'Green' building costs will take years to pay off

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Department of Natural Resources touts its headquarters as a "green" building, full of environmentally friendly features. Storm water is collected and reused in the restrooms. Solar panels provide some of the building's electricity.

But an Associated Press analysis shows that it could take 16 years or longer for the 2-year-old structure to save taxpayers some real green in energy costs.

Figures provided by the state Division of Facilities Management at the AP's request show that the building cost about $18.5 million to construct, about 4 percent more than it would have cost using conventional methods and materials. Assuming the building's current energy costs hold, it could be 2023 before the state recoups its extra investment in the building.

But there are other costs that critics point to. For instance, the annual cost alone of shuttling DNR workers to the building from an off-site parking spot -- which is necessary because the building lacks a parking garage -- is nearly triple that of the building's energy savings.

Environmental groups say saving on utility bills is only part of the equation. Building "green" combats global warming, improves overall air and water quality and reduces waste.

"It's definitely beyond the bills and beyond the energy use. That's what most people think of when they think of green," U.S. Green Building Council spokeswoman Taryn Holowka said. "Everything you can do to make your building green will contribute toward that overall goal of reducing energy use ... and reducing the impact of the building on the land."

The environmentally friendly extras -- the water collection system, solar panels, landscaping, etc. -- added about $805,000 to the building's cost. Included in the extra costs is the paperwork required to get the building certified by the U.S. Green Building Council and receive a plaque for its eco-friendly design.

In the 2006 fiscal year, the building had annual energy costs of about $1.13 per square foot, for electricity, gas, water and sewer. Through 11 months of the just-ended fiscal year, it cost about a penny more.

That's above projections made when the structure was being built. Then, studies showed the building could run for 98 cents per square foot or less -- well below the average state office building's cost of about $1.50.

If the building's current energy costs hold, the difference in energy use versus average state buildings would amount to a savings of nearly $43,000 a year.

Natural Resources director Doyle Childers said the building was made to last 100 years, giving the state plenty of time to recoup its costs.

In a home, "you're better to put in a little better quality appliances or construction because it pays off in the long run," Childers said. "In a home, a person may only live there 20, 30, 40 years, but a state building should be there for a century."

Operating vs. energy costs

When the award was announced in May 2006, the structure was among the first state government buildings nationwide to get the Green Building Council's highest-level, or "platinum," designation.

Other states are embracing the green building concept, and several have adopted laws requiring new state buildings to meet certain green standards, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Earlier this year, similar legislation was proposed in Missouri to require many new state buildings to meet the council's standards. But it didn't get far.

The state Facilities Management Division said the bill would ultimately raise the state's capital improvement and construction budgets by about $5.7 million in each of the next two years.

Facilities Management Division director Dave Mosby agreed the building saves energy, but questioned the value of spending $65,000 to certify the structure as "green."

"What's the payback on that? Was it worth it?" he asked. "Sometimes you might not do something that makes common sense to get a point so that you can get a plaque."

The solar panels alone cost about $130,000, and the recycled rainwater system nearly $91,000.

"The operating cost of the building is higher. The energy costs are lower," he said.

For example, housekeepers have to clean the windows more often so they take advantage of the natural lighting features. The rainwater reuse system requires extra changing of filters.

Another expense is parking. The department only provides parking for visitors and a few dozen employees, so most park elsewhere in town and are shuttled over, at a cost of about $120,000 a year.

Childers, who believes the parking costs are temporary because a garage will have to be added once other state buildings are constructed, said the certification process was important.

"It was important to do it on that first building. Others that would follow, it's more 'Hey, is it designed to the same standards?"' he said. "It'd be nice for the state to be a leader and to provide a good example."

Preliminary figures for the current fiscal year, which ended Sunday, show that the overall cost of operating the building was about $7.32 per square foot. The national standard for similarly sized buildings is $6.13, Mosby said. While energy and groundskeeping costs are lower, housekeeping and maintenance costs, plus the shuttle, drive the price up.

Mosby has begun a study to determine the value and cost of the building's features, and expects to know more within two months. The data should help when the state constructs another big building, he said.

---

The cost of a green building

• Green building: The Department of Natural Resources headquarters is nationally certified as a "green" building with many environmentally friendly features.
• Cost and savings: The green elements added $805,000 to the building's cost. It saves about $43,000 a year in energy bills, making the break-even point 16 more years, if those savings hold.
• Other factors: A shuttle that takes DNR workers from a parking lot to the building costs $120,000 a year, swallowing up the savings. Housekeeping and maintenance costs are also higher than average.