One item at the meeting was a detailed presentation on Green Building certification, emphasizing the importance of local municipalities adopting sustainable building codes. The presentation, part of an ongoing series, outlined the significance of certification systems including LEED, FGBC, NGBS, and Energy Star. Wellington is contemplating similar measures, and Stuart has introduced Green Building credits for renovations without specific incentives yet.

The Tequesta building department’s proposal to waive up to 10% of building permit fees for certified Green Building projects was noted as a move. This waiver, along with expedited plan reviews and priority inspections, aims to reduce costs and encourage sustainable construction. However, the committee recognized that these incentives might not be sufficient to offset expenses, especially for smaller projects, and deliberated over a tiered structure based on certification levels. The idea was to offer more substantial reductions for higher certifications like LEED Platinum, compared to Energy Star.

Discussions also delved into the potential impact of these incentives on developers, questioning whether they would motivate higher-tier certifications given the substantial permit fees associated with larger projects. A hypothetical case was discussed to illustrate the potential financial impact, highlighting that while permit fee reductions could be helpful, they might not substantially offset overall costs. Energy savings were also considered crucial in promoting these incentives.

The committee also discussed the importance of recognizing homeowners who achieve Green Building certifications. While endorsing specific builders was not feasible, the idea of promoting certified builders through the Village website was floated, providing residents with resources to pursue sustainable construction. Community engagement was seen as vital, with suggestions for plaques and recognition celebrations to encourage participation, although some homeowners might prefer privacy.

Living shoreline initiatives were another focal point, with plans to distribute information to waterfront homeowners and promote the initiative through various media. The committee worked on crafting a compelling title for the initiative, with “Living Shorelines: Protect Our Shores, Preserve Our Future” gaining unanimous support. This initiative includes a letter explaining the ordinance and encourages residents to engage with the information.

The committee also reviewed upcoming presentations scheduled for March 4, focusing on the Living Shoreline ordinance and related projects. These presentations aim to inform residents, particularly those living along the water, about sustainable practices and mandatory ordinances. While presentation details were agreed upon, there was debate on how much detail to provide without overwhelming attendees.

Recycling practices were another significant topic, with a comparison of single-stream and dual-stream systems. The committee discussed the potential benefits of single-stream recycling, which could increase recyclable material collection by over 30%. However, limitations of the existing processing facility were noted, and there was a call for the Village Council to advocate for necessary changes.

Additionally, a living shoreline grant was discussed, though its future appeared uncertain due to potential cuts by the Department of Justice. Despite the competitive nature of the grant application process, the committee expressed a willingness to pursue it, given no financial match was required. This grant, if awarded, would support community efforts in shoreline preservation.

The meeting concluded with discussions on strategic initiatives, including streetscape improvements, conserving public lands, and enhancing waste management practices. Challenges with county authorities on beautifying Old Dixie Highway were noted, and the committee expressed determination to pursue alternative approaches to advocate for necessary improvements.