.The program should maintain a list of local
participating raters both for certification validation and for the public (homeowner,Realtor,buyer)to
locate a local rater via a web portal.
2. Store and Access data on Rating Partners
Each rating system (HERS and HES)requires a rater to belong to a rating provider for quality assurance
oversight.These providers can often coordinate to share information and strengthen a program’s
effectiveness.Multiple organizations would be supporting the delivery of ratings,both as a part of
private enterprise as well as in the delivery of energy efficiency programs,such as Assisted Home
Performance with ENERGY STAR,Low Income Weatherization,and ENERGY STAR labeled Homes.
Information on the providers who have raters participating in the program should also be accessible.
3. Generate a Label
The infrastructure needs to support information from both the HES and HERS rating data and populate
the common LABEL.It needs to take in data from approved sources (such as the software tools approved
by these rating systems)in order to produce this LABEL.A mechanism for generating a local,graphically
rich LABEL is necessary,incorporating all of the items highlighted in section 4.3.1 of this paper.The SCORE
should to be stored for retrieval along with the data used to generate the LABEL for each home.The
system must allow for limits on who can access information about an individual home.
4. Automated Quality Assurance
Before the LABEL is produced,the data need to be reviewed to check for obvious errors.Paperless
automation the checks data for basic accuracy is crucial to speed up Quality Assurance (QA)and to
reduce costs.Timing is important for QA.This review needs to happen before the data are made
available to interested sellers or fed into the MLS,or in any way made publicly available.National
experience has shown that data errors are more likely to be introduced when energy scores are input
directly into the MLS by Realtors or other professionals.Rating data review by RESNET and DOE will be
much delayed and not support timely review of rating scores before submission.When a rating is being
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
30
used immediately to influence the sale of a home,quality assurance should be fast and highly
automated.
Performance Systems Development has created an automated review tool for RESNET energy ratings
used by energy raters in 13 states and by utility funded new home programs.The same database
application,Compass,has been extended with funding from DOE to support the DOE HOME ENERGY SCORE
tool.This may be the only database application in the country with support for both RESNET HERS INDEX
ratings and DOE HOME ENERGY SCORE ratings.
5. Field Quality Assurance
A certain percentage of jobs are given field QA under the terms of both the DOE HES and the RESNET
HERS rating.This quality assurance involves a third party performing the rating again to verify results
and reviewing electronic and paper documentation to ensure the rater is abiding by the rating standards
and performing diagnostic testing appropriately.These QA data are reported to both RESNET and the
DOE for tracking and maintaining a rater’s certification.Leveraging these national field inspection
requirements is important for maintaining a low cost of delivery.This can be achieved by verifying and
tracking that a rating has been submitted to these entities.This saves the program from needing to
perform a separate field QA.
6. Storage and Retrieval of Ratings
The home rating would ideally happen simultaneously with different types of events,such as home
performance audit,home inspection,or post sale,when data can be collected more cost effectively by
trained individuals.Because these events are not necessarily aligned with the time a home is listed for
sale,the rating information needs to be stored somewhere,and made available for input into the MLS at
the appropriate time.
While it is ideal for the public to have access to the TOMPKINS RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SCORE data outside of the
MLS,some information associated with the rating may need to remain private.The control over which
data may be shared is a key requirement of the program,and the infrastructure needs to provide access
restrictions so that different stakeholders can access different subsets of data.For example,realtors
may benefit from having access to information about Scores by category of regions of the county and at
various price points.
Having information from the ratings combined with other information,such as participation in
weatherization or local renewable energy programs,age of home,and whether or not retrofit work has
been performed,is essential to program evaluation and optimization.It is also tied to the ultimate goal
of better understanding the opportunities available to improve energy performance of the housing in
Tompkins County.The program needs flexibility in the portal or chosen INFRASTRUCTURE to capture this
additional information.
7. Training
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
31
To make ratings broadly available in the market,training will need to be made available on a recurring
basis,and raters will need to be recruited.Training on the specific program,including the local
submission and labeling process,would also be necessary.
There are two key database applications that need to be connected a data repository for the
information described above and the Realtor Multiple Listing Service (MLS).Many similar databases,
such as the MLS and Department of Assessment databases,are not linked.Currently in Tompkins
County,the Department of Assessment manually inputs information that they find on the MLS and vice
versa.It is a goal of the program that the Score for homes could be included in online real estate and
rental marketplace databases such as Zillow,Trulia,and Realtor.com.Opportunities for this are better
now than ever.The Real Estate Standards Organization (RESO)recently added a “Green Verification
Metric”field to their Data Dictionary which references both the DOE HES and the RESNET HERS systems.
This dictionary creates common standards that lists and describes how all real estate data fields can be
included in an MLS and encourages consistent terms and data structures.This new Green Verification
Metric is defined in the dictionary as:
“A final score indicating the performance of energy efficiency design and measures in the
home as tested by a third party rater.Points achieved to earn a certification in the High
Performance Rating field do not apply to this field.HERS Index is most common with new
homes and runs with a lower number being more efficient.A net zero home uses zero energy
and has a HERS score of 0.A home that produces more energy than it uses has a negative
score.Home Energy Score is a tool more common for existing homes and runs with a higher
number being more efficient.It takes square footage into account and caps with 10 as the
highest number of points.”(Real Estate Standards Organization,2016)
This provides the structure for including the Score in the local MLS in Tompkins County.There are
systems available and in development that would aid in connecting the rating data or Score into the
MLS.The U.S.DOE announced on September 15,2015 an award providing three years of funding to
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)to support the development of HELIX,or the Home
Energy Labeling Information Exchange in an effort to “expedite the creation of large scale home energy
labeling policies and programs that support the market valuation of energy efficiency in homes by
making U.S.DOE HOME ENERGY SCORE (HES)data accessible to local Multiple Listing Services (MLS)and
other market interests”.(Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,2015)
Figure 6:The Home Energy Labeling Information Exchange (HELIX)can facilitate the delivery of the score from the program
database to the multiple listing service
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
32
Another tool available that supports home energy rating and disclosure programs is the DOE’s Standard
Energy Efficiency Database Platform,or SEED.SEED is an open source database application for
managing information related to energy scores on buildings.SEED was created to support the
management of benchmarking mandates for large cities but is now being adapted for use with
residential ratings.NEEP is currently exploring ways for HELIX to leverage SEED to facilitate this process.
NEEP released a one page information sheet on HELIX,found in Attachment 8 to this document,that
states that HELIX will support incorporating home rating information into the MLSs “while providing
appropriate data security and privacy protections.”(Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,2015)
One key capability of SEED is to manage energy data for large numbers of buildings.SEED can collect
information from property assessment and other existing databases and match this information up with
energy ratings submitted by qualified raters (Figure 7).
The SEED database itself is not intended for use by energy raters,Realtors or homeowners,but rather
supports data management for governments and programs.SEED can be connected to user friendly web
portals that can allow raters,homeowners or program staff to input or access information.These basic
web portals can be easily created and would have very low maintenance costs.Some cities are investing
in enhanced web portals that contain data mapping and data visualization tools.An example of this can
be seen in Philadelphia’s commercial benchmarking portal,a website that allows individuals to easily
create visual reports on emissions,building size,building type,and score for the city.
In addition to collecting the data on a home from the rater,the program must also generate the LABEL.
SEED has an option to install a plug in application as an extension.A plug in created to generate the
local LABEL could be an option for this program design.A one page information sheet on SEED can be
found in attachment 9.It’s important to note that this database includes controlling the disclosure of
information as determined by the individual program set up but can allow data sharing with other third
parties at the client or homeowners’discretion.As part of implementation and infrastructure
development,the team should consider feedback received during outreach on homeowner privacy
rights and concerns.
Another related tool is Compass,developed by Performance Systems Development.This tool could be
used to provide the portal for energy raters to submit ratings to the program,to automate quality
assurance checks on the rating information,and to generate the local LABEL.This information could be
Figure 7:SEED Platform Concept of Operations
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
33
used in combination with SEED for storage.PSD also has direct experience with the visual connectivity
functionality of SEED through its role as the developer of the interconnection between SEED and EPA
Portfolio Manager benchmarking system under a contract with Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL)
and US DOE.
The initial deployment of the information technology (IT)system would require the development of a
detailed plan for IT implementation that is beyond the scope of this report.Once the IT system is
planned,the deployment can happen in stages.Deployment would start with a database,web portal,
and the creation of the data connection to the MLS.
The next stage of IT deployment would be the development of the portals for credentialed users to
access data or supply data to the system.These web sites can also provide homeowners with access to
a list of qualified raters and link to other energy efficiency resources in the county.
The final stage of IT deployment would be the development of a public facing portal with data
visualization and reporting tools to help increase understanding about an individual homes score,and
energy use in Tompkins County housing as a whole.The portal could include reports that are designed
for various audiences,such as Homebuyers or Renters,Realtors,or the Tompkins County Department of
Assessment.The exact information that is displayed will consider homeowner privacy concerns and
should first be proposed for public feedback.
If adequate funding is available for program start up,investing some of these funds in automation for
the LABEL generation and QA can help reduce the cost of ongoing support for the rating effort.While
automation of the process is an important end goal,low initial rating volumes may require offering the
label with more manual generation process,such as a spreadsheet application.This application could be
used by the qualified energy efficiency consulting staff.Similarly,manual QA review can be used at the
initial launch.
Ongoing support for the ratings requires an efficient and responsive review process.There is
considerable time pressure in the process of listing a home.Being able to demonstrate that the staffing
and systems are in place to make the process of obtaining a rating,getting a QA review,and posting it to
the MLS quickly and efficiently will go a long way to addressing the concerns of the real estate
community and the public.
The program would require both IT support and energy efficiency consulting support as well as general
administrative roles.Determining detailed staffing needs would be dependent on the implementer and
final program plan and IT design.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
34
Starting participation with a pilot phase would allow for testing the design and effectiveness of the
PROGRAM on a smaller scale.One option for a pilot is to target 25%of all single family homes in
Tompkins County that are built,sold or significantly retrofitted in approximately one year,until 250
homes are rated,scored,and labeled:
Location –throughout Tompkins County;
Duration –approximately one year;
Target 250 single family homes and apartments for labeling –HERS rating for all new house
construction and units within multifamily buildings 4 stories or less in height;HES rating for all
major retrofits and 10 25%of existing homes sold (ratings performed in advance so that the
label is available at time of house listing);
Staff –2 3 full time raters certified for HES and HERS;
Program implementer to design label,collect data,drive participation through education and
outreach,and evaluate the program as described below;
Education and outreach –work with municipal building departments to target all new
construction and all major retrofits;work with realtors to educate prospective sellers to have
rating performed before listing house;work with all residents to voluntarily get rating/label and
to understand what the label means;and
Cost –ROUGH BALLPARK $300,000 is needed to cover the staff time so that ratings are FREE to
those participating in pilot.
During the pilot phase,the following aspects of the program should be evaluated and fine tuned:
1. Effectiveness and relevancy of the LABEL;
2. Training needs of local workforce on HES and HERS Certification;
3. LABEL generation process;
4. Retrieval and storage of data;
5. Quality Assurance;
6. Potential negative impacts on low income population;
7. Best time/most frequent time that a rating occurs;
8. The ability of the TOMPKINS RESIDENTIAL ENERGY SCORE PROGRAM to influence home improvements,
home purchase decisions,and purchase price;and
9. Available funding for home energy retrofit work.
Program evaluation and reporting should include feedback and discussions with the Technical Advisory
Committee,the Residential Energy Score Project Team,and participating municipalities.
In addition to accepting new homes into the program,the pilot phase should encourage labeling homes
that have had ratings in the past and adding these data to the program database.This will need an
added layer of quality assurance to ensure the data are accurate and still relevant.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
35
The team has determined that a voluntary program is the best approach for several reasons.The legal
review that was performed as part of this project (Attachment 1)revealed that at this time there are
potential legal limitations in New York State for municipalities to create an ordinance or law requiring
home energy scoring.Realtors expressed concerned that a mandate at time of sale could add extra
stress and burden on sellers at an already stressful time.
Launching the program on a voluntary basis will provide the opportunity to evaluate whether the free
market can scale the program appropriately and capture the public’s enthusiasm for home rating and
scoring.A voluntary program could build toward a mandate in the future,if desirable and legally
permissible,and could use the staged implementation approach described later in this document.A
voluntary program should include an increased priority on providing education on the value of asset
ratings.
An initial voluntary phase,where participation is optional,is useful to figure out best practices and allow
the DATA INFRASTRUCTURE to be tested and fine tuned.Research,however,shows that voluntary rating
program participants are disproportionately owners of high performing homes,and they participate out
of an interest in certifying or recognizing their homes,rather than to drive retrofit.(Dunsky Energy
Consulting and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships,2009)This is one reason that a mandatory
program may be a preferred long term goal.Without getting large scale adoption,the program will not
reach its goal.
The voluntary program should capture all ratings that have already been completed or are already in
process in the area,independent of the program.Some homes in Tompkins County are already
voluntarily receiving HERS Index and HES ASSET RATINGS due to their owner’s desire to obtain certification
as ENERGY STAR,Passive House,LEED for Homes,and participation in NYSERDA’s Low rise New
Construction Program.173 homes in Tompkins County received a HERS Index between 2011 and 2015.
As of May 2016,no HES ratings have been performed in Tompkins County.While 173 homes is a small
number in light of the 20,000 one (1)and two (2)family residential properties in Tompkins County,it
shows that there is already a starting base of homes in the area that have asset ratings and will continue
to acquire asset ratings independent of the program.The program needs to include the existing ratings
in the Tompkins Residential Energy Score database,while also educating consumers and others about
the value,and driving demand for ratings to happen going forward.In order to get additional
participation,homeowners need to see a clear value,or incentive,to participate.Below,steps are listed
for launching the program.
Once the IT systems are in place with the ability to track and generate the Tompkins Residential Energy
Score and label,the program can begin accepting participants.Ratings could be submitted by either
HERS or HES raters and tracked in the chosen infrastructure.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
36
This phase would require the development of marketing and educational materials to support the
program that targets Realtors,homeowners,homebuyers,raters,home performance contractors,code
officers,and home inspectors.This should include the value of the rating and the value of energy
efficiency,logistics for how to participate in the program,and how to use the information on the label.
The Department of Energy (DOE),the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET),and the Northeast
Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)offer great educational resources and templates.The program
should utilize local organizations,such as Cornell Cooperative Extension and Solar Tompkins to
strengthen efforts.The RESP team,through its outreach efforts,identified the top four (4)messaging
motivators:
1.Saving money;
2. Knowing what to expect in monthly energy costs;
3. Saving energy;and
4. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Analyze data to help determine rates of adoption,trends in the types of homes participating,and major
hurdles and opportunities to increase participation.This should include customer feedback as well as
data analysis.Key ideas for policy optimization should include most frequent time of rating,if ratings are
tied to home performance work,and where there are obvious gaps in participation among the
population (e.g.income level,region,housing type).This information helps guide the program going
forward,and helps validate funding needs and program effectiveness,cost sharing,and integration with
other programs.Evaluation should specifically look at participation and the ability to support low
income households and households that statistically are more likely to have a higher energy burden
such as African American,Latino,and Renters.(Drehobl &Ross,2016)If only certain types of homes or
individuals are participating,the data on “average Tompkins county home score”could be skewed.The
program should target outreach to as diverse a group as possible and evaluate trends in participation.
Regular evaluations should revisit the idea of a mandate,specifically whether and when a mandate is an
appropriate option.Ultimately the value of the program and its effectiveness at creating value in energy
efficiency in real estate transactions and driving energy improvements is dependent on wide scale
participation.If the market drives sufficient participation,a mandate is not necessary.
After evaluation is complete,review results and consider how to best strengthen the program.This
could include increased marketing,additional workforce training,creating incentives to enhance
participation rate,and re visiting the legality and advisability of creating mandates for participation.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
37
6. Conclusion
A residential energy score program for the participating municipalities and across the County should
allow for the largest participation possible by incorporating both the RESNET HERS INDEX for new homes
and the DOE HOME ENERGY SCORE for the existing housing stock.Displaying the TOMPKINS RESIDENTIAL
ENERGY SCORE in units of estimated SITE ENERGY use in MMBTU/YEAR would allow the program to
incorporate both systems.With this approach,homeowners can compare all rated homes to each other
and account for renewable and on site energy production on the label.
It is important to remember that without large adoption,the program will struggle to meet the ultimate
goals of valuing energy efficiency in real estate transactions and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.For
example,if only some refrigerators received EnergyGuide information,or only some cars had miles per
gallon ratings,the information would begin to lose relevance.If we cannot compare the score of one
home to another,or see where it ranks in the range of homes in Tompkins County,it becomes much less
valuable.In order to achieve this wide spread adoption,the Residential Energy Score Project team is
proposing a staged approach to allow for public education,market readiness,and further program
development,such as developing the LABEL,marketing materials,and necessary DATA INFRASTRUCTURE.A
central implementer overseeing this process and creating connections with local programs and existing
workforce is essential for success.A pilot and voluntary program with regular evaluation,assessment,
and discussion about future options ensures program optimization.The proposed Tompkins Residential
Energy Score Program will assist Tompkins County municipalities in moving toward a more sustainable,
energy independent,and healthier future for all residents by increasing consumer awareness,
understanding,and ability to value the energy use and efficiency in homes.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
38
7. Glossary
Asset Rating Asset ratings create a score by evaluating a home’s actual physical structure and
mechanical systems,and major lights and appliances.The asset rating is scored by the national
calculation methodology (NCM).Using an approved calculation tool,an assessor creates a model of the
annual CO2 emissions from the building.
Data Infrastructure Data infrastructure refers to the digital structure supporting data sharing and
management.Data infrastructure may include a web portal and a database.
DOE Home Energy Score –The Department of Energy Home Energy Score is similar to a vehicle's miles
per gallon rating.The Score allows homeowners and homebuyers to identify how much energy a home
is expected to use and provides suggestions for improving its energy efficiency.It also allows
homeowners to compare the energy performance of their homes to other homes nationwide.
Home Energy Rating –also referred to as a “rating”in the document,a Home Energy Rating refers to
the process of evaluating a home’s energy efficiency and performance in a standard way that can be
compared to other homes by focusing on the energy efficiency features of the home itself.The two
most common type of home energy ratings used today are OPERATIONAL RATINGS and ASSET RATINGS.
Label The label acts as a standard method to graphically communicate home rating information for
both existing and new home construction.The label is generated from approved data sources (such as
the two rating software tools)and is stored for retrieval along with the data used to generate the label
for each home.
MMBtu’s 1 MMBtu is equal to 1 million BTU (British thermal unit).All fuel energy use can be converted
to this unit.One BTU is approximately equal to the energy released by burning one kitchen match.
Operational Rating Also known as "Measured Energy Rating",an Operational Rating is based on
measured amounts of delivered and exported energy.The measured rating is the weighted sum of all
energy carriers used by a building and is a measure of the in use performance of a building.This
measurement is relevant to the certification of actual energy performance.
Program A residential energy disclosure program evaluates the relative energy efficiency and energy
use of homes,and evaluates opportunities for improvement,and standardizes the availability of this
information in a given market.
Program Implementer The Program Implementer is responsible for developing and implementing the
program.Responsibilities include:overseeing and guiding program design,training and policy support,
education and outreach,program optimization,program quality assurance and enforcement,
results/data tracking,facilitating connections with local workforce and home performance programs,
and general program administration.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
39
RESNET HERS Index The Home Energy Rating System (HERS)Index is the industry standard by which a
home's energy efficiency is measured.It’s also a nationally recognized system for inspecting and
calculating a home's energy performance.
Site Energy Site energy is the amount of heat and electricity energy consumed by a building as
reflected in the utility bills.Analyzing site energy can illustrate how the energy use for an individual
building has changed over time.It does not include any inefficiencies or losses that happen transmitting
energy to the house from its original source.
Source Energy Source energy represents the total amount of raw fuel that is needed to operate a
building.By taking all energy use into account,the score provides a complete assessment of energy
efficiency in a building.It includes all transmission,delivery,and production losses.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score or “The Score”The Score allows homes in Tompkins County,New
York to view the estimated annual energy use of homes in one comparable metric based on an asset
rating.
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
40
8. Bibliography
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.(2014).Residential Energy Use Disclosure:A guide for
Policymakers.ACEEE.
Drehobl,A.,&Ross,L.(2016).Lifting the High Energy Burden in America's Largest Cities:How Energy
Efficiency Can Improve Low Income and Underserved Communities.April:ACEEE.
Dunsky Energy Consulting and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2009).Valuing Building Energy
Efficiency Through Disclosure and Upgrade Policies.
Elevate Energy.(2014,April 22).Energy Cost Disclosure in Residential Listings in Chicago:A Preliminary
Snapshot.Retrieved from http://www.elevateenergy.org/wp/wp
content/uploads/ECDOrd_Analysis_FINAL.pdf
Elizabeth Stuart,L.B.(November,2015).Capturing Energy Efficiency in Real Estate Transactions.
U.Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,Building
Technologies.
Energy Futures Group.(2013).Vermont Energy Labeling Worknig Group:Development of a Voluntary
Residential Building Energy Label.
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2009).Valuing Building Energy Efficiency Through Disclosure
and Upgrade Policies.Dunsky Energy Consulting.
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2013).Building Energy Rating and Disclosure Policies Update
and Lessons From the Field.
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2015,November 15th ).Home Energy Labeling and
Information Exchange One Pager.Retrieved from http://www.neep.org:
http://www.neep.org/sites/default/files/resources/Home%20Energy%20Labeling%20Informatio
n%20Exchange%20One Pager.pdf
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.(2015,December 15).NY BUILDING ENERGY CODE.Retrieved
from www.neep.org:http://www.neep.org/bulletin board/ny building energy code
Real Estate Standards Organization.(2016,April 28).www.reso.org.Retrieved from
http://www.reso.org/data dictionary/
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Plan
41
9. List of Attachments
1. Memo:Legal Issues for Home Energy Rating and Disclosure Program
2. Report on Existing Home Energy Rating and Disclosure Laws and Programs and Best Practices
3. Review and Analysis of Preliminary Data in Tompkins County
4. Home Energy Scoring Tool Data Collection Sheet
5. RESNET HERS Index Rated Features
6. HomeStyle Energy Mortgage FAQ
7. HomeStyle Energy Mortgage Announcement
8. HELIX –Information Sheet
9. SEED –Information Sheet
10. County Assessment Department Data from ImageMate
10.11. Related Programs and Financing Mechanisms in New York and Tompkins County
Programs Available to Help You
Use Less Energy, Save Money, and Be More Comfortable in Your Home
As of July 5, 2016, the following programs are offered on a first come, first served basis by NYSERDA,
Energize NY, and local organizations. These programs are subject to change. The information in this
document is an example of information that could be used on the Home Energy Label and in outreach
efforts for the Residential Energy Score Program.
Home Energy Assessment
Whole house audit to identify what your home needs to be energy efficient. At no cost to you, an auditor,
certified by the state, will come to your house for about two hours to assess the insulation, air sealing,
windows, attic, basement, heating system, lighting, and appliances. The auditor will give you a report
listing of all actions you could take to upgrade your home for energy efficiency, and how long it would
take to pay off the cost of the work through lower utility and fuel costs (not longer than 7 years).
Home Performance with Energy Star
After you have had an audit done, you choose a contractor to work with and decide which action you
would like to take. You can get a 10% discount from NYS on eligible improvements to your home.
There are also both Federal and State tax exemptions for eligible energy upgrade work.
Assisted Home Performance with Energy Star
If you income qualify, NYS will cover 50% of the cost of the upgrade, up to $5000. In Tompkins County
a three-person household qualifies if their income is $56,704 or less. You are also eligible for the low-
interest loan. And you can take some of the cost off of your NYS and Federal taxes.
Empower NY
If your household income is below 66% of the state median income ($42,528 or less for a three-person
household in Tompkins County), then you can qualify to have all the energy efficient upgrade completed
for free, up to $6000. They can even replace your furnace if it is old and inefficient.
TO APPLY:
To apply for a Home Energy Assessment Application and to get started on any of the four (4)
NYSERDA Programs mentioned above, visit: https://nyserda.energysavvy.com/start-your-
project/hpwes-express-audit/?s=contact
For more information about any of these programs go to www.nyserda.ny.gov or call Cornell
Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County at 607 272-2292.
Local Program: Button Up!
Special Do-It-Yourself offer to help you learn to take some energy efficiency actions that don’t require a
contractor. Our “Energy Parties” are opportunities for you and your friends and neighbors to learn how
make simple changes to your house that will help you use less energy and save you money. If you are
interested call Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County at 607 272-2292.
LOW-INTEREST LOANS TO COMPLETE THE WORK
Two different loan options are available to help you pay the upfront cost for the energy efficiency
improvements in your home. Talk to your participating contractor and select the product that works best
for you.
On-Bill Recovery Loan
With the On-Bill Recovery Loan, your monthly payments may not exceed your estimated average
monthly energy cost savings. Your loan payments are built right into your utility bill so you will not have
an extra bill each month. Your energy savings essentially pay for your work.
Interest rate is 3.49%; interest rates subject to change
Loan payment built into your utility bill
Loan amounts from $1,500 - $25,000 with loan term of 5, 10 or 15 years
Balance may be transferred to new owner when home is sold
A declaration is filed with the County Clerk to record the obligation of the loan (this is not a lien
on the property)
You must own the home and be named on the utility account
The home must be served by a participating utility, including: Central Hudson Gas & Electric,
Con Edison, PSEG-Long Island, NYSEG, National Grid (Upstate NY customers only), Orange &
Rockland, and Rochester Gas & Electric
Smart Energy Loan
The Smart Energy Loan is a more traditional loan that offers affordable interest rates and simple
repayment options.
Interest rate is 3.49% for automatic bank withdrawal (3.99% for pay by check); interest rates
subject to change.
Monthly payments made to NYSERDA’s loan servicer
Loan amounts from $1,500 - $25,000 with loan terms of 5, 10, or 15 years
If you sell or transfer the property, you remain responsible for the balance of the loan
You must own the home or be an authorized representative of the property owner
TO APPLY:
To apply for either loan option listed above or to get additional information, visit
http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/All-Programs/Programs/Residential-Financing-Options or call
NYSERDA's loan provider at 800-361-5663.
Energize NY Finance Program
Provides building owners with critical support, tools and low-cost, long-term financing for energy
efficiency and renewable energy projects in buildings owned by commercial or non-profit entities (even
single family residential). The financing is repaid through an annual charge on the property’s tax bill. To
find out more or to apply, visit http://commercial.energizeny.org.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
1 Assessment /Database Discussion of using the DA to receive and maintain the scores and labels:The Image
Mate database was developed and maintained by the State (Taxation and Finance)
and individual departments cannot add other information.Jay would also be
concerned about the information because it is not their data –accuracy and
lifespan.
2 Assessment /Database The State will be developing the next generation of the database but that might be a
couple years away.
3 Assessment /Database /
MLS
The MLS and Assessment databases are not connected.DA manually inputs
information that they find on the MLS and vice versa.
4 Assessment /Database /
Privacy
What is NOT publicly available on DA Image Mate?Photos,owner names,and tax
information (exemptions).
5 Assessment /Database Would the project and having ratings helpful to the DA?Anything that affects
market value is helpful.
6 Assessment /Home /
timing
Realtors agreed that sellers typically only recoup 40 50%of the investment in a
home upgrade,regardless of what was done,so Realtors typically only advise sellers
to put money into a house so they can enjoy it while they live there,not as a way to
sell a house.The exception being investing in paint and decluttering.
7 Assessment /Home Value From Report:"Research,however,shows that voluntary rating program participants
are disproportionately owners of high performing homes,and they participate out
of an interest in certifying or recognizing their homes,rather than to drive retrofit."
From Sam:"I’m also thinking that these same people will not necessarily be selling
their homes,so you may not see any effects on the housing market."
8 Assessment /Label Much of assessment data is wrong.Sq ft can come from assessment,owner,or
appraiser –it’s not consistent.
9 Assessment/Home Value One question to study is,if the most important at time to do the rating is at the time
of sale then doing it or not doing it will be financial calculation will the additional
work to do a rating increase the value of the home?
10 Assessment/Home Value Would the score reduce the value of a low income house?
11 Assessment/Home Value Concerned about energy efficiency improvements raising the value of housing prices
beyond the value of the energy savings.
12 Assessment/Home Value My house if poorly rated and I can’t pay to fix it.Lots of people will be negatively
impacted by this.
13 Assessment/Home Value People are willing to pay more to live in an energy efficient buildings.That was the
finding in the alternatives to natural gas presentation she and Brice brought around
last fall.
14 Assessment/Home Value Discuss why it is actually a fair thing for EE improvements to result in higher sales
prices.With a new granite counter,you invest say $5,000 and get say $8,000 in
value when you sell.With a newly insulated attic,you invest say $5,000 and if this
program succeeds,you get say $8,000 in value when you sell.AND you get to save
say $100 per month for the life of the house on energy costs.
15 Assessment/Home Value Not sure getting a rating is worth it:the price of the house will go up more than the
amount of savings
Comments from Public Meetings Regarding
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Program Draft 1
#Theme Comments/Feedback
16 Assessment/Home Value General feeling that this program will not increase assessed value
17 Assessment/Home Value A Realtor mentioned that she often hears from newcomers that they are concerned
about inefficient old homes here.This program would help with that,to explain and
reassure people that some of these old houses are indeed energy efficient and have
been retrofitted.
18 Assessment/Home Value Question:would a good rating raise the assessed value of the house?Jay responded
–how does DA know what the rating is?Their work is data driven.And how would
they apply that information to all other properties.If every property had a rating
and sale prices were affected by that variable,then could apply to others.
19 Assessment/Home Value Normal maintenance (e.g.new roof,siding,furnace)does NOT influence the
assessed value.
20 Assessment/Home Value I came away from the public meeting feeling like the dye has been cast and the
public comment will not lead to any substantive changes in the project.In
generating these residential energy scores for Tompkins County you will be affecting
the market value of a family's biggest asset an asset that often accounts for the
single largest portion of the entire asset portfolio owned by a family.I urge you to
consider your methodology extremely carefully because it has the potential to have
far reaching economic implications for Tompkins residents,without necessarily
bringing us any closer to our GHG reduction goals.
21 Assessment/Home Value /
low income
Concern:bad rating but can’t afford to upgrade,so can’t sell my house.
22 Behavior Need to provide information or incentives for behavior change.
23 Cost /Funding /Motivation So as for paying for these things...My thoughts here that aren't really relevant to
the current project,but I'm just trying to think where payment and penalty/rewards
can happen.1.Could do a tax on energy sources.People then ideally look for ways
to reduce the cost and the effects ideally are lower energy use after everything
settles out.2.Could offer rebates and incentives to do energy upgrades.NYSERDA is
doing this with some limited success.3.Could offer more information home
assessments.This is what you are proposing essentially.4.Could increase the sales
costs for bad homes/tax break for good homes...A penalty for selling or having a
poor performing house,or a tax break for a house that scores well.This would
probably lead to criticisms of penalizing poor people though there are plenty of
incentive programs for them.
24 cost Present the option(s)and cost(s)to policy makers and the public (at a minimum,by
inclusion in the next draft).
25 Cost /Funding /Motivation Cost for this could come from a variety of sources to spread the 'pain'small tax on
energy,esp.if it can correlate to higher GHG production,small tax on sales of new
homes,(small tax on sales of inefficient equipment?)Likely will need some grant
funding to try this out as well for the first few years.
26 Database 5.3.6:The plan characterizes HELIX and the SEED platform as competing database
options.However leveraging SEED and building HELIX off of it is a leading option for
developing HELIX.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
27 Database NEEP recommends that RESP clarify that HELIX and SEED are not necessarily distinct.
28 Database 5.4:The plan identifies that the labeling program can be piloted until the proper IT
systems are in place to accept scores from a fully implemented program.Starting in
the third quarter of 2017,some leading jurisdictions from New England and New
York will be able to use the HELIX database as part of the beta testing process
before HELIX is fully launched in 2018.
29 Database NEEP recommends that RESP’s plan identify the opportunity to serve as a beta
tester for the HELIX database to accelerate the timeline of full program
implementation.
30 Database How is Vermont doing with their database?
31 Database Where is the label information stored?
32 Fuel Cost Sherry found 1980s files where they used $0.11 /kW hr and that’s the same number
that they use now.
33 Funding Funding –Scott said go big.
34 Funding How much is this [program]going to cost?At least estimate to get to pilot phase.
Important to at least have estimate or at least a range of costs.
35 Funding Emelie:Very dependent on who runs it &how detailed the program is.
36 Funding [Nick thought to self:]Maybe get resolution of endorsement from municipalities?“If
funded,we support and would provide staff with input and resources as possible…”
37 Funding Perhaps the National Association of Realtors would be willing to put some money in
because it’s good PR.
38 Grammatical/formatting Try to avoid use of “etc.”in document.There are many instances.
39 Grammatical/formatting NEEP –use consistent name (I MIGHT have caught them all in the end,but there
were various interpretations of the acronym)
40 Grammatical/formatting In figure 3,in the little green cloud,could we change +Bill savings to –Utility costs?
41 Grammatical/formatting Recommendations should be phrased like recommendations.4.1.2 not good.4.1.4
good.
42 Grammatical/formatting Include back of Vermont label (I think we decided to,right?)
43 Grammatical/formatting 5.3.5 –2 –Multiple Rating Partners.I just don’t really understand this paragraph
fully.Maybe we can find a way to make it clearer.
44 Grammatical/formatting Change language regarding code compliance inspection
45 Grammatical/formatting Change “political”to local interest,local readiness.More clearly explain intent,
which might not be a mandate if the free market drives.Phase 6 should be two
possible paths –free market OR mandate.The document appears to be aiming
toward a mandate,reduce focus on that.
46 Grammatical/formatting Phase 6 shouldn’t just be political decision –Change wording.In report,it may be
better.
47 Grammatical/formatting Rephrase phase 6 –won’t necessarily go towards mandate.Back off implication,
flesh out two options (market or mandate)–Need to make this clear throughout
document
48 Grammatical/formatting Wording around Value to buyer/renter Protection vs.capture of knowledge.Value
to realtor:Ability to better price homes at time of listing according to EE ratings.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
49 Grammatical/formatting The asset rating removes this wild card,much like a car’s mpg rating is the same,
regardless of who drives it .This isn’t true so you may want to remove it.
50 Grammatical/formatting from document page 16 "Other benefits of a robust home energy rating and
disclosure program are included below"Kind of goes with the 1st two bullets above,
but maybe you could add something about creating a population more aware of its
energy consumption.
51 Historic District Concerned about disadvantaging houses in Historic Districts because you can’t
change the windows and doors.If we did the life cycle analysis,then we could
consider the embodied energy in existing/historic homes
52 Historic District Thank you for speaking with me this morning about the proposed Residential Energy
Score Project.As I noted,some of the concerns about the proposal that we and
some of our supporters have focused on how older homes in the community will be
rated and reviewed.I see that a “best practices”document link is included on the
project’s website,but do we know,for example,how this has worked out in places
like Burlington,VT?
53 Historic District There are some good resources available that I hope the RESP can refer to with
regard to older homes.All of these items are listed on the City of Ithaca’s Ithaca
Landmarks Preservation Commission website:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/346/Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
54 Historic District For example,resources for older wood windows:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/1601 ,
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/1603
55 Historic District There is also this information sheet prepared by the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation,and Historic Preservation on energy efficiency in older homes:
http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/1602
56 Historic District The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the EPA also produced this
document on Energy Advice for Owners of Historic and Older Homes:
https://www3.epa.gov/region5/sustainable/pdf/Energy advice for owners of older
homes.pdf.I hope that you and the project staff can review these documents to
help inform the proposed Residential Energy Score Project so that due consideration
is given to the many older homes in the city and the town of Ithaca.
57 Historic District Concern about landmark preservation buildings –that can’t be changed
58 Historic District Even non historically designated homes may have challenges with upgrades that are
possible
59 Historic District Recommend tax credits or some other means for helping owners of historic homes if
measurable negative impacts occur due to this program.
60 Implementation CCETC could certainly help get program established and possibly manage it.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
61 Implementation Where do people typically go for housing info?County tax assessor or Zillow (which
gets it from county).Locating the program at the County tax office might be a
possibility,because that is where everyone goes for information already,so it’s
simpler,and you could take advantage of the current housing database without
building another one.But might be problematic,too,because of Assessment
Department’s association with tax valuation –might be confusing to people.
62 Implementation Can the rating be tied with energy audit and other NYSERDA programs.
63 Implementation Members suggested that NYSERDA should allow BUYERS,not just homeowners,to
be eligible for funding an energy audit (if there is a purchase agreement).
64 Implementation What is most important first step?After discussion,EC concluded that completing
the design first is more important that education/outreach because need to be able
to tell people what the design is.
65 Implementation Important to mention to NYSERDA –important to have incentive for buyer to do
audit and /or rating
66 Implementation Check into annual home buyer surveys for energy related information
68 Implementation Important next step is education to get buy in,designing a label,and finding funding.
69 Label /sqft Most useful to give people MMBtu/yr and square footage so people can do the
math themselves,but to keep the raw value of MMBtu/yr energy use as the
prominent feature of a label.
70 Label /sqft Should consider showing the Btu/yr/sq.ft.so that people can compare between like
sized houses
71 Label What resources would we list on label to help people improve their scores?Low
income homeowners may qualify for retrofit assistance programs.Need equity
analysis up front.
72 Label Expiration How long would rating be valid?Valid as long as house doesn’t change.How do you
define a “change”?Could be a difficult thing for whoever is running the
program/database to track that over time.
73 Label /sqft Suggestion to include MMBtu/square feet/year as a way to eliminate the size of the
house impacting the amount of energy used.
74 Source vs Site Argued for source EUI instead of site EUI,especially if it could be “source EUI based
on life cycle GHG emissions”,Many reasons to use source EUI over site.,PV
systems,for example,don’t last forever.The house rating as a stand alone is best
shown by site EUI.
75 Label Drop the word “efficiency”from the label,because you didn’t use MMBtu/sf.
76 Label /sqft Should be comparing the house only to other houses of similar size.
77 Label The VT label uses “efficiency”and it is not.It’s energy use.
78 Label /sqft Efficiency and cost are both important.Need MMBtu/sf/yr AND cost/yr.
79 Behavior You need to work on behavior change,too,if you want to reach your ghg emissions
goals.This program alone won’t solve the problem.
80 Label /sqft Thinks the score should be compared by square footage,but also by age of building.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
81 Label /sqft One concern about using square footage is there is no agreement on how that is
measured.They try to just use gross living area above grade (what Appraisers use),
but some people do include basement sf and add that to the MLS.Everyone handles
it differently.
82 Label /sqft Add discussion on MMBtu/sf/yr versus MMBtu/yr.What is considered efficiency?
Consider adding the MMBtu/sf/yr to the label.
83 Label I support the universality of using a total annual energy metric to cover both new
and existing construction
84 Label The annual energy metric is not helpful for an individual home unless you include
some comparisons such as in the example VT one you included.I assume you will do
this.
85 Label Even though energy cost is a controversial metric,it really would further normalize
the playing field between gas,wood,fuel oil,and propane.This score could use EIA
state level residential rates for these fuels and electricity rates by eGRID subregion.
This would require more data pulling but may be worth it to the homeowner to base
decision on energy cost.
86 Label Analogy to car MPG is apt.
87 Label 5.3.1:The plan promotes development of custom label through a process similar to
Vermont’s without considering the U.S.DOE’s Home Energy Score semi
customizable label.This free tool provides the ability to customize label components
from a pool of available options and avoids design costs and continued reliance on
an entity to maintain the label.This semi customizable label was not available when
the Vermont team began their label design process
88 Label /sqft Question:Could BTU’s per square foot be added?
89 Label /sqft Problem with the language:saying energy efficiency is not accurate.Label does not
reflect “efficiency.”It is an energy use rating.BTU is not an efficiency score.Rates
how much energy is being imported to site.Compare homes of similar size (class of
sizes,or sizes of buildings).
90 Label Concern about accuracy of the dollar figure.
91 Label If you do want to do an energy efficiency rating how would you do it?Maybe have
two numbers,not just one score.
92 Label Could you compare homes of a similar age?
93 Label /sqft Square feet is measured differently by different people.Price of energy or energy
use per square foot is not apples to apples.
94 Implementation Who keeps the data and label?The program administrator will hold the information
and the property owner will be given a copy of the label.
95 Label Discussion on efficiency.Later in meeting discussed calling it an energy profile.
96 Label Energy costs are volatile.If costs are included on the label,would only be valid that
point in time.
97 Label Discussion on label –break out uses:electricity,gas,etc.The more information on
one page,the better,but make understandable.
98 Label /sqft Discussion on square footage –seemed like the answer was that the square footage
is the conditioned space (is finished and has a heat source)and will be determined
during the rating.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
99 Label /sqft If use BTUs/sq ft –need to go further and incorporate heating degree days,too.
100 Label /sqft but people will care most about total cost,so it’s ok if it’s not per sq ft.
101 Label /sqft there will be huge variability in energy cost.This affects how long label could be
good for.Not quite same as mpg because can’t change size of house.[??]So I like
the proposed score [not per sq ft].
102 Label Literature from 1980s on energy efficiency…[didn’t complete thought].The most
info possible is good to share –as long as people can understand it.
103 Label /sqft Emelie:Rater should determine sq ft –conditioned floor area.Finished.[Should be
consistent according to HERS and HES protocol.]
104 Label /sqft ‘Energy profile’not energy efficiency
105 Label /sqft Like absolute value of energy,not by sq ft
106 Label /sqft Agree.Profile or score works.Include sq ft on side
107 Label /sqft Consider calling this an Energy Profile,instead of Energy Efficiency.
108 Label /sqft Put two measures on the label:one is the total energy brought onto the property
(“site energy”),listed both in BTU’s and dollars;the second is the energy “score”
that reflects the energy efficiency of the house.
109 Label Both measures can be compared graphically to the housing stock in Tompkins
County (comparable houses:either all houses,if an appropriate efficiency measure
is created,or houses of comparable size,it an appropriate efficiency measure is not
created.)
110 Historic District Add a note to the label if historical register listing or other government policies may
restrict the kinds or amount of energy improvements that can be made.
111 Label onsite production Add a note to the label if the house has on site energy generation.
112 Label /sqft Again to my point earlier about size –could this be broken down to compare it to
houses of similar size (as well as the housing market as a whole)?
113 label Score Carefully review language to clarify the difference (or at least what the committee
means by)energy use and energy efficiency.Unless a score is created that truly
reflects the energy efficiency of the structure,I strongly recommend that
“efficiency”be dropped in favor of “use.”
114 label Score Explore how to create a true energy efficiency score that reflects the energy design
of the house (and therefore gives insight into the amount of room there is for
energy efficiency improvements).Please see discussion above if you didn’t read the
main text.
115 Label /sqft Square footage is calculated as part of the rating,so it will be standardized and we
don’t need to be concerned about the typical variability of how that is measured.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
116 Label /Rating Systems 5.3.3:The plan describes determining a mapping between HERS and DOE HES ratings
to better understand how homes rated using the different scales compare to one
another.However,the two rating systems have several key design differences that
makes comparing the scores largely unproductive.Moreover,a recent study by the
Florida Solar Energy Center found no evidence of any correlation between HERS and
HES scores.Due to the barrier associated with educating the public on two different
rating systems,information about the subtleties of their interaction should remain
unknown by the vast majority of consumers to minimize market confusion.
117 Label /Rating Systems NEEP recommends that RESP’s proposal to determine a mapping between HERS and
HES be rechanneled to advance total energy use (MMBtu/yr)as the singular metric
for comparing labeled homes,particularly those scored using different rating
systems.
118 Label /Reccomendations Recommendations should include disclosure of ratings –is that assumed?
119 Label /Related Programs NEEP recommends that RESP instead encourage NYSERDA to work with DOE to
design a statewide version of their semi customizable label that can be used in
Tompkins County and beyond.Optimally,this label would be usable by new homes
as well as the existing homes for which this label is immediately suited.To
incorporate HERS,NEEP recommends that RESP and NYSERDA coordinate with
RESNET’s Single Source project and use the resulting open source software to
minimize additional label design costs.
120 Label Expiration For how long is the score good?Should there be an expiration date?If homeowner
does some upgrades/replaces furnace,can that information be plugged in and a new
score/label generated?For how long could one do that without doing a completely
new rating?Need standard guidance on when to re rate.Air tightness is important
variable.
121 Label Expiration How long should score be good for? Response:So actually not an efficiency score.
122 Label Expiration How long should score be good for? Response:The length rating is good for could
depend on rater’s assessment of certain systems.Could be suggestion ‘re rate when
upgrade furnace or make addition to house.”
123 Label Expiration How long should score be good for? Response:Air tightness is most important
variable
124 Label Expiration How long should score be good for? Response:Could a heating system upgrade
automatically generate another updated score?Within X years?
125 Label Expiration How long should score be good for? Capacity issues with updating scores.May
require fee (e.g.$50)
126 Timing Timing:Audit,retrofit /renovation –mechanism –when get building permit,get
information about rating program.Clarify language around intervention points.
Specify certification of compliance.
127 Label Expiration Still need to determine how many years a score would be good for.Not many years
if cost is a big part of the label.The rater could be prompted to include a
recommended date of re rating on each report as guidance to someone using or
reviewing the label.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
128 Label Expiration Add language discussing the “shelf life”of home energy ratings;use the shelf life
number to give context to the sections discussing the various stages in a house’s
lifetime when a residential energy score might be obtained.
129 Legal Question:Could we get more detail on the legal review?
130 life cycle What about life cycle ghg emissions?
131 Low Income She is an environmentalist,but she felt a really strong negative reaction when she
heard about this program because of potential impacts to low income people and
privacy.
132 Low Income Making people pay a few hundred dollars to get a rating is too much for low income
people.
133 Low Income We should not say that for sure people (esp.low income people)won’t have to pay
for a rating.We don’t know that for sure so shouldn’t say it.We can say we will
strive to find a way to pay for those costs,but not that they for sure will not pay
them.
134 low income Low income.More clearly identify how low income people are already being
impacted in today’s market –give examples of people buying or renting without
asking about energy use (or assuming the previous occupant was “normal”only to
find out the unit was actually vacant for half the year so the energy bills were low)
and then being hit by sky high energy bills and knowing they have to pay those every
month for the duration of their time there,or else pay a lot of money to fix them.
It’s no picnic for low income home owners/renters now.Then explain how this
program would help fix that currently bad situation by giving people information to
see if energy costs will mesh with their household budgets.
135 Low income /shaming Especially a problem for low income people.An embarrassment;shaming them.
136 Low income Low income concerns.
137 low income It’s middle income people who are often squeezed –no subsidies but not enough $
to make improvements.
138 low income Recommend that the program or some appropriate government agency monitor the
impact of the Residential Energy Score Program on poor neighborhoods and historic
houses.
139 low income Recommend increased support to programs that help the less well off to make
energy efficiency improvements.
140 low income Potential negative impacts on low income population.I’m wondering (and I don’t
know a lot about housing stock)if there might also be a negative impact on those
who own older properties (I’m assuming they’re more inefficient)?Perhaps this
overlaps with the LMI population?Would this potentially cause an emphasis on
building new homes?Not that this would necessarily be a bad thing.Just thinking.
141 Low income /shaming Concerned about impact on low income because of shame from others who know a
low score.
142 Mandate Disingenuous of us to portray this as a voluntary program when the goal is clearly
for this to become a mandate.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
143 Mandate Forcing people to participate,pay money,and disclose information has great
potential to cause bad will after so many good successes in garnering good will in
the community around energy (Solar Tompkins,etc.)Will move us backwards,not
forwards.Will constitute a change in how government interacts with the public
around energy efficiency.Very concerning.
144 Mandate She’s one of 4 5 Realtors on the TAC.Realtors were relieved to hear that a mandate
isn’t practical because they were concerned about adding extra stress and burden
on sellers to an already stressful time.
145 Mandate Add clarifying language on intent/non intent of this becoming a mandatory program
in the future.
146 mandate Feel an instant negative about this program,especially the mandate.What effect
will this have on people who don’t care about the environment?People will be
forced to participate and pay money.This is bad for good will.Creates a bad feeling;
makes an adversarial relationship with government.
147 Mandate Many realtors feel a mandate isn’t practical.
148 Mandate Phase 6 should be rewritten to show that it is the point where 2 different paths
could be taken:Continue with the voluntary free market approach or take steps to
get a mandate in place.Right now,the wording there and throughout the document
seems like there’s a hidden intent of “we must have a mandate.”
149 mandate Clarify that if the program became mandatory,the only time a home energy score
would be required is when a house is put on the market.
150 Mandate /Cost If you can't go to a mandate (without State level effort)it may be possible to
subsidize a home inspection most all or 100%.The assessment would be in essence
a coupon that has 'already been bought'and the homeowner or house seller could
have it done for free.If it's presented as a free or very low cost service and is
promoted to real estate agents especially,they may go ahead and start to have it
done on all their properties.It's not a requirement,but now a 'free'service.Could
be declined,but only after being presented as to why it's a good idea for it to
happen.May even be possible to have it as an assumed "Yes"unless the person opts
out,as long as it's clear.(The whole manner of thought that it's easier to get people
to do something if they have to opt out rather than opt in,and even with an
explanation box saying "This is free,you don't have to check yes,but it currently is
checked yes and it's a good idea."will result in most people leaving the check 'yes').
151 Marketing and Education
who does the rating
Should there be something for the general public –thinking something like a flier
distributed at schools.Something in the newspaper?
152 MLS /Database National Association of Realtors incorporate scores in MLS.Not locally –will be
nationally recognized field.
153 MLS /Database The national MLS has adopted a national field for a locally defined energy score in its
“Data Dictionary”.So there is a structure already in place to assist with putting this
into the MLS if we want to go that way.
154 motivators In the revised draft,add language showing a desire to avoid shame as a motivator in
this program.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
155 motivators Is living in a more comfortable home something that would motivate?
156 Overview Why does everyone need to participate for it to be very effective?Won’t be able to
transform market if you don’t have sufficient number of homes to compare.
157 Pilot Questions for the group:What main factors should drive design of pilot?Number of
homes?Time period?Neighborhoods?Where do people think this initiative should
be situated in terms of agency or business?
158 Pilot What questions are we trying to answer with a pilot program?–that determines
scope.What questions did Vermont ask when it launched its State wide initiative?
How did MPG for vehicles come about?
159 Pilot Should consider how many homes you’d need to participate in a pilot to answer the
questions you’re trying to answer.
160 pilot One member suggested that a pilot project could focus on all real estate
transactions in one town –how does a requirement to have a rating affect change?
161 pilot One way a pilot program could be rolled out is to pay for the ratings of all homes
sold in a town and evaluate the experience.Should include a rough estimated
budget for a pilot program in the report.Since we know that about 1,000
transactions occur each year in Tompkins County,we have a sense of the scale of
such a budget.
162 Privacy Privacy:Show or discuss the info that is on the MLS (and Assessment)now and
mockup/discuss what exactly this program would be adding –this would highlight
what is already shared publicly,as well as what would be new.
163 Privacy Privacy:Look into Greg’s idea of using Building Performance Database instead of
HELIX.Clearly explain in the report what info is collected,where it would go,who
could see it,and how it might be shared publicly.Be transparent about this.
164 Privacy Concern about personal privacy,too much information being made public,and
available to companies,junk mail,marketing bonanza.An invasion.Who needs to
know?Beyond time of sale.Where does the data go and what protections are on
it?
165 privacy In the revised draft,remove language suggesting an owner display his or her score
publicly.
166 privacy Do not provide yard signs or similar public display materials
167 Privacy /Database Privacy is a major concern for her.This program would dump a lot of data in the
DOE’s HELIX website,which would be a huge marketing bonanza for direct
marketers.Please do not use HELIX.
168 Privacy /Database Might be OK to add a score into a database,as long as it doesn’t have an address
associated with it.
169 Privacy /Database It’s a vast invasion of our privacy
170 Privacy /Database Could use DOE’s Building Performance Database instead of HELIX,because it’s
anonymous.Need to look really hard at where the data goes and how it could be
used.
171 Privacy /Database If Muni captures info,then data is able to be FOILed (Freedom of Information Law)
#Theme Comments/Feedback
172 Privacy /Database What kinds of data are collected and what happens to that data:what are the
various places it goes at different stages in the project and who has access to the
data and the results both while the energy use score is being calculated and in the
years afterwards.
173 Privacy /Database That house data will never be made accessible to businesses and the general public.
174 Privacy /Database That the house energy score and associated label data that are in the Tompkins
County energy score database will be reported only to the home owner;when a
home owner places his or her house on the market,he or she must then authorize a
real estate agent before that agent can access the energy score in the Tompkins
County energy score database.
175 Privacy /Database That data in the database (house energy use,house energy score,and all the data
recorded about the house)will not be used or accessible,other than (1)as part of an
average,as when the program calculates the range and average for the energy score
label (2)in the report generated for the homeowner (3)select data released to an
authorized real estate agent and (4)as needed for quality assurance checks by
certified professionals.Does the committee foresee any exceptions outside of
these?
176 Privacy /Database Whether or not it is possible to include only generic location data in data sent to the
HES and HERS programs (it is my strong recommendation that if specific location
data is required then the committee find an alternative means of calculating a
residential energy score).
177 Privacy /Mandate /Label I have three major objections to this program:The RESP relies on negative rewards
and the end goal is mandatory participation.RESP involves public disclosure of
personal information.“The Score”does not evaluate “energy efficiency”but rather
total energy required by a home.
178 Privacy /Value She doesn’t think of it as a shamer,but a motivator for people.
179 PV /Label A HERS and HES ratings do not take into account the value of solar panels on the
roof,but it is something that could be added to the label.It would be good to
incorporate value of installing solar,as it is not taken into account by property tax
assessors at this time.Scores focus on energy efficiency not fuel source –but
perhaps could add something like Btus per square foot
180 Rating It’s important to distinguish gathering data for residential energy score,on one
hand,and energy audit,on other.An audit provides information about what you can
do to reduce energy use and a score allows you to compare your home to another
181 Rating Currently,Realtors can share the utility bills for a home or apartment with clients,
but that does not remove occupant behavior,weather,etc.,from the equation,
which a rating does remove.
182 Rating Review of literature showing that these types of peer pressure programs don’t work.
Example is an Energy Star program in Gainesville,FL.
183 Rating Would ratings be eligible for NYSERDA program?How is it different from audit?
Emelie:HES requires a little more training than BPI [which is needed to perform
audit].HERS requires quite a bit more training
184 Rating /Market /
Implementation
New [residential energy]code has performance compliance option –rating.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
185 Rating Systems Big challenge for us as community to figure out how to deal with split incentive,
given large size of rental market.There are so many rental units here,can a rating
work on the unit level?HERS index works well for units within multi family buildings,
HES works less well.
186 Rating Systems What are the error bars on these asset ratings?Asset ratings can change variables
based on physics,not occupancy.
187 Rating Systems Accuracy?How good are the models?Is it good enough?
188 Rating Systems There was a question about the MMbtu numbers generated by HES and HERS.
Emelie (EC)responded that they might not be exactly the same but they are in the
same range.Is one going to produce a “better”number?Is one cheaper than the
other?TAC members would like to know the percent difference in the results of the
two ratings on the same building,especially for Tompkins County.
189 Rating Systems Will HERS &HES scores line up or be comparable?Response:A little difference
won’t matter,will still have desired effect of behavior change
190 Rating Systems Will HERS &HES scores line up or be comparable?Response:Do tests show percent
difference in output between HERS &HES on same house?
191 Rating Systems Will HERS &HES scores line up or be comparable?Response:Possibly a multiplier,
adder,or other adjustments could be necessary
192 Rating Systems Will HERS &HES scores line up or be comparable?Response:Yes,would be great to
analyze difference.Maybe could do some local comparison?
193 Rating Systems We should discuss how HES and HERS compare in the same building in terms of
MMBtu/yr.Might want to ask homeowners here in Tompkins County who have one
or the other score for permission to run the numbers in the other rating system.For
example,if a home has a HERS rating,use the input data to generate a HES score.
194 Rating Systems HES –great for existing housing.HERS –great for new construction
195 Rating Systems The committee should think hard about what level of accuracy is needed for energy
use estimates that satisfy the needs of this program and identify which methods
meet those standards.
196 Rating Systems Attached is a paper that assesses the usefulness of the HERS ratings.As you will see
from this paper,HERS ratings are flawed because they do not take into account
occupant behavior this is the point I tried to make at the public meeting.The
authors of the attached paper find that over a brief period of about a decade the
average energy savings for all HERS rated homes declined substantially;and this is
when considering new construction!What's even more disturbing is the variation
in the energy efficiency of HERS rated homes by builder.This tells me that the HER
score/index can be fairly meaningless.I know of other research currently in
progress that reaches similar conclusions.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
197 Rating Systems I’m curious how size will affect the rating.If two houses have had the same
efficiency measures installed and are otherwise equal,will the smaller house receive
a better rating?In this case,I think this would have to be made clear thinking that a
large family who wants to live in an efficient house will be turned off by a low rating
on a large house that is actually pretty efficient.(Or frustration at a low rating from
a current homeowner.)This isn’t a problem for this deliverable just something I
think you would encounter going forward.(I also realize living in smaller homes is
better for the environment.)
198 rating systems /behavior I was quite dismayed by the consultant's attitude at the public meeting at the
Tompkins county library.Despite the extremely small turn out by the general public,
the consultant seemed unwilling to receive feedback and she spent her time
defending a predetermined methodology rather than seeking out ways to improve
upon it.Even her analogy with the MPG ratings for vehicles is misplaced.In 2008
the US EPA substantially lowered the MPG ratings for all vehicles to account for
realistic road conditions and driver behavior.But the method proposed by PSD
Consulting does not account for occupant behavior,so she cannot compare her
proposed approach to the MPG ratings of vehicles.
199 Related Programs This program doesn’t deal with this issue –but NYC requires energy benchmarking
for all commercial and multifamily buildings
200 Rental She would like this program to be applied to the rental market.In the UK right now,
you can’t rent your property unless the apartment meets minimum standards of
energy efficiency.
201 Rental Rental market concern.Currently all energy costs are passed on to tenants.We
can’t meet our CO2 goals without dealing with rental.What I would like to see is
landlords not be able to rent without meeting minimum energy use standards.
202 Solar Energy generated on site needs to be explicitly stated because you can have an
inefficient house with on site solar and get a good rating.
203 Source vs Site I heat with wood,how would source vs.site EUI be impacted by that?
204 Source vs Site I strongly disagree using site energy over source energy,and here is why.The
source energy factor for electricity does not vary that much and adopting EPA’s 3.14
is reasonable for normalizing a score.What a homeowner cares about is cost and
then perhaps GHG emissions.Going with site energy skews the electrically heated
homes to look better than fuel heated homes.Figure 2 of EPA’s source energy doc
has a great comparison table the illustrates this point
https://portfoliomanager.energystar.gov/pdf/reference/Source%20Energy.pdf If
you multiply out the site energy with typical costs for our area,Building A is a very
similar cost to Building E (ASHP)depending on assumptions for elec and gas rates.
But if you go simply by site energy,the homeowner would choose even Building F
(elec resistance heat)before going with a gas heated home.I think this is sending
the wrong message and an inaccurate message.
205 Source vs Site Question:What is the issue between site and source energy?(two different
mentions of this)Mark Pierce apparently has an article exploring this –which we
could append.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
206 Source vs Site /Solar I disagree that using source energy does not give “full credit to on site renewables”.
Renewables are generation,it simply gets summed into the total site energy,then
apply the one source factor.Unless a house is off the grid,the home is consuming
grid energy using net metering.Using site or source makes no difference for net
metering,you add it in,correct?
207 Support NEEP supports the RESP draft implementation plan
208 Timing Need to think about at what point in homeownership will getting a score actually
result in energy improvements being completed in a home.
209 Timing Should try and piggyback doing the score with other professional activities –for
training workers,too.
210 Timing Most people have HVAC inspections/cleanings every year or two –they are the
group going through houses most frequently now.Any way to have them do work
needed for rating?Good idea to tap HVAC workers,as they are often the people
entering the rating field of work anyway.
211 timing Best time to hit people:right after purchase.Info could come from home inspector
or realtor or municipality.
212 timing In terms of when ratings could be done,need to add HVAC maintenance visits to the
list,and should clarify that we are talking about when people get Certificate of
Compliance or a Building Permit.
213 Timing One Realtor said she feels strongly that the time to encourage people to get a rating
is soon after they purchase a home,because that is when people are thinking about
what needs to get done.Maybe a mailing after they move in would be a good way
to get that information to the new homebuyers.
214 timing Ratings tied to HP work,This is key,because like I said before –a lot of these
voluntary home owners may not be selling but this is another metric for change that
this program is hoping to produce.
215 Timing In Tompkins County many people are motivated to live in an energy efficienct home.
216 Timing /Free Market If the goal is to get voluntary compliance,similar to what we see with home
inspections,it is good to look at how that became the norm.Discussed the fact that
before there were clearly identified “buyers agents”and “sellers agents”there was
no incentive for the “agent”to advise the buyer to check under the hood,so to
speak,for the house,since they were also representing the seller.Therefore,if we
could influence the buyers agents to advise their clients that they should be asking
for energy rating,just like they do a home inspection,then we could greatly
influence this market.
217 Timing /Free Market Given the point above,NYSERDA should consider allowing serious buyers (who have
signed purchase offers)to qualify for free energy audits from NYSERDA so they can
get an audit (and a rating)for the home they are considering buying.This point
should be a recommendation in the report to NYSERDA for this project.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
218 Timing /Mandate /Value Caveat emptor (the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the
quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made)so favored by some is
not realistic for people the same way a general house inspection is standard to help
non professionals understand their potential home.It is specialized information that
matters a lot.
219 Value How can score be integrated into energy upgrade business plans so companies can
grow their customer base?Doing a rating could be a value added offering for
companies to promote.
220 Value There are not many Realtors or Appraisers who know much about EE or renewables.
There’s just not enough data in our community right now.This program would
really help a lot with education and data.
221 Value All Realtors have right now is occupant driven energy data,would be great to have
something that is standardized and common,and then that could be used on the
MLS.People just aren’t informed now and this would help a lot with that.
222 Value Project has tremendous potential to get information into the rental and home
market.
223 Value Common question he gets is about energy use in an apartment.How much does it
cost to live here?He can get 2 years of NYSEG data,but that reflects occupant
behavior and it can be hard to get.
224 Value If have accurate data,you can work it back and see if energy costs meet housing
budgets.
225 Value Highlight the accuracy of data we use now –the sf issue and inconsistencies,
Assessment data,maybe other concerns realtors raise at the TAC meeting?
226 Value Same as any homeowner would want to know what they are buying,be it no
insulation in the walls,rotton wood,etc,I think this is very important information to
have.It is expert knowledge,and thus something that a house inspector or a regular
Jane homebuyer cannot be expected to know.That means a certified third party is
the best source for the info.
227 Value Recently bought her old home and was totally shocked at the energy use;wish she
had known.
228 value We need to have more information about our building stock
229 Value Excited:I hear people say “I’ve been trying to sell my house but (something is wrong
with it).”Or “I fix what’s wrong in order to sell it”and then I don’t get any benefit
from that expense.”Would like to see people do the upgrades and have the benefit
of it while they are living in it.
230 Value This gives people one more opportunity:this is a good thing to do.When was the
best time to plant a tree?Ten years ago.When is the best time to upgrade?Now.
Very positive.
231 Value We need more data about housing stock Realtors and appraisers need more data.
232 Value Right now all we have is occupant energy use,which is not sufficient.We need this
information to be part of the conversation.
233 Value This will help:people don’t know what to ask (about energy use)or what to look for.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
234 value This will help shift the culture.Information is a tool.People want to know energy
information.But don’t have an understanding.This will help.
235 value Caution about suggesting that you will get a full payback for the cost of
improvements.
236 value Value –good buyers’tool.Rating gives buyers a way to gauge energy costs and
avoid unnecessary costs.Get the rating when you buy the house,do improvements
when move in and enjoy it while you live there instead of waiting until you are ready
to sell.
237 value Value to realtors –what is currently missing is the ability to better price home at
time of listing with X features.We can anecdotally say that more energy efficient
homes will get a higher price but we don’t have the numbers to back that up.With a
rating,realtors can counsel buyers/sellers on energy efficient improvements.People
moving here from outside see that housing stock is old and they assume energy
inefficient so realtors explain that people here do improvements and it would help if
there is a score/label to share info.
238 Value Be careful about language suggesting improvement costs can be recaptured.Often
sellers don’t recapture costs of improvements (not just energy efficiency
improvements).
239 Value Valuable info even for those who can’t afford improvements
240 Value The Chicago EQ program has a direct way to include energy bills on the MLS.
They’ve found that more information,whether it’s high energy bills or low,is
resulting in faster sales than homes without that information included.
241 value /Low Income This program is a good motivator,to low income homeowners and others,all will be
encouraged to take action.
242 Value /Mandate Seems this project is right in the sweet spot of more information allowing the
markets to adjust.You may want to find a good economics quote that talks about
how a free market works best (and even requires)open information.Once people
start to hide information,the free market concept goes belly up.
243 Value,List of Concerns What groups of people will most likely to benefit from this program?What groups
will be negatively impacted?Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac studies show that one of
primary reasons why people default on mortgages is they can’t afford energy bills.
The Residential energy score could help to educate home buyers who are not
especially energy savvy so they don’t unknowingly purchase or rent a home with
very high energy costs.
244 Value/Timing Excited about this program because she gets calls a lot from people who can’t sell
their homes because of some energy need and find they need to get it fixed before
they can sell their home.If they’d know about it earlier,they could have just spent
the money sooner and then be able to enjoy the benefits of the improvement while
they lived there.Had to spend the money either way.She sees that the people who
are getting negatively impacted now are the ones that are not educated on energy
issues and/or not motivated to act.
#Theme Comments/Feedback
245 Workforce In the County’s Healthy Homes Rehabilitation Program for low income clients,
experience is that getting energy audits goes smoothly,but then actually doing
energy upgrades is not smooth,often due to lack of qualified contractors to do the
work.The rating program should consider if there is a workforce development
issue.If you are selling your home in a year,can I find a contractor to do the
improvements before I need to sell the house?
246 Workforce How many raters are there now around here?Roughly 200 HERS raters in NYS and
not many HES raters.
247 Workforce Workforce Training:It’s not a big lift to get workers who are BPI certified to be HES
raters,but it’s a big investment to get them to be HERS raters.
248 Workforce/Program Design Currently,the company that does the audit often does the work,too.Creates trust
issues.Could it work if different people do the audits from those that do the work?
Maybe a trusted third party could do audit and rating that others could use to
actually do the construction work?
249 Where to start this proposal which consists of over 150 pages is way to complicated
and at the same time very simplisitic.It reduces a residence to "good"or "bad"
based soley on its energy consumption.And yet it doesn't consider or place any
value on reuse of existing materials vs.cost of new.It places no value on "historic"
or architectural importance.There are documented cases of other communities
where this system has been implemented and not been well received.Finally,it
feels too uch like BIG gov't.there has to ba a better way to evaluate residential
energy use.
# Theme
Event/
Source Comments/Feedback
1 Cost
Town of
Ithaca
What is the cost to the homeowner for the rating?What is the goal for
the number of homes in the pilot?
2 funding
Town of
Ithaca What type/source of funding are you looking into for the program?
3
Implement
er
Town of
Ithaca
Would the implementer of the program be through a municipality,private,
or nonprofit position
4
Context in
NY
Town of
Ithaca
Is anyone else in NY doing a similar program?Might this program be used
as a model for other municipalities?
5 rating
Town of
Ithaca
How will you ensure the integrity of the people evaluating the homes?
What kind of oversight will be in place?Who or what company will come
in to do the ratings?How will you make sure that the system is uniform
6 historic
Town of
Ithaca
Can you explain more about the considerations for homes in historic
districts?
7 label
Town of
Ulysses
On the label,include assumptions used in the ratings such as temperature
of house and occupants (#bedrooms plus 1)
8 value
Town of
Ulysses
The focus on presentation was on home buyer but outreach and focus
should be on SELLERS too.
9 privacy
Town of
Ulysses
Does the project “force”a homeowner to share/disclose the rating?[Is
that stated anywhere?]
10
assessmen
t
Town of
Ulysses
Equity issue:one town board member stated that a low rating with clearly
bring down the sale price.Priority should be to target assistance to low income
families.Another board member encouraged us to include in the report that NYS
needs to commit real money to low income and leaky homes.
11 funding
Town of
Ulysses
What are the next steps for funding?Emelie noted what the reports says –
NYSERDA,NYSEG,foundations.
12 funding
Town of
Ulysses
A board member had a suggestion (not having to do with the report)–
draft a resolution for boards to direct to NYS to make sufficient funds
available for energy improvements;or if not funding,statewide incentives,
13 funding
Town of
Ulysses
A board member noted that no one on the state level is talking about
money for incentives to get everyone to do this.Tax credits do not help
14
low
income
Town of
Ulysses
People need help navigating energy programs.Young people who develop
these programs are focused having information available on the internet
but many older people won’t or don’t use a computer and need help with
15
participati
on
Town of
Ulysses One board member asked if the town could offer property tax help.
16 value
City of
Ithaca
Concern –fridges and efficient appliances designed to last only 8 years,so
replacement costs are high
17 Ithaca Do you have a record of comments from other public and municipal
18 multifamily
City of
Ithaca
Most 1 2 family homes are outside the City and we have a high population
of renters.75%renter/multi family –for funding scope.
Comments from Municipal Board Meetings Regarding
Tompkins Residential Energy Score Program and Implementation Program Draft 2
19 privacy
City of
Ithaca
We do not want to set up a system where people are afraid to get an
assessment on their home,shame factor.I know of programs based on
tax refunds where you need the money upfront for upgrades.Impact on
market value,we cannot have this inadvertently impacting a portion of the
20 funding
City of
Ithaca
Concern:$300,000 is a lot for a one year project.If funded by the City,
might need more benefits explained.
21 funding
City of
Ithaca
County wide project,do we want people to pay for this with their taxes?
Give amount and source of funding,where it might really come from because
right now it is kind of vague.NYSERDA grants?
22 label Ithaca Label:Need to convince people that label is not dependent on behavior
23
participati
on
City of
Ithaca
If voluntary,how will you incentivize people with low efficiency homes to
participate?Concerned with the lack of access to home upgrades for low
income population.Provide more details on how to encourage people across
spectrum of efficiency to participate.
24 evaluation Ithaca Could the results get skewed from the type of people participating?
25 education Ithaca Will the average homeowner understand the difference between the two
26 privacy
City of
Ithaca
The voluntary part is just the decision of whether or not to get the rating
then,the information is public.This is a very different perspective.No control
over whether information is shared.It is like the second you get an audit that
27 privacy Ithaca But since the information is being collected it could get out there in the
28 rating
City of
Ithaca
Made comparison to a food calorie,the amount of energy required to
raise a home temperature one degree.Is the washer,dryer,fridge,etc.
29
assessmen
t
City of
Ithaca
I also am getting mixed messages.TC Assessment office cannot use the
info but the value of the program has market value?Indirectly leads to
impact on home value for low income or high efficiency homes.I believe there
is a correlation between score and value.Need to protect from indirect impacts
30 privacy
City of
Ithaca
This program only works if adoption is widespread.Who is collecting and
controlling the data?Is data reported to central collection facility even if
homeowner does not want it shared?Unclear in draft who controls the data and
31 value
City of
Ithaca
I understand goal of providing information.In my experience there’s
already information available when looking at homes for sale in the form
of 2 years of utility bills.I understand that the user has an impact on that
information,but it is still present already.
32 al RESP Change italicized glossary words to small caps
33 al RESP Add acknowledgements page
34
Town of
Caroline
Bd member Recognizes potential negative impacts on LI residents.
Would like the report to give more info or suggestions about what the
negative impacts are and how they might be mitigated
35
Town of
Caroline
Bd member wanted to know why we were using a County Score rather
than something more universal.This Q reflected confusion about our
proposed label/name as Tompkins County Energy Score Emilie explained
that the actual units of measure were universal and not unique to
Tompkins County but perhaps we need to clarify this in the report that
36
Town of
Caroline
Bd member would our universal score be the same whether the house
was assessed with HERS or DOE rating?
37
Town of
Caroline
Resident If someone doesn't get a score before selling their home then
their home may not be desirable to a buyer..(the implication being that a
seller might have to do something they don't want to do)
38
Town of
Caroline
Bd member said something similar after Emilie left that in 5 yrs,even if
this program is "voluntary"that it becomes defacto regulatory because
the buyer market will demand/expect scores.Bd member saw this a
39
Town of
Caroline Is this being done in other places?What is impact there?
40
Town of
Caroline
Resident how is this info different from looking at a utility bill?Have
anyone compared the rating scale to utility bill?
41
Town of
Caroline Bd member Are realtors supportive of this idea?
42
Town of
Caroline
Emilie's answer interesting yes,supportive if voluntary.Also,that
disclosing energy rating sells faster EVEN IF its a bad score!That buyers
want info want to know what they're getting into
43
Town of
Caroline How well does voluntary program spread by contagion?
44
Town of
Caroline
Have we thought about dove tailing this program with alternative energy
suppliers?VT has poverty but lots of solar farms,so lower energy costs.
45
Town of
Caroline
How does this effect someone who heats with wood,cuts wood from their
own land therefore no heating costs and carbon neutral fuel.But if go to
sell house,house would have low energy rating and decreased sale price.
46
Town of
Caroline Resident Do taxpayers have to pay for this program if its implemented?
47
Town of
Caroline
Bd member There could be problems from homeowners who dispute the
energy score they are given,or want to hire their own person to
determine score.Or conflicting scores.How would these situations be
addressed?What are liability concerns for giving a low score if not
48
Town of
Caroline
Resident How can public get updates and stay informed about this
project?
49
Town of
Danby Are there grants and opportunities available to encourage upgrades?
50
Town of
Danby How are realtors responding to this?
51
Town of
Danby
Great idea to get some idea of energy use of homes when shopping for a
house.It is such a big part of budgeting in deciding whether a house is
52
Town of
Danby Heard that other towns might be considering making this mandatory?
53
Town of
Danby
Is there push back?Are we considering impact?Will my taxes go up if I get
good rating?
54
Town of
Danby How private is rating?Is it like DNA test?
55
Town of
Danby Will we be using National or Vermont rating system and sticker?
56
Town of
Danby
Will information be included on how to better score,and thereby improve
home?
57
Town of
Danby
When we bought our home used NYSEG bills to determine usage,but they
were really bad indicators of our usage.
58
Town of
Danby Will homeowners get report?
59
Town of
Danby Can we get a tax abatement for higher rated homes?
60
Town of
Danby Will there be some kind limit for how long a rating is good for?
June 17, 2016
Dear Planning and Economic Development Committee Members:
The Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee (WDAC) met on June 16 to develop solutions to
the concerns raised at the Planning and ED Committee meeting earlier this month. We are
hopeful that these revisions provide a clearer path toward enhanced diversity and inclusion
provisions in the CIITAP application. In addition, the WDAC will develop a resource packet or
toolkit for prospective employers so that preparation of the required diversity plan is streamlined
and employers can quickly access area resources which are available to them. We remain eager
to continue this discussion and also to develop a program to provide funds for worker training to
ensure greater success for underrepresented groups in the local workforce. We appreciate the
opportunity to be a part of the process of revising the CIITAP program and continue to be
available to assist you as this moves forward.
Respectfully,
The Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee.
6.) Diversity and Inclusion
In order to meet diversity requirements, single use Project end-users (projects developed
specifically for one corporate end-user such as a hotel or bank) must commit to the following:
A. Action:
The Project end-user will:
o become active members of the Diversity Consortium of Tompkins County, attend
the bi-annual Diversity Roundtable, and participate in the Diversity Consortium's
annual workshops and events. Active membership is defined as paying annual
membership dues, attending a minimum of four meetings of the Consortium per
calendar year, participating in at least two of the approximately 6 trainings offered
per year and attending the bi-annual conference when offered; and
o establish and implement management strategies for hiring, retention and
promotion of women, people of color and people with disabilities for part time,
internship, and full-time positions at all levels of their organization with the goal
of employing a workforce in which the number of women, people of color, and
people with disabilities meets or exceeds a number in proportions equal to that of
the population of the City of Ithaca demographics; and
o identify and implement specific actions designed to reduce and address
unconscious workplace biases, such as annual staff training; and
B. Reporting:
The Project end-user will provide to both TCAD and the City's Workforce Diversity
Advisory Committee, on March 1st for each year of the abatement period, annual
reports detailing:
o Workforce diversity goals and strategies utilized each year to increase hiring,
retention and promotion of women, people of color, and people with disabilities,
and
o Actions taken to reduce and address unconscious workplace biases, and
o Workforce demographics by:
gender,
race/ethnicity,
age,
disability,
job class and gender, and
job class and race/ethnicity
o Compliance with the active participation in the Diversity Consortium requirement
as listed above.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham
Kerslick, Ducson Nguyen, Cynthia Brock, and
Josephine Martell
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner;
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner; Nels Bohn,
Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency
(IURA); Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability
Coordinator, City of Ithaca; Deborah Grunder,
Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Ed Marx, Tompkins County Planning
Commissioner
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
There were no changes made to the agenda.
2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
Theresa Alt, 206 Eddy Street, spoke on the CIITAP energy standards proposal. She
is very much in favor. Why not 20% above the state code for any abatement? Both
large and small hotels are very large energy users. They pay low wages. She
doesn’t think they deserve any tax abatements.
William Skipper, 117 Pearsall Place, spoke in favor of the backyard chicken
ordinance. He is anxiously awaiting to participate in the program.
Steve Fontana, 327 Eddy Street, encourages Council to consider allowing more
flexibility in the Collegetown Street-Level Active Use as to what is considered an
active use. There are just fewer retailers, restaurants, and bars as it stands now in
the Collegetown area. Don’t limit those who want to continue in the retail world.
Nathan Lyman, 1322 East State Street, spoke on the energy portion of the proposed
CIITAP program. He further agreed with Steve Fontana’s comments. There should
be no limitation on tenant use as long as they are willing to pay for that space.
Monika Roth, 111 Worth Street, spoke in favor of the chicken ordinance and stated
that Cooperative Extension is very willing to help the City and those that want to
participate in the program. With most chickens serving as laying birds, they have
ways to take over to ‘put out to pasture’ those that are no longer in egg production.
Sara Hess, 124 Westfield Drive, spoke in favor of the energy suggestions in the
CIITAP program. She further spoke on methane gas from shale extractions across
the country as the major reasons for climate change. 30 to 40% above code is a
great first step. Her suggestion is no new gas.
Joanie Groome, 435 N. Tioga Street, spoke in opposition of the language in the
chicken ordinance referring to the slaughtering of chickens as very disturbing. The
slaughter of chickens is a gruesome act. If there are those who want to slaughter
their chickens, they should be taken off the property and handled elsewhere.
Brian Eden, 147 North Sunset Drive, from the Town of Ithaca legislature spoke on
CIITAP Sustainability building practices. Climate change must be taken into
consideration on what we do. People need to be educated.
Sharon Swink, 321 North Albany Street, thanked the City for their work on bringing
this updated chicken ordinance forward as well as thanked Cooperative Extension
for their offer to help with the program.
Chair Murtagh thanked Mr. Fontana to offer staying after to discuss his concerns,
but meeting practices don’t allow that. JoAnn Cornish stated the Planning
Department will reach out to him.
3) Special Order of Business
a) Public Hearing: 2016 HUD Entitlement Action Plan
Alderperson Brock moved to open the public hearing; Alderperson Nguyen
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
No one from the public spoke on this topic
Alderperson Brock moved to close the public hearing; Alderperson Nguyen
seconded it. Passed unanimously.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Dredging Update –
Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner, provided a dredging update starting with the very
beginning. The flood control channel was built by the Army Corp of Engineers.
The dredging is to collect the sediment in the flood control channel. The next
phase will be to remove the sediment from the channel. Within this channel also
lies the navigation channel. The sediments will be moved to a 67-acre parcel in
the southwest area of the City. The total project is funded for $13M. We are in
Phase I of this project with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
taking the lead. DEC hired Obrien & Gere Engineering. There is a draft of the
sediment facility – a 9.5 acre area.
Nicholas stated we know where the dredging will take place, and we know how
the sediment will be taken out – on a large barge with a suction type machine.
Obrien & Gere have provided a very conservative estimate to build this facility of
$4M. A memorandum of understanding will be agreed upon between DEC and
the City as to how the project will go forward and be handled. The uncertainties
are: When will this happen? How much will it cost? Where will it be removed
from, i.e., what parts of the inlet? And how do we get the dry sediments off the
site?
Alderperson Brock stated she knows that this has been going on for a very long
time. What does need to be also considered are the areas near the Haunt and
Cascadilla Creek, etc. As a City, should we focus on retaining more money?
Nicholas stated that there is $2M to use, however the City will need to obtain
more money to finish this.
Chair Murtagh asked if the City can do anything to step up this process. With the
threat of additional flooding within the City, it’s crucial that this move quicker than
it’s been.
5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council)
a) 2016 HUD Entitlement Action Plan
2016 Action Plan – HUD Entitlement Program
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed unanimously.
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca (City) is eligible to receive an annual formula allocation of funds to
address community development needs through the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development (HUD) Entitlement program from the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program funding sources, and
WHERAS, the City has contracted with the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency (IURA) to administer,
implement and monitor the City’s HUD Entitlement program in compliance with all applicable
regulations, and
WHEREAS, on an annual basis an Action Plan must be submitted to HUD to access HUD
Entitlement program funding allocated to the City, and
WHEREAS, the 2016 Action Plan identifies a specific list of budgeted community development
activities to be funded from the 2016 HUD Entitlement program allocation and associated funds
administered by the IURA, and
WHEREAS, funding available to be allocated through the 2016 Action Plan funding process is
anticipated to include the following:
$661,371.00 CDBG 2016 allocation
$21,749.57 CDBG 2014 de-obligated funds
$130,000.00 CDBG 2016 projected program income
$328,050.00 HOME 2016 allocation
$41,115.40 HOME 2015 carryover and de-obligated funds
$273,869.00 HOME 2014 de-obligated funds
$215,875.00 Neighborhood Housing Initiative bond funds
$1,671672,829029.97 Total, and
WHEREAS, the IURA utilized an open and competitive project selection process for
development of the 2015 Action Plan in accordance with the City of Ithaca Citizen Participation
Plan, and
WHEREAS, at their April 14, 2016 meeting, the IURA adopted a recommended 2016 Action Plan;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Common Council for the City of Ithaca hereby adopts the IURA -
recommended 2016 Action Plan, dated April 14, 2016 for allocation of the City’s 2016 HUD
Entitlement Program award along with additional funds listed above totaling
$1,671672,829029.97, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Urban Renewal Plan shall be amended to include activities funded in the
adopted 2016 Action Plan.
Alderperson Brock moved a friendly amendment to the resolution correcting the total of
funding to $1,672,029.77 from $1,671,829.77; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen.
Passed unanimously.
b) Amendment to Collegetown Area Form Districts Street-Level Active Use
Moved by Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Carried
Unanimously.
An Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of the City Of Ithaca,
Chapter 325, Entitled “Zoning,” To Amend the Street-Level Active
Use Requirement in the Collegetown Area Form Districts
ORDINANCE NO. ____
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of
Ithaca that Chapter 325, Zoning, be amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 325 (“Zoning”), Section 325-45.3 (“Street-
Level Active Uses Required”) of the Municipal Code of the City
of Ithaca is hereby amended as follows:
325-45.3B Street-Level Active Uses Required
(1) Within the MU-2 district, street-level active
uses are required on the entire street-level of
for the street-facing portions of all buildings
fronting on those portions sections of College
Avenue, Dryden Road, and Eddy Street designated
on the map below.
(2) Active street-level uses are one of the keys to
vitality of the Collegetown core area and are
defined as uses that encourage high levels of
pedestrian activity, enliven the streetscape, and
create well-lit space with ample visibility into
the storefront area. Active uses are defined as
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Retail store or service commercial facility
(b) Restaurant, fast food establishment, or
tavern
(c) Theater, bowling alley, auditorium, or other
similar places of public assembly
(d) Hotel
(e) Library or fire station
(e) (f) Public park or playground
(f) (g) Bank or monetary institution
(g) Confectionary, millinery, dressmaking, and
other activities involving light hand
fabrication as well as sales.
(3) Additional uses may be permitted if the Planning
and Development Board determines them to be an
active use and grants special approval for the
use. The Planning Board may also grant a special
approval of a non-active use if a property owner
is able to show that the physical structure is
not easily adaptable to be used as one of the
above listed active uses.
Section 2. Severability. Severability is intended throughout
and within the provisions of this local law. If any section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this local
law is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect
immediately and in accordance with law upon publication of
notices as provided in the Ithaca City Charter.
b) Backyard Chickens
ORDINANCE __-2015
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code
Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Martell. Passed 4 – 1.
WHEREAS, Chapter 164 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code prohibits the keeping of
chickens in the City, and;
WHEREAS, the City has received requests from citizens to allow chickens in backyard coops
and there is an active backyard chicken movement within the City, and;
WHEREAS, chicken keeping is part of a larger sustainability trend to allow citizens to grow
their own foods – including fruits, vegetables and honey production – by reducing barriers,
which restrict local food production. These sustainability trends are congruent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan goals, such as support for our community gardens and active living
initiatives, and;
WHEREAS, the Common Council desires to enable the keeping of backyard chickens in the
City; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows:
Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Common Council finds that backyard chickens, if properly
maintained, can prove a positive initiative for the City, promoting food sustainability, increasing
animal welfare and providing fresh eggs free from pesticides and chemicals, without presenting a
nuisance to neighboring residents or properties.
Section 2. Amendments to Section 164-2(B).
Section 164-2(B) shall be amended to read as follows:
Exception. This section shall not apply to the keeping of chickens to the extent authorized by
Article III of this Chapter, nor to any educational, scientific or research institution
maintaining, with adequate safeguards as to public health, safety, comfort and convenience, any
animals or other creatures for scientific, medical or other research purposes.
Section 3. Amendments to Section 164-4
Section 164-4 shall be amended to read as follows:
Except as provided in the Agriculture and Markets Law, a violation of this article constitutes a
civil offense punishable in accordance with § 1-1 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code except
that the unlawful keeping of chickens in the City shall be punishable as follows:
(a) $250 for the first violation:
(b) $500 for the second violation: and
(c) $750 for the third or subsequent violation.
These penalties shall be in addition to any other penalties provided by law.
Section 4. Creation of Article III to Chapter 164
An Article III of Chapter 164 is hereby created as follows:
Article III: Backyard Chickens
164-21: Definitions
Lot: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter.
Lot Square Footage: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter.
Property Class Code: As defined in section C-73(C)(1) of the City Charter.
Rear Yard: As defined in section 325-3 of the City Code.
164-22 Backyard Chickens
The prohibition against keeping chickens in this Chapter shall, during a two-year pilot program
that shall expire on May 1, 2018, not apply to up to twenty pilot applicants approved for the
keeping of up to four female chickens (hens) per 3,000 Square Foot Lot while the animals are
kept in such a manner that all requirements of this Article are satisfied.
164-23: Requirements for Keeping Chickens
A. Chickens may only be kept on those Lots with a Property Class Code of 210, 215, 220,
240, 250, or substantially identical successor designations.
B. Chickens may only be kept on those Lots possessing a Lot Square Footage of not less
than 3,000 square feet.
C. No chicken facility or any structure that houses chickens or any fenced pen area, either
temporarily or permanently, shall be located within any of the following prohibited areas:
1. Within the setback requirements of the zone in which it is located;
2. Within twenty feet of any adjacent Lot’s residential principal structure or
accessory structure that contains a residential unit, or within five feet of any
principal structure on the Lot housing the chickens; and
3. Within five feet from any abutting residential property line, unless the adjacent
owner agrees in writing to a lesser setback.
D. Chickens may only be kept by a domiciliary of a dwelling unit located on the Lot on
which the chickens are kept.
E. Chickens must be kept in and confined in a properly designed and constructed coop or
chicken house, or a fenced and covered enclosure that is at least 4 square feet per chicken
in size, which additionally includes a run. Each covered coop and run combined shall be
located in, and shall not cover more than 50% of, the Rear Yard of the Lot.
F. It shall be unlawful for any person to allow hens to run at large upon the streets, alleys or
other public places of the City, or upon the property of any other person.
Commented [AL1]: Using PCC's here will be very exact--which
is good--but recognize that various PCC-classified single- and two-
family homes do house 3+ families (and perfectly legally so).
Commented [AL2]: Using PCC's here will be very exact--which
is good--but recognize that note that various PCC-classified single-
and two-family homes do house 3+multiple families (and perfectly
legally so).
Commented [AL3]: For definitions, see
http://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/assess/manuals/prclas.htm#
residential.
Commented [AL4]: This means it must be their primary
residence…
G. During daylight hours the adult chickens shall have access to the chicken coop and,
weather permitting, shall have access to an outdoor enclosure on the subject property,
adequately fenced to contain the chickens and to prevent access to the chickens by dogs
and other predators.
H. Chicken feed must be in rodent resistant and weather proof containers.
I. A chicken coop, and the premises where the chicken coop is located, shall be maintained
in a condition such that the facility or chickens do not produce noise or odor that creates a
nuisance for adjoining Lots and the responsible domiciliary and the owner shall remove
any odorous or unsanitary condition. The Lot owner shall be responsible for the repair on
any adjoining Lot of any damage caused by the chickens, including but not limited to
damage to dwellings, structures and yards, and shall be responsible for any unsafe
condition.
J. The person keeping the chickens shall abide by all Solid Waste Storage and Collection
standards of the City's Exterior Property Maintenance Code, §331-7.
K. Roosters and Guinea Fowl are expressly prohibited, regardless of the age or maturity of
the bird.
L. Pilot registration pursuant to Section 164-24 is required for the keeping of chickens.
M. Approved pilot registrants must complete a seminar regarding the care of chickens in an
urban environment from the Cornell Cooperative Extension Office, or similarly qualified
organization acceptable to the Clerk’s Office.
164-24: Pilot Registration Process and Parameters.
A. No more than twenty pilot registrations for the keeping of chickens shall be approved
under this Article III.
B. Registration shall take place at the City of Ithaca Clerk’s Office upon submission of a
$35 registration fee, and verification of a completed chicken-keeping seminar.
C. The City Clerk and Police Department shall, at least three months prior to the expiration
of the pilot program, report to a Committee of the Common Council on the status of the
pilot program.
D. Should the pilot program not be extended after the two-year period, Cornell Cooperative
Extension Office may help re-home the hens in the program.
E. The City Clerk may revoke registration for a specific site via written notice to the
property owner when the City Clerk or designee finds, at his or her sole discretion, that
any requirements of this Article are not met, a rebuttable presumption of which shall be
created by (a) a record of three or more complaints to the Ithaca Police Department about
a specific site’s chickens, (b) on the recommendation of Cornell Cooperative Extension,
or (c) on the recommendation of the Ithaca Police Department. Upon revocation, the City
Clerk shall notify the owner in writing of the same, in compliance with sub-section 164-
25, and if the revocation stands, the owner must remove the hens from the property in
coordination with such assistance as may be available from the Cornell Cooperative
Extension Office, who may assist with rehoming them.
164-25: Remedies Not Exclusive.
The remedies provided by this Article are cumulative and not mutually exclusive and are in
addition to any other rights, remedies, and penalties available to the City under any other
provision of law.
A. Any chickens that are not kept as required in this Article shall be deemed a public nuisance
and the owner or custodian shall be given thirty days to rectify the conditions creating the
public nuisance. In any case in which the City intends to correct a violation of this chapter,
including removing and confiscating any chickens present, and then bill the property owner
for the correction of the violation, the City Clerk or his/her designee shall notify the
registrant and the owner of the property and, where relevant, the registered agent who has
assumed responsibility as outlined in § 178-5 of this Code, in writing, of any violation of this
chapter.
B. Any notice required by this section shall be served in person or by mail to the address on the
registration form and the address appearing on the City tax roll, requiring such person,
within a time specified in such notice but in no event less than thirty days from the service or
mailing thereof, to comply with this chapter and to abate the nuisance and, as appropriate, to
remove the chickens. Such notice shall also state that the property owner may contest the
finding of the City Clerk by making a written request to have a hearing on the matter held at
the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Public Works.
C. Any request for such a hearing must be mailed and postmarked or personally delivered to the
City Clerk within fourteen days of the service or mailing of notice, and any such written
request for a hearing shall automatically stay further enforcement concerning the alleged
violation pending such hearing. The decision of the Board of Public Works, by majority
vote, shall be binding, subject to any further judicial review available to either the City or the
property owner.
D. Upon the failure of a registrant or property owner to comply with the notice of violation of
this chapter (or, alternatively, to request a hearing as aforesaid within the time limit stated in
such notice, or upon a Board of Public Works’ determination, after such a hearing, that a
violation exists), the City Clerk shall refer the matter, by memorandum, to the
Superintendent of Public Works, who shall cause such premises to be put in such condition
as will comply and shall charge the cost thereof to the owner of said premises, including a
charge of 50% for supervision and administration. The minimum charge to the property
owner for such work shall be $50.
E. The City Chamberlain shall promptly present to the owner of any parcel so corrected a bill
rendered for such services, as certified by the Superintendent of Public Works. If not paid
within 30 days, the cost thereof shall be assessed against the property, added to its tax and
become a lien thereon, collectible in the same manner as delinquent City taxes. Appeals
from this section shall only be permitted if written notice of appeal is received by the Ithaca
City Clerk within 45 days after the mailing of the bill from the Chamberlain, and such
appeals shall be taken to the Board of Public Works.
Section 5. Severability. Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of this
Ordinance. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication as
provided for in the City Charter.
6) Discussion
a) Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP)
Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Coordinator, was joined by Nels Bohn, Director, IURA,
and Ed Marx, Tompkins County Planning Commissioner for this discussion.
Nick Goldsmith reviewed the recommendations outlined below and took questions
from the committee.
The County and IDA hired Tatum Engineering to help with suggested changes.
RE: Energy standards for CIITAP program
Below are recommendations for the energy standards to be included in the CIITAP
program. These recommendations are informed by the work done by the CIITAP
working group, public comments received during and after the working group was
active, and research performed since the working group finished.
The recommendations below are consistent with my comments to Jennifer Kusznir
submitted January 6, 2016, but are more stringent than those developed in the CIITAP
working group, for a number of reasons:
Additional evidence of the financial feasibility of building more efficiently
Increased interest in 2030 District standards at the local, County, and national level
Additional evidence of other states and local governments adopting goals and
policies supporting net-zero construction by the year 2030 or earlier
Recognition that the City’s goal of 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the
year 2050 will not be attainable without dramatic changes to the commercial
building sector, which is responsible for 50% of City emissions
RECOMMENDATION
Basic Eligibility Criteria
In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for tax abatement under CIITAP,
a project/developer must:
Conduct annual benchmarking of energy usage during the term of the abatement
o Benchmarking would be conducted using the free online software, EPA
Energy Star Portfolio Manager. This tracking would show whether the
building is using energy at the level designed.
o Benchmarking report would be provided to the City and to the IDA.
o The information would also be made available to the public.
Be designed and constructed to use at least 10% less energy than required by the
New York State Energy Code
o The New York State code used in this program will be the code that is
planned to go into effect October 2016, which is based on the 2015
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2015).
o Buildings would be required to be designed and constructed to meet a certain
site Energy Use Index specific to the building type, as indicated in the table
below.
o The Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of annual energy use per square
foot.
o The designed EUI would be verified through the process of receiving a
NYSERDA rebate for energy efficient new construction, or by an alternate
compliance path.
Enhanced Eligibility Criteria
In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for an enhanced tax abatement
under CIITAP, a project/developer must build to 30% better than code. Specifically, the
project/developer must:
Conduct annual benchmarking of energy usage during the term of the abatement
o Benchmarking would be conducted using the free online software, EPA
Energy Star Portfolio Manager. This tracking would show whether the
building is using energy at the level designed.
o Benchmarking report would be provided to the City and to the IDA.
o The information would also be made available to the public.
Be designed and constructed to use at least 30% less energy than required by the
New York State Energy Code
o The New York State code used in this program will be the code that is
planned to go into effect October 2016, which is based on the 2015
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2015).
o Buildings would be required to be designed and constructed to meet a certain
site Energy Use Index specific to the building type, as indicated in the table
below.
o The Energy Use Index (EUI) is a measure of annual energy use per square
foot.
o The designed EUI would be verified through the process of receiving a
NYSERDA rebate for energy efficient new construction, or by an alternate
compliance path.
TO CONSIDER – OPTION B FOR ENHANCED ABATEMENT
In order to meet the energy requirement to be eligible for an enhanced tax abatement
under CIITAP, a project/developer must build to 40% better than code. This is in line
with the 2030 District Standards, which has the goal of decreasing energy use in new
construction, with the ultimate goal of net zero energy construction by the year 2030.
NYS CODE
as of October
2016
(IECC 2015)
BASIC
ELIGIBILITY
10% better
than code
ENHANCED
ELIGIBILITY
30% better
than code
TO
CONSIDER
40% better
than code
Office
Small Office 30 27 21 18
Large Office 72 65 50 43
Lodging
Small Hotel 60 54 42 36
Large Hotel 88 79 62 53
Retail
Standalone Retail 47 42 33 28
Apartment
Mid-Rise Apartment 44 40 31 26
High-Rise Apartment 48 43 34 29
DRAFT Energy Use Standard for CIITAP tax abatement 05-05-16
Energy Use Index
(annual site energy use per square foot, measured in kBtu)
Source: Energy and Energy Cost Savings Analysis of the 2015 IECC for Commercial Buildings, U.S.
DOE, August 2015
Building Type
Please feel free to contact me with any questions at ngoldsmith@cityofithaca.org or on
my cell at 917-270-1683.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) April 2016 – Moved by Alderperson Brock with recommended changes;
seconded by Alderperson Nguyen. Passed unanimously.
8) Adjournment
Moved by Alderperson Nguyen; seconded by Alderperson Kerslick. Passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
City of Ithaca
Planning & Economic Development Committee
Wednesday, June 8, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street
Minutes
Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Graham
Kerslick, Ducson Nguyen, Cynthia Brock, and
Josephine Martell
Committee Members Absent: None
Other Elected Officials Attending: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Department of
Planning, Building, Zoning, and Economic
Development; Megan Wilson, Senior Planner;
Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency (IURA); Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability
Coordinator, City of Ithaca; Deborah Grunder,
Executive Assistant
Others Attending: Sue Kittel, Workforce Diversity Advisory
Commission (WDAC); Heather Filiberto, Ithaca
Development Agency (IDA)
Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1) Call to Order/Agenda Review
The May 2016 minutes will not be voted on at this meeting.
2) Public Comment and Response from Committee Members
There was no one from the public to speak.
3) Special Order of Business
a) Residential Energy Score Project
Currently it is not mandatory to have a home inspection in the current market, but
most people do. This might make these inspections mandatory.
Two years of utility bills is often requested when one puts their home up for sale.
A program is only effective if people help provide the data that is needed.
Not all people will be willing to provide all the data that is collected. That needs
to be reviewed and taken into consideration.
Alderperson Brock stated that this evaluation may not analyze all that is needed.
The person who does the rating cannot provide the ‘owner’ of the data collected.
The database is secure and can be searched via address. The homeowner will
have control as to who has access to the data collected.
Alderperson Kerslick asked if this is voluntary, how will you encourage the
homeowners to go through this process.
Alderperson Kerslick further stated that this being a County wide project, funding
for this program should be stated up front. If and when this program goes
forward, how will it be funded?
Chair Murtagh asked whether to move this forward tonight for a vote at the July
council meeting. Nick Goldsmith stated that it has been in the works for some
time.
JoAnn Cornish asked whether comments made from the other municipalities and
public could be made available to this group. The answer is yes.
The draft resolution provided with the committee agenda packet was not acted
on. It will come back in July for further discussion and to pass on to Council for
their August meeting.
4) Announcements, Updates, and Reports
a) Comprehensive Plan
Now that Phase I is complete, JoAnn Cornish provided an update on Phase II of
the City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. Three core topics have been identified
within the neighborhood section of the plan. Two neighborhood plans judged as
most important are the Southside and the Waterfront neighborhoods. The third
topic focuses on housing strategies and the state of the housing market in the
City.
For the Southside Plan, the City worked with Cornell City and Regional Planning
Professor Jen Minner and her class who examined the 2006 draft to find where it
was in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan, where there were gaps in
analysis, and fill in those missing sections. The Southside Plan was the number
one priority for Phase II. The class has submitted their draft, a review committee
is being put together, and the City hopes to kick off the public process in the next
month or so.
The Waterfront Plan is also being reviewed. The department has been putting
together a summary of what needs to be done, the area of analysis has been
reviewed, and the department is going though previous plans to try and figure out
what is relevant to today’s economic and real estate climate.
The third topic also under review is the City’s housing strategy. There are two
housing studies currently being done – the County’s and the DIA. Both are
working with the Danter Company who completed a previous housing study for
the DIA in 2012. The DIA (Downtown Ithaca Alliance) is just starting their study.
Rents, projected needs, etc. are being collected. The City’s plan is waiting for
the County and the DIA plans to help fill the gap with housing.
Alderperson Brock stated that is wonderful data to collect. With the removal of
parking requirements, per Mike Niechwiadowicz stated over 1,000 additional
apartments have been created.
Alderperson Brock stated that our rezoning in the City has increased the cost to
live in the City.
5) Action Items (Voting to Send onto Council)
a) Amendment to City-IURA Professional Services Agreement
12/12/125/12/16 5/26/16
CITY-IURA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
GOVERNING ADMINISTRATION OF HUD ENTITLEMENT FUNDS AWARDED TO CITY OF ITHACA
Made this _____ day of ___________, 2013 2016 by and between The CITY OF ITHACA, a municipal
corporation with offices at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, hereinafter called the “City”, and
the ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, an urban renewal agency formed pursuant to the provisions of
General Municipal Law, having its principal office at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York, 14850,
hereinafter called “IURA”,
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is a recipient of certain Entitlement Grants (“CPD Formula Grant
Funds”) through the Community Planning and Development (hereinafter “CPD”) program office of the
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”), including the Community Development
Block Grant (“CDBG”) program and the Housing Investment Partnership Program (“HOME”); and
WHEREAS, to access CPD Formula Grant Funds the City must prepare and submit to HUD each
year either a Consolidated Plan or an Action Plan (the section of the Consolidated Plan that is updated
each year) prepared in accordance with applicable regulations and comply with reporting and
accomplishment requirements; and
WHEREAS, by annual resolution, the City of Ithaca has duly authorized the IURA to administer its
CDBG and HOME programs each year since the City was designated as a CPD formula grant recipient in
2004; and
WHEREAS, the IURA has been administering the City’s CDBG program continuously since 1975;
and
WHEREAS, HUD correspondence dated August 27, 2012, requests that an agreement between
the City and the IURA be executed clarifying the roles and responsibilities for administering CPD Formula
Grants awarded as the City is the legal applicant and recipient under applicable HUD rules; and
WHEREAS, HUD correspondence acknowledges the existing operational structure has allowed
the City to successfully administer and implement CPD Formula Grants and that the request for an
agreement between the City and the IURA does not result from any performance deficiency; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the administration of the City’s CDBG and HOME programs, IURA staff
may from time to time be available to assist the City with the completion of other activities that are
related to, or support, the mission of the IURA;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties
hereto do mutually agree as follows:
Section 1. Definitions
Unless specifically provided otherwise or the context otherwise requires, when used in this Agreement:
“CAPER” means Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, an annual document
reporting on how CPD Formula Grant Funds have been used to carry out the community’s
housing and community development strategies, projects and activities, including a summary of
accomplishments.
“CDBG” means Community Development Block Grant, a program of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“CPD” means the Community Planning and Development program office of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development that oversees CDBG and HOME programs.
“HOME” means HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a grant program of the Unites States
Department of Housing and Urban Development designed to help communities expand the
supply of decent and affordable rental and ownership housing for low-income families.
“HUD” means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“Program Income” means gross income received by IURA from its use of CPD Formula Grant
Funds and shall further have the meaning defined at 24 CFR 570.500(a) for income generated
from the use of CDBG funds, and 24 CFR 570.92.2 for income generated from the use of HOME
funds.
Section 2. Overall Roles and Responsibilities
2.1 IURA shall act as the City’s lead agency to plan, administer, implement and monitor CPD
formula grants awarded to the City in accordance with all program requirements, including but
not limited to the following regulations:
• 24 CFR 570.200 - 570.309 – CDBG Eligible Activities and Entitlement Grants;
• 24 CFR 570.500-513 – CDBG Grant Administration;
• 24 CRF 570.600-614 – Crosscutting Program Requirements;
• 24 CFR Part 91 – Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development
Programs; and
• 24 CFR Part 92 – HOME Regulations.
2.2 City retains overall responsibility for ensuring that CPD formula funds are used in accordance
with all program requirements.
2.3 City is responsible for determining the adequacy of performance by the IURA of its duties
pursuant to this Agreement.
2.4 City is responsible to adopt the Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action Plan, the Citizen
Participation Plan, including any significant amendment to the above documents, and execute
the CAPER.
2.5 IURA shall submit adopted plans to HUD to access CPD Formula Grant funds.
2.52.6 In addition to the forgoing, IURA may assist the City with other activities that are directly related
to, or support, the mission of the IURA. Such assistance will be offered at the sole discretion of the
IURA, based upon the availability of staff to complete the task.
Section 3. Statement of Work
Action Plans
3.1 IURA shall prepare and submit to the City the following required recipient submissions to HUD
to access CPD Formula Grant Funds:
(a) Consolidated Plan – A 5-year strategic community development plan that identifies
community needs, resources, and priorities, and establishes goals and objectives for use of
CPD formula funds to address priority community needs.
(b) Annual Action Plan – A one-year plan that provides a description and budget of the activities
the City will undertake to address specific local objectives and priority needs that will be
addressed using CPD formula grant funds and program income.
(c) CAPER – An annual document reporting on progress made in carrying out the Consolidated
Plan and the Annual Action Plan.
(d) Citizen Participation Plan – This plan sets forth the City’s policies and procedures for citizen
participation in the development, and any amendment of, the Consolidated Plan, the Annual
Action Plan, the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, and establishes a
procedure to receive complaints.
3.2 IURA shall make its best effort to implement eligible activities included in City-Adopted Action
Plans in accordance with applicable regulations through loan and or grant agreements,
procurement contracts, through the City or other public agencies, or by the IURA’s employees
and/or contractors.
Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund
3.3 IURA shall make its best effort to implement the Community Development Revolving Loan
Program and the Priority Business Loan Program (collectively known as the “ED Revolving Loan
Program”) by using CDBG Funds to make loans consistent with the goals and objectives of the
ED Revolving Loan Program as set forth in the “IURA Economic Development Financing Policy
Guidelines and Operating Plan” and any subsequent revisions thereto, such plan being
incorporated by reference and made a part hereof.
3.4 In implementing the ED Revolving Loan Program, the IURA shall be responsible for the following
activities as appropriate:
(a) Documentation of CDBG underwriting process consistent with the regulations at 24 CFR
570.209 and Appendix A to 24 CFR 570” Guidelines and Objectives for Evaluating Project
Costs and Financial Requirements”;
(b) Performance of a written credit analysis and presentation of loan applications to the IURA;
(c) Maintenance of relevant information regarding the loan review;
(d) All actions necessary to effect ED Loan Program loan closings including, but not limit to, the
preparation of loan agreements, security agreements, promissory notes, guarantees, and
other legal documents as appropriate and in a form consistent with standard commercial
lending practices and with applicable rules, regulations, and policies of the CDBG program;
(e) Performance of all administrative activities required pursuant to the use of CDBG funds
including, but not limited to, environmental review requirements, maintenance of book of
account, procurement and maintenance of statistical information including job
creation/retention; and
(f) Monitoring loan repayment and borrower’s compliance with loan terms, and enforcing
security agreements and guarantees.
Housing Revolving Loan Fund
3.5 IURA shall administer and monitor program income derived from CPD Formula Grant Funds in
possession of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (“INHS”) in the Housing Revolving
Loan Fund for compliance with applicable regulations.
Environmental Review
3.6 With respect to environmental review requirements, the parties hereto acknowledge that City
shall retain the ultimate responsibility for compliance, but that IURA shall cooperate with City in
conducting environmental reviews and preparing proposed environmental determinations,
notices and requests in compliance with environmental responsibilities described at 24 CFR
570.604 and 24 CFR 92.352.
General
3.7 All activities undertaken by IURA with CPD Formula Grant Funds pursuant to this agreement
shall be eligible activities pursuant to the regulations at 24 CFR Part 570 and 24 CFR Part 92.
3.8 IURA shall make its best efforts to accomplish its duties in an expeditious manner pursuant to
this Agreement.
Section 4. Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS)
IDIS is a web-based system that provides financial disbursement, tracking, and reporting activities for
CPD Formula Grant Fund programs. Information about each activity funded with CPD Formula Grant
funds, including the estimated budget, expected accomplishments and beneficiaries is uploaded into the
IDIS.
4.1 IURA is responsible for completing all IDIS grantee functions and submissions except for
drawdown approval authority, which is retained by the City. IURA responsibilities include set up
of the adopted Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan, set up of projects, set up of activities to
implement projects, activity funding, prepare drawdown vouchers and accomplishment
reporting.
4.2 City is responsible for approving drawdown vouchers.
Section 5. Disbursements and Management of CPD Formula Grant Funds
5.1 IURA is responsible for disbursing and managing CPD Formula Grant Funds to make grants,
forgivable loans, deferred loans and amortizing loans and other third party costs incurred by the
IURA to carry out eligible activities included in an adopted Action Plan in accordance with
policies governing such financial assistance pursuant to the regulations at 24 CFR Part 570 and
24 CFR Part 92.
5.2 IURA may use CPD Formula Grant Funds to pay for its reasonable and eligible planning and
administrative costs pursuant to the regulations at 24 CFR 570.205 and 506.206 and 24 CFR
92.207. No more than 20% of the sum of any CDBG grant awarded plus program income shall
be expended for planning and administrative costs. Not more than 10% of the sum of any
HOME funds awarded plus program income shall be expended for reasonable administrative
and planning costs.
5.3 IURA may use CPD Formula Grant Funds for reasonable staff and overhead costs directly
involved in carrying out eligible CDBG activities included in an adopted Action Plan referred to as
“activity delivery costs”, which are eligible as part of such activities.
5.4 The IURA shall document general administrative, program delivery and revolving loan program
costs of CPD Formula Grant Funds as follows:
(a) Direct costs of IURA shall be documented by timesheets, invoices, or other appropriate
information to evidence the nature and reasonableness of the cost. Such costs may include,
but are not limited to employee salaries, benefits, and other compensation at rates not to
exceed those paid by IURA for work not provided pursuant to this Agreement; and actual
costs of materials, equipment, bonding, insurance and services incurred by IURA;
(b) Indirect costs of IURA shall be reimbursed only where a written plan for the charging of such
costs has been approved by HUD. Such costs are those which are charged as a percentage
of direct costs and may include occupancy and equipment costs (including depreciation),
maintenance, repair, and similar costs which are charged on a prorated basis; and
(c) All costs charged by IURA pursuant to this section shall be consistent with the provisions of
OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments”.
5.5 IURA may retain and use CDBG program income on hand that is deposited in a separate
Revolving Fund in accordance with regulations contained at 24 CFR 570.504 for the purpose of
carrying out specific eligible activities, such as making certain loans to small businesses, which,
in turn, generate payments to the fund for use in carrying out the same activities. IURA may use
CDBG program income to make loans and to pay program delivery and general administrative
costs consistent with the goals and objectives of the ED Revolving Loan Program as described in
Section 3.3 of this Agreement.
5.6 To access CPD Formula Grant Funds awarded to the City, IURA shall submit a City voucher to the
City Controller for eligible costs to accomplish the Statement of Work, along with supporting
cost documentation.
5.7 IURA shall prepare a web-based IDIS voucher, pursuant to the City voucher, to draw CPD
Formula Grant Funds awarded to the City.
5.8 Upon City Controller approval of the City voucher, an authorized City employee shall timely
approve the IDIS voucher to draw CPD Formula Grant Funds into the City’s grant account.
5.9 City shall timely transfer CPD formula Grant Funds received in the City’s grant account to the
IURA account upon receipt of CPD Formula Grant Funds.
5.10 All cash balances of CPD Formula Grant Funds shall be maintained by IURA in an interest bearing
account pursuant to the provisions of 24 CFR 570.500(b) and 24 CFR 92.502(c). Consistent with
the provisions of 24 CFR 85.21(i), any bank interest paid on such account shall be paid to HUD no
less than annually.
Section 6. Financial Management and Administrative Requirements
6.1 IURA shall maintain a financial management system of CPD Formula Grant funds in accordance
with 24 CFR 85.20 to ensure a financial system is in place that provides effective control over
and accountability for all CPD Formula Grant Funds, property, and other assets, and includes a
comparison of financial information reported on IDIS with financial records of actual assets and
liabilities.
6.2 Parties hereto acknowledge that the IURA will maintain financial records to comply with audit
requirements of OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations” and City will integrate IURA finances into the City’s annual audit.
6.3 IURA shall comply with OMB Circular A-110 “Standards for Financial Management Systems”,
Attachment F, subparagraphs 2a. through 2d., 2f. and 2g.
6.4 Where costs incurred by IURA are to paid with CPD Formula Grant Funds, such costs shall be
charged in conformance to OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal
Governments”.
6.5 IURA shall comply with administrative requirements of 24 CFR Part 85 that are set forth at 24
CFR 570.502(a).
6.6 IURA shall comply with the above-listed rules, regulations, and requirements as now in effect
and any future additions or revisions to such rules, regulations, and requirements as may be
applicable.
Section 7. Monitoring
7.1 IURA agrees to monitor all activities carried out with CPD Formula Grant Funds to ensure long-
term compliance with program requirements and to timely gather information required for
reporting to HUD.
Section 8. Reports and Information
8.1 In addition to items identified is section 3.1, IURA agrees to submit the following information to
the City Controller:
(a) Bi-weekly
• City voucher and IDIS voucher including an expense report detailing requested funds to
be drawn down from the City’s line of credit with HUD
(b) Monthly
• A CPD Formula Grant Summary including budgeted amounts for each activity contained
in current adopted Action Plans and the unexpended amounts remaining
• A Loan Repayment Report on loans issued with CPD Formula Grant Funds that tracks
repayment status and reports loan balances
(c) Quarterly
• The Federal Financial Report that details receipts and disbursements of CPD Formula
Grant Funds, program income, and beginning and ending cash on hand
• IDIS entries to recognize disbursements of program income for eligible expenses such as
disbursement of loan funds and administrative and delivery expenses incurred
• IDIS entries to recognize receipt of program income such as loan repayments
(d) Annually
• Balance sheet and income and expense statement of IURA finances
• Year-end audit work papers prepared to meet City auditor requirements for preparation
of the City’s annual financial audit
Section 9. Records to be Maintained
9.1 IURA shall establish and maintain records required at 24 CFR 570.506 and 24 CFR 92.508 to
demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements for CPD Formula Grant Funds, which
includes the following information for each activity assisted:
(a) A full description, including its location;
(b) Eligibility pursuant to applicable provisions of 24 CFR 570 and 24 CFR 92;
(c) Amount of CPD Formula Funds budgeted, obligated and expended;
(d) Cost documentation for disbursement of CPD Formula Funds;
(e) Project beneficiary income eligibility and demographic characteristics; and
(f) Match funding.
9.2 IURA shall retain all records pertinent to this Agreement for six (6) years after completion of
each activity.
Section 10. Inspection of Records
10.1 At any time during normal business hours and as often as City may deem necessary, IURA shall
make available to City or its agent all of its HUD records with respect to matters covered by this
Agreement, and IURA shall permit City or its agent to audit, examine and make excerpts or
transcripts from such records, and to perform audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, reports
of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this
Agreement.
Section 11. Program Income
11.1 City and IURA acknowledge and agree that the following CPD Formula Grant assets were in
possession of IURA as of October 30, 2012 and shall be used by IURA in implementing the
Economic Development Revolving Loan Program as set forth in Section 2.4 of this Agreement or
otherwise used in accordance with an adopted Action Plan:
(a) CDBG Formula Grant Funds in the form of Program Income cash-on-hand in the amount of
$442,299.12; and
(b) CPD Formula Grant Funds in the form of Program Income notes receivable, payable to and
in possession of IURA, and all program income derived therefrom, as identified in Schedule
A attached herein. Following is the total amount of principal balance outstanding of all such
Program Income as of October 30, 2012:
CDBG: $1,449,541.15
HOME: $397,358.08
Total: $1,846,899.23
11.2 Future Program Income generated from use of CDBG funds shall be used by IURA in
implementing the Economic Development Revolving Loan Program or other CDBG projects
contained in an Action Plan. Future Program Income generated from use of HOME funds and
received by IURA shall be used for additional HOME projects contained in an Action Plan.
Section 12 Assistance with Other Activities
12.1 From time to time, IURA staff may have availability to assist the City with planning or other
activities that are directly related to, or would support, the mission of the IURA to “improve the social,
physical, and economic characteristics of the City of Ithaca by expanding access to quality affordable
housing, strengthening neighborhoods and the local economy, and supporting other community
development activities.” Toward that end, the IURA may offer, and the City may accept, by mutual
agreement, IURA staff assistance with such activities. IURA staff will make best efforts to complete
agreed upon tasks in a timely manner; however, activities related to administration of CPD funds will
take priority and any consequent delay in completion of other activities will not be cause for termination
of this agreement.
Section 132. Term of Agreement
12.113.1 This Agreement shall become effective as of the date first above written and shall
remain in effect until terminated pursuant to the terms of this section.
12.213.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time without cause to be
effected by written notification of such termination. Such termination shall become effective
180 days after delivery of such notice.
13.3 This Agreement may be terminated by City for cause upon IURA’s failure to comply with any
provision of this Agreement. City shall effect such termination in the following manner:
(a) City shall provide written notice to IURA stating the specific instance(s) of noncompliance.
Such notice shall specify a date that is not less than thirty (30) days after the date of delivery
of such notice (the “Response Date”) by which IURA may cure, mitigate, or otherwise
address the instance(s) of noncompliance.
(b) Upon IURA’s failure to cure, mitigate, or otherwise address the instance(s) of
noncompliance to the satisfaction of City by the Response Date, City may, at its option,
provide written notice to IURA effecting termination immediately upon the delivery of such
notice.
12.413.4 Upon a termination of this Agreement, IURA shall not obligate or expend CPD Formula
Grant Funds.
12.513.5 Upon a termination of this Agreement, City shall be obligated to pay from CPD Formula
Grant Funds costs resulting from any obligations of CPD Formula Grant Funds made by IURA
pursuant to this Agreement where such obligations were made prior to the date of termination
and in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Section 143. Reversion of Assets
13.114.1 Upon termination of this Agreement, and in accordance with the provisions at 24 CFR
570.503(b)(8), IURA shall transfer to City any CPD Formula Grant Funds on hand and any notes
and accounts receivable attributable to the use of CPD Formula Grant Funds. Such transfer of
CPD Formula Grant Funds, notes and accounts receivable shall be made no later than thirty (30)
business days after the termination date. Any real property under IURA's control that was
acquired or improved in whole or in part with HUD CDBG Funds in excess of $25,000 shall be
either:
(a) Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 until at least five years after
the expiration of this Agreement; or
(b) If the use of the property ceases to conform to the provisions of Section 13.1(a) of this
Agreement prior to the expiration of the five-year period, IURA shall pay to City an amount
equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable
to expenditures of non-CDBG Funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property.
Such payment shall be made in full no later than one hundred eighty (180) calendar days
after the date that the use of the property ceases to conform to the provisions of Section
13.1(a) of this Agreement.
13.214.2 Upon termination of this Agreement, IURA shall transfer to City any furnishings, fixtures,
and equipment purchased in whole with CPD Formula Grant Funds. Such transfer shall be made
no later than five (5) business days after the termination date and shall be made at City’s
expense in a manner prescribed by City. For furnishings, fixtures, and equipment purchased in
part with CPD Formula Grant Funds, IURA shall either:
(a) Pay to City an amount equal to the fair market value, as determined by mutual agreement,
of such furnishings, fixtures, and equipment at the time of termination, less any portion of
the value attributable to expenditures of non-CPD Formula Grant Funds for acquisition of
such assets, such payment to be made by IURA no later than thirty (30) calendar days after
the termination date; or
(b) Transfer such furnishings, fixtures, and equipment to City no later than five (5) business days
after the termination date.
Section 154. Amendments
14.115.1 This Agreement may be amended only by the mutual written consent of City and IURA.
Section 165. Notices
15.116.21 Any notice, or request taken, given, or made by the City Mayor (or such other person or
persons as City may, by written notice to IURA designate for such purpose) to IURA shall be
deemed to be duly and properly given or made if mailed, postage prepaid, to: IURA Executive
Director, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850, or delivered personally to IURA offices.
Any notice, or request taken, given, or made by the Chairperson of IURA (or such other person
or persons as IURA may, by written notice to City, designate for such purpose) to City hereunder
shall be deemed to be duly and properly given or made if mailed, postage prepaid, to: Mayor,
Formatted: Strikethrough
City of Ithaca, 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, NY 14850, or delivered personally to the City of
Ithaca Mayor’s office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amended Agreement to be duly executed
and delivered by their proper and duly authorized offices as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ITHACA
By: ______________________________________________
Svante L. Myrick, Mayor
ITHACA URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
By: ______________________________________________
Svante L. Myrick, Chairperson
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATORY
State of New York )
County of Tompkins )
On the day of in the year 2013 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said state, personally appeared Svante L. Myrick, to me known or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
she executed the same in her capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person
upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.
_____________________________
Signature of Notary Public
(Seal)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATORY
State of New York )
County of Tompkins )
On the day of in the year 2013 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said state, personally appeared Svante L. Myrick, to me known or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
she/he executed the same in her/his capacity, and that by her/his signature on the instrument, the individual, or
the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.
_____________________________
Signature of Notary Public
(Seal)
j:\community development\policy\city-iura agreement\city-iura agreerevisions draft #1.doc
Proposed Resolution
Planning & Economic Development Committee
June 8, 2016
First Amendment to City-IURA Professional Services Agreement
After Item # 16.2 under Notices was correct to read 16.1, the resolution was moved by
Alderperson Kerslick; seconded by Alderperson Nguyen seconded it. Passed Unanimously.
WHEREAS, in 2012 the IURA and City of Ithaca executed an agreement clarifying roles and
responsibilities of each party regarding administration of HUD Entitlement funds awarded to
the City of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, from time to time the IURA staff may be available to assist the City complete
other activities that are related to, or support the mission of the IURA, and
WHEREAS, such assistance shall be offered at the sole discretion of the IURA, and
WHEREAS, Plan Ithaca, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, recommends preparation of a
housing strategy to identify specific ways to increase the housing supply and decreasing
housing costs, and
WHEREAS, the IURA’s mission is to improve the social, physical and economic char acteristics
of the City of Ithaca by expanding access to quality affordable housing, strengthening
neighborhoods and the local economy, and supporting other community development
activities, and
WHEREAS, since 1975 the IURA has secured and successfully administered over $60 million
in funding on behalf of the City of Ithaca to complete projects to expand affordable housing
and revitalize urban neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, at their meeting of May 26, the IURA approved the First Amendment to the City -
IURA Professional Services Agreement; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized, subject to review by the City Attorney, to execute
an amendment to the City-IURA Professional Services Agreement to authorize IURA staff to
assist the City complete IURA-authorized activities that are related to, or support the mission
of the IURA.
6) Discussion
a) Community Investment Incentive Tax Abatement Program (CIITAP) – Diversity
Requirements
Sue Kittel from the Workforce Diversity Advisory Committee (WDAC) explained
the difference of the two letters provided by the WDAC dated February 1, 2016
and March 30, 2016. The first letter was a complete list of recommendations for
the CIITAP and the later was focused directly on diversity issues and/or
concerns.
Nels Bohn explained how these requirements can be tracked. A reporting
requirement has been looked at.
Heather Filiberto from the IDA provided information on the role of diversity in the
CIITAP that they look at and how they help the applicants in creating a strategy
to fulfill the diversity requirement. It provides awareness and monitoring on the
application process.
Sue Kittel stated that this needs to get into the public record. If we don’t have the
reporting back, how can we require it?
Heather Filiberto stated that the program is well intended. If the applicant must
meet a set of requirements in order for their tax abatement be approved, it may
cause developers to pull out because that some of the requirements are not cost
effective, and they cannot remain competitive.
Kittel stated that if competiveness doesn’t include diversity, she will have an
issue with that. In order to be competitive, there must be inclusive.
Kittel stated that WDAC is working on a report card to grade organizations on
how they measure up with the set requirements.
Nels Bohn also stated that there are two different levels – a general and
advanced – of the CIITAP that should have different requirements.
We currently don’t have enough data on the program to date. It hasn’t been
tracked.
Nels Bohn stated that the project incentive fund could be accessed to help with
the monitoring and funding necessary to do so.
Thursday, June 16, 2016 is the next WDAC meeting. They will discuss this
further and provide any additional information to the diversity portion of the
CIITAP.
Rather than implement all the requirements at once, it was agreed by the
committee to work on implementing each requirement separately or as they can
be implemented.
Further announcements were made by committee members that include:
Alderperson Brock stated the upcoming meeting regarding Spencer Road
Alderperson Kerslick updated the group on the intersection of Dryden and
College Avenue will closed for a month starting Monday, June 13th.
Alderperson Martel stated the Chicken Ordinance went into effect today.
7) Review and Approval of Minutes
a) May 2016 – the minutes were not finished to be voted on.
8) Adjournment
Alderperson Kerslick motioned to adjourn; seconded by Alderperson Martel Passed
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.