Recognizing Commercial Real Estate’s Achievement for Sustainability
(Note: What follows is the script for the President’s Award for Sustainability in Commercial Real Estate w
For many years, BOMA Calgary has been a leader in the area of the indoor environment and building sustainability. Our history in this regard goes back to the 1980’s when BOMA Calgary was part of the Federal Government’s Energy Management Task Force which was mandated to advise the government regarding energy conservation policy.
Most recently, BOMA secured its position as the industry leader by virtue of the BOMA BESt program. Now with over 2,000 certified buildings, and the largest database of building performance statistics in North America in the form of the annual BOMA BESt Energy & Environmental Report, there is no doubt about BOMA’s leading role.
But it really is the industry members who deserve the credit for this accomplishment. Many national and regional organizations readily embraced the BOMA BESt program as they recognized it provided them with a credible means by which to benchmark their building’s environmental management system against the national industry standard. What’s more, they recognized BOMA BESt gave them a practical tool for continuous improvement.
We are impressed by such organizations as Bentall Kennedy which has the most BOMA BESt nationally verified buildings in Canada, we are also impressed by the achievements of Manulife Financial which has realized a 38% reduction in energy use in their properties, including many that were constructed in the 1960s. Further, Oxford was the first to achieve a BOMA BESt level 3 certification for an industrial building in Alberta. And there are many other firsts in this regard in terms of the achievements of other BOMA Calgary members. We truly admire all what the industry is doing in the name of sustainability.
There is, however, one member that is worthy of distinction. And that is Alberta Infrastructure. Alberta Infrastructure wrote its “Green Book”, which is essentially its operations manual for sustainability, with BOMA BESt as one of its key benchmarks. Alberta Infrastructure committed itself to the BOMA BESt program early in the game, much through the efforts of John Enns, and the agency now has over 80 buildings verified in the program. Further, Alberta Infrastructure through its Provincial Building in Pincher Creek, Alberta has received the highest score for a BOMA BESt Level 4 verified building, and incredible 91%.
For both their commitment to BOMA BESt and its principles of sustainability, and for their achievement within the program, I am please to present this Award to Alberta Infrastructure.
Accepting this award is Alberta Infrastructure Minister, the Honourable Ray Danyluk.
Recognizing Youthful Achievement
(Note: At the BOMA Awards event on Wednesday evening, May 18, several members commented on the narrative leading up to the special recognition of one of BOMA’s younger members. What follows is the text of that speech.)
Being in this business as long as I have I am still always inspired by BOMA volunteers, just as I am inspired by the entire BOMA organization and what it stands for. It is a strong and vibrant organization working on behalf of a key industry. Like any such organization BOMA Calgary is largely dependant upon volunteers, and the future of BOMA is dependant upon a progression of volunteers, and in particular young people, sometimes labeled “Gen Y”.
We have a duty to our industry to identify, to nurture and prepare our future leaders. We must support them, and encourage them, and most of all we must recognize them. They believe the same things as we do, and the while their values may be expressed in different ways; they have embraced the fundamental principles of our industry and of our community. We should always recognize exemplary individual performance not only to recognize that person, but to send a message of encouragement to those who one day will ultimately succeed us and who will lead our industry such that they willingly step forward and know that their contributions are meaningful.
BOMA is fortunate to have many young, enthusiastic people involved in many ways in our association. And one in particular stands out for his industry expertise, and his enthusiasm through his participation. He holds a highly principled position in the realm of sustainability as demonstrated through his participation on BOMA’s Environmental, Health & Safety Committee, he is a member of the Mentorship Sub-Committee aimed at helping others, and is a member of the national BOMA BESt Technical Committee. As well he has been a key participant on national industry panels presented at BOMEX events over the past two years. As well, this individual has distinguished himself as the youngest BOMA member to have been elected to the BOMA Board of Directors. He sets a positive role model for others to emulate. Despite his quiet and humble manner, he continues to make positive and constructive contributions to BOMA and to our industry.
I would like all of you to join me in recognizing Alvin Law, Alberta Infrastructure.
Commercial Real Estate Deserves its Own Recognition
The recent issue of development fees charged by the City of Calgary has raised a number of issues that should concern owners, developers and operators of non-residential properties.
There is a development agreement periodically negotiated by The City of Calgary and The Urban Development Institute (UDI) which, among other things sets down the fees which a developer must pay for things like sewers, roads, community infrastructure and other things. The current round of negotiations over a period of several months resulted in significantly escalated fees that would translate to additional costs estimated to be between $8,000 and $12,000 per home.
That’s the point. The focus is on low density, suburban residential development and yet the development fees will apply to all forms of development: office, industrial and retail buildings included. Our issue is simply that BOMA, along with other representative groups, were excluded from these negotiations. I will repeat that: It wasn’t that we weren’t there, but rather that we were specifically excluded. This is despite specifically asking the City and UDI to be involved in negotiating fees that would significantly impact our industry sector.
Not only is this not fair, it is just not right. And in the interests of transparency and inclusiveness, key features of the City’s stakeholder engagement policy, the system is flawed and needs to be fixed.
It seems contradictory on the one hand that Calgary City Council would be staunch defenders of “affordable” housing then turn around and widen the affordability gap by pushing up its fees to new highs. But what is the impact of these fees on the non-residential properties? As one BOMA member stated at the public hearing, an escalation of as little as $0.50 per square foot and trigger a decision by a major industrial space user to locate somewhere other than Calgary. Losing business to surrounding municipalities would be a significant matter to Calgary’s tax base.
Keeping Calgary competitive and attractive to the labour pool is in our community interest. No only must Calgary attract new businesses to locate here, it must be affordable for people to live here. If labour can’t afford the housing, then that presents a barrier to their being here in the first instance.
BOMA is advocating for a set of development fees that are kept separate from the residential fees. The City argues that low density suburban sprawl is subsidized, and that by way of property taxes they don’t contribute their due, and are “subsidized” by the community. We are inclined to agree.
This raises the question of where those subsidize are derived, and the obvious answer is: From other taxpayers. The report of the Tax Review Committee in its February 1994 Report to Albertans, noted the disparity between the residential and non-residential sectors and recommended measures to “prevent municipalities from loading up taxes on the business sector”.
The City has yet to take steps to eliminate this disparity. And there is a structure resistance to adjusting this relationship since, unlike residential rate payers who do, non-residential rate payers do not vote!
One possible way to address the disparity is to segment the residential development from the non-residential development when considering the fees. Commercial development represents economies of scale that may not always be present in residential development. The infrastructure intensity applicable to residential development is significantly more that for a commercial development, and the taxes that are derived from commercial properties outweigh by a significant proportion the tax revenue derived from residential properties, which the City indicates don’t pay their way. But the main point is there is a fundamental difference in the requirements for residential and non-residential development. Their respective needs and the implications from those needs to the overall community are fundamentally different. This alone warrants the segregation of the negotiation of the respective servicing and development fees. There should be a separate non-residential development agreement.
BOMA is a strong community partner and seeks always to be part of the solution to community issues. Be we can’t be a partner if the City excludes BOMA from the table.
Development Fees are a Form of Unfair Subsidy and Hidden Tax.
The City is set to consider new development fees for new communities. Mayor Nenshi has publicly stated that the municipality does not recover its infrastructure investment over the life of a low-density housing unit. Policies for “densification” are in the works in an effort to reduce the proportion of low density housing in the city. There is a very compelling set of arguments suggesting low-density, outward spatial expansion is not sustainable. That being the case, the City is right to consider alternate policies.
But the development fees will apply to both residential and non-residential development. Most will appreciate that the service requirements for residential and non-residential development will not be the same. Simply put the needs of each and the associated costs of servicing each will vary widely.
When one takes into account that a major non-residential complex like Chinook Centre will contribute about $13million in taxes this year, it becomes clear that the non-residential carry at least their share of the tax burden and probably a lot more. By the way, $13 million is about the same amount of taxes that would be paid by about 6,000 single family homes, assuming an average tax bill of $2,000. One only needs to contemplate the amount of urban infrastructure it would take to support a community of 6,000 homes as against a commercial development like Chinook.
So how might the City justify an increase in development fees in the order of 250 – 300%? In this economic climate it doesn’t make sense. In a worst case scenario it is anti-development and will tend to force communities to flee to the rural municipalities to seek a cost advantage.
Some will argue that the developers should pay. But such thinking is blind to the economic reality that a developer actually pays for nothing, as the costs he must bear are always passed on to the consumer. This applies to all development residential and non-residential alike. So how can City Council say on the one hand that it wishes to promote “affordable housing”, and in the next moment raise the cost structure to render housing less affordable due to significantly higher costs.
There is a pressing need for the City to segment residential development fees from non-residential fees. Higher densities with lower draws on municipal infrastructure need to be recognized. Otherwise, it is a hidden tax on one segment of the population which is inherently unfair and undeserved.
Have We Thrown Good Transit “Under the Bus”?
Among one of the Tweets received today was a CBC poll – albeit, non-scientific – suggesting that 46% of respondents thought Calgary Transit was poor, 45% thought it was OK, just 2% thought it was fantastic, and 7% responded who cares about transit.
In an unrelated article in today’s Globe & Mail (28 March 2011) Canada was ranked rather poorly for its urban transit. Some are trying to make it an election issue.
This got me to thinking about my own attitudes towards transit. Trained as an urban planner I am philosophically predisposed to be a supporter of public transportation. I have had the good fortune to have travelled extensively through out much of the world and have observed some of what goes on in other cities. Now I have to wonder if the North American mind-set has got it wrong.
Now, understand that I don’t use transit at all in Calgary. It is just not practical. BOMA offices are in the suburbs, adjacent Mount Royal University. The 9Km work commute typically takes me 10 to 15 minutes to drive, or up to 90 minutes or more when it snows! But the bus trip to work would take over an hour each way. That’s 2 hours out of my day versus 20 to 30 minutes. Ergo the travel decision is a no-brainer. From this perspective only, transit is not an efficient option. I can fly to Vancouver in an hour. Why should it take me the same time to go 9km to work?
Not a single Canadian city ranked in the top ten in the Toronto Board of Trade survey which measured such factors as commute times, transit ridership, kilometers of existing rain and vehicles per capital. The Scorecard on Prosperity ranked cities according to a number of economic, social and structural indicators, and the finding pointed to the realization that Canadian cities are on the brink of crisis.
Citing “crippling congestion”, it points to an “urgent need to invest in public transportation”. I am not convinced that more public investment is the complete answer. I think there is a need to look at the manner in which transit is operated. Let me make a case for operational change.
The Calgary Transit view of the future is 30 days. What? Yes, it promotes customer loyalty one month at a time. One can buy a monthly pass and no more. If I have a customer, I want a long term relationship. A monthly pass is the equivalent of a transit “one-night-stand’. This needs to change. I should be able to buy 6 months or a year if I want. But I don’t have that choice.
Transit passes should be smart cards that are encoded with client (that’s an improvement upon “passenger”) information and that will gather data about riders’ travel habits, origin and destination that might prove invaluable in designing more efficient and convenient routes.
Re-think the reasons why Calgary Transit needs a monopoly. Nothing drives efficiency and innovation like competition. Why can’t public and private systems co-exist? They do in Europe and elsewhere. And as the city grows, will we encounter dis-economies of scale and become less efficient?
Re-think cities. The administrative environment in which we live is archaic. Much has changed since Canada’s constitution was conceived and cities now harbor over 80% of the population, yet cities are still sitting at the “kiddie” table. There is a compelling argument to consider a new deal for cities. Perhaps Calgary and Edmonton should be Charter Cities with powers commensurate to the services they are obligated to provide.
We need not suffer the arrogance of thinking our model is superior. If it doesn’t work it is wrong. And it’s not working. We need to fix it. So perhaps it is quite appropriate to query the federal candidates about cities during this election time.
John Petropoulos Memorial Fund Comes to BOMA Calgary
Put Yourself In Our Boots is a campaign of the John Petropoulos Memorial Fund (JPMF), which seeks to reduce preventable injuries and fatalities and promote workspace safety for emergency service workers – because their workplace is every place.
Be a part of their vision: a culture where safety for emergency service workers – who may have to attend the premises in an emergency – is an integral aspect of every workplace.
On March 10, 2011, Ian Wilson, Managing Director of JPMF will discuss the ways in which building managers and their suppliers can make sure that all workplace spaces are safe for emergency personnel and in turn the tenants and the public.
Start 15 Things!
15 Things you can do to help protect Emergency Services Workers
And join us at the BOMA monthly luncheon in order to get involved with a cause that helps those who risk their lives, to save ours.
New Leadership Team for 2011
Peter MacHardy, GWL Realty Advisors was sworn in as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of BOMA Calgary at the association’s 46th Annual Meeting held yesterday 13 January 2011.
The members elected three new directors to the Board, and re-elected a fourth member. Elected were Chris Howard, Avison Young; Robert Brazzell, Altus Group; Katherine Kowalchuk, Field Law; and, Marj Cone H R Management.
In addition, the member approved a new set of bylaws that will contemporize the governance of the association and help guide it through the next several years.
For 2011 the Executive will be comprised of Peter MacHardy, (GWL Realty Advisors) Chairman of the Board; Don Fairgrieve-Park, (Bentall Kennedy); Chris Howard, (Avison Young) Secretary Treasurer; and, William Partridge, CAE, President & Chief Staff Officer.
BOMA Calgary Announces Corporate Partner!
In the fall of 2010, the BOMA Calgary Supporting Member Council introduced a comprehensive Sponsorship Opportunities: Corporate Partner and Event Sponsor Program.
We are pleased to announce that ARTE Roofing has signed on as the 2011 Corporate Partner!
BOMA’s sponsorship program was built with the sole intent of providing additional opportunities for member companies to grow their business
through mutual support of key industry objectives. (Full media release)
Cutting the Red Tape
A lot of folks have called for the City to cut red tape. I hear it constantly from BOMA members. It seems the latest champion of cutting the red tape is none less than Mayor Naheed Nenshi. That is an encouraging sign. In fact, it was then Candidate Nenshi, who declared that it shouldn’t take a restaurant owner six months to get a permit to change light fixtures.
A number of years ago, when the Internet was coming into it’s own, I advocated allowing electronic submission (and tracking) of development applications. The City was, in their words, several years away from such capability. Since then, some applications for fairly mundane things like garages can be applied for online. But the more complex things cannot. To be fair, some development applications are very complex and may not fit the electronic format. But then what is it that the City examines once an application is submitted?
From an historical perspective, and this is going back a few years now, when I worked in the planning department there were two key things that the City considered: public safety and the implications of that development on City infrastructure. It is certainly a municipal interest to understand the incremental demand for sewer, water, streets, police, fire, schools, transit, and the like. That information will greatly in the legitimate planning the City must undertake to provide its citizens with critical infrastructure, and to create the financial plans to fund and pay for that infrastructure.
From what I am told, the City is now getting involved in the minutia of the design and internal uses of a building and taking the perspective that it owns the property. Is this the administrative equivalent of confiscation of property? Whether a retail unit within a building is for a flower shop or a barbershop is of no interest to the City and certainly shouldn’t be. Land use has its own bylaw, and the bylaw is pretty clear on what is a permitted use and what is not. So the key, and only, issue is: does the application conform to the land use zone. That declaration should take 15 seconds not 15 months.
The other thing that slows the process down occurs when aldermen – or, forgive me – Councillors, get involved in a particular application. They shouldn’t. That usurps the role of the administration and when Council gets involved at that level it is a de-motivator to the administration. Why after all should they do their jobs if councillors are going to step in anyhow. Councillors should simply back off.
Further, when councillors get involved in that application they lose objectivity. They are no longer in a position to act as a member of council for that application where that application must be considered by a Standing Committee, Calgary Planning Commission when the Councillor sits on CPC, and most certainly not when that same matter is before Council. It is clearly a conflict and they should so declare it and not participate in that decision.
Council should confine its activities to the high level, strategic stuff attention to which has in the past been so critically lacking. They will just have to learn to trust the administration to process applications against the approved policies and bylaws and let them do their jobs.
The other thing council can do is just let things alone. They have in the past been so prone to tweaking the rules to deal with this or that “brush fire” matter that it is difficult for anyone to really understand the rules. And that tweaking sets new precedents which the administration can beat up an applicant. Council is suppose to make decisions. If they are good decisions in the first instance, then Council needs to demonstrate discipline around that decision. My observation is that council is undisciplined and lacking in confidence of its own decisions. This compels them to seek consultants’ reports ad nauseum. Analysis paralysis does no one any good. Make sure you have the best information in the first instance and make a decision that is in the best interests of the community.
Regulations around development are needed. No one could argue successfully against that. But there also must be some accountability for unreasonable delays in the approvals process. There needs to be a reasonable expectation of timely consideration and resolution of a development application. If indeed there are assurances for a speedy criminal trial – and in fact some crooks are off the hook if they don’t get to court soon enough! Then why are there not similar limitations put onto planning applications. That is not unreasonable.
Time to fix things.
More to Come from BOMA Apps
When we launched the BOMA App for iPhone yesterday, we didn’t anticipate the response we might get. The app is fairly straightforward and is a simple feed from our website. But it is a start and we want to gauge the response before we do any more. I believe Calgary is the first BOMA organization in the world-wide federation to introduce such a feature.
In the first few hours following release we had a number of emails from all over the globe. Most wanted to know how much it cost us and how long it took. My answer: not that much and to and one-half weeks. ‘Fraid I am not going to give it all away! “We have been thinking about it for a while”, commented some. My advice: If you think too much, you will continue to think and not act. Realistically speaking, you can analyse these things to death, so just do it.
Looking down the road, we plan where feasible to launch apps for the Blackberry and Android platforms. Seems not everyone cozies up to Apple just yet. I have a Blackberry and an iPhone. Love the latter. We will be pushing out a survey next week to test the waters with our members and to measure their interest in this technology. I see a tremendous future in portable information that could become a powerful business tool if we get it right.
And as one mechanism to get it right, BOMA will conduct a series of focus groups aimed at identifying what members see as their needs. This process will help us define our future.
I don’t worry too much about technology, but I have come to learn that if it is on the shelf or in your hand, it is already obsolete. Our world changes quickly and we must be confident enough and nimble enough to change with it.