The conflict between sound financial practices and ludicrous financial dogma will hit the roof at city council May 9 or 10. The issue is whether schools can be exempted from our celebrated green roof bylaw.
As with any roof, there are a lot of stories underneath, so give me a second to review the foundations of what will be one of this council term’s critical eco decisions.
The Green Roof Bylaw, passed in 2009 and the first in North America, requires green roofs on new commercial, institutional and residential developments with a minimum gross floor area of 2,000 square metres.
Two million square feet of green roofs have since been built here, according to Green Roofs for Healthy Cities president Steve Peck.
But on February 23, the city’s chief planner recommended that the Planning and Growth Management Committee exempt public and Catholic school boards from the bylaw. His rationale is that painting them white would reduce the heat stored in roofs and that schools might be able to store rainwater and offer green space on other parts of their property.
The committee vote was deadlocked, which explains why the matter heads to council next week without a recommendation.
Adam Vaughan, who sits on the Planning Committee, opposed the school boards’ attempt to sidestep their eco responsibility. He tells me he’s sympathetic to their request for relief from the bylaw, because they’re saddled with more older schools than the rest of the province and have more repairs and overhauls to pay for.
But he’s very clear that when it comes to new schools, “we expect them to be built smarter than before, and they shouldn’t get a pass on this.” Vaughan made a motion that schools become eligible for grants equal to $50 a square foot for green roofs to cover extra costs. The argument is that the city will save money in the long term, since green roofs collect rainwater and keep it from going into storm sewers.
Says Vaughan, schools can “roll green roofs into the curriculum” and turn them into outdoor classrooms, since they “make a statement about the environment.” He’s hopeful his grant motion “will sail on through council” next week.
That would certainly help the cause. The larger matter, however, is that the zealots behind Ontario’s recent budget appear not to understand the difference between infrastructure investment that yields savings and revenues over time and operational expenditures that are spent and gone.
The province gives school boards no ability to amortize expenditures for building maintenance or green infrastructure generally. They must balance the books each year.
This thinking explains why the Ontario government assumes gambling casinos will bring in money (which they may do on a day-to-day basis) while green roofs cost money. No wise decisions can be made with this perspective, which is why the green-roofs-on-schools issue needs to be brought to a head – and not, as the school boards have tried so desperately to do, swept under the carpet by sacrificing buildings to salvage programs.
The total value of green roofs is incalculable. In a soon-to-be-released report, the U.S. General Services Administration calculates that engineered green roofs have “a net present value of $2.70 per square foot per year, payback of 6.2 years and an internal rate of return of 5.2 per cent annually” thanks to keeping rain out of storm sewers, reducing roof maintenance and lowering energy bills.
This says nothing about benefits to the environment (they’re a great habitat for birds and bees), the sheer splendour on the grass on green roofs or the possibilities of using such spaces to grow food.
The city, by the way, is in the same bind as the school boards. It, too, lacks the ability to borrow from its operational budgets and amortize investments in maintenance and green infrastructure that pay back over time.
Rather than mortgage the future of schools and public infrastructure, the city should refuse exemptions from its green roof bylaw. My guess is that $8.2 billion in environmental retrofits of T.O. schools would employ more people than a casino, and with far greater value. A treasurer who can’t see this is a menace to the public good.
There are still some easy solutions around, and this is one of them.
Wayne Roberts contributed to the development of the city’s 2009 Green Roof Bylaw.
news@nowtoronto.com | twitter.com/nowtorontonews
