The Observation Deck

Donald Farris wrote:Hi,
I can not understand how any decision regarding the building of our new schools could not have safety as paramount.

I thought we were told these schools would be "green" schools as well. Are they?

They schools they replaced were built to last hundreds of years (if properly maintained), how long is our School Board saying these should last?

Don

I agree, I want to stress that the big difference was. Change contractors, and spend more money and time, or have the inspectors check everything, all the time in the process.

While I agree with the comment on the hundred year building, as opposed to the Bic 75 year buildings. I have to admit the new schools are a wonder. As you are in the computer business, you can imagine the miles of wires that run to each room. The wall plug next to the teachers desk is insane with everything you can plug into it. Smart boards in every room. Special lighting for special needs children, and on and on. A wonderful job. Not sure how they would do that in the old schools.

My point in this thread was to ask, Is it time to take the contractor to task? is it time to revisit this? Rick Berdine did a good job keeping everything in line, but should we look?

I remembered that someone, well Ed Favre, had asked the tough questions early on, and ended up voting no. Again, why? He has answered us.

.

Danielle Masters wrote:Valerie I was touring the school during the construction period and the question was asked about the schools being "green". We were told they were not. I am just going by what we were told. They are using more energy than they were before the rebuild. But like I said I am okay with that because they now have more technology and the kids and staff are comfy year round. I just wish that more could/would have been done to make them green, but of course money is always a factor.

Right, but I was commenting on what you originally said. Sure, they aren't 'green' per se, but they have new systems which are inherently more efficient than the 40+ year old boilers. They might use more energy, but maybe it is because of the increased heat loads due to 15 computers in each class, a larger building footprint, or of course, as you mentioned, they now have air conditioning.

My point is that just the placement of the building, or its window orientation, can contribute to it being 'green.' They would be taking advantage of passive systems to help with heat gain during a hot day, or using prevailing winds to cool the building on a day when its not quite hot enough yet to turn on the AC. Things like solar panels do not have to implemented to make a structure 'green.'

Edward Favre wrote:Yes, it is the contractor that did all the electrical work at Garfield, including the lights to which you refer. I've been told that the problem was that the design specified inadequate equipment for the load. However, unrelated electricians have told me that the installers should have realized the equipment was inadequate. So where and how much responsibility lies for that issue may be debatable.

I would say that the failure is two fold. The electricians who installed are not the same people who designed and specified the equipment, normally, if it was not design build. But at the same time, those installing, while doing their job, potentially should have known the equipment was undersized for the load and maybe raised a red flag. And maybe they did and it was ignored. But it does sound like these guys may not be doing the best of work for the payment they were collecting on the schools.

The topic of green buildings has no easy answer, so I'll just put up some considerations. Believe me, this is not everything, and that is why we had a 50 Year Committee to do a lot of leg work. I'll also try to give some quick thoughts on the power consumption.

First, the facilities project is co-funded by the Ohio School Facilities Commission to the tune of about 30%. That is based on projections when we started this project several years back. In order to do this rebuilding of the District, we must have the state money. Lakewood does not have the bonding capacity to cover the whole project alone and we did not want to, and legally cannot, over-mortgage the District. Although minority owners, so to speak, this puts the state in a controlling position. At the time, the Commission was not very green-friendly and not interested in any "extras." Even if green items would be cheaper in the long run, the Commission's main interest is in the up front construction costs, not long term operational costs. The good news is that the Strickland administration is friendlier to green ideas, and green thinking has become ever so much more timely, so maybe we'll see some improvement in this regard. I am 100% in favor of green ideas and technology wherever possible.

Second, the new buildings do use more electricity. Their components are tremendously more fuel efficient than the old buildings, but they have so much more stuff! Air conditioning; better heating; air filtration systems; dozens and dozens of computers for learning and to run the physical plant; more and better lighting; more outlets; security systems with electronic doors, alarms and cameras......the list goes on and on. And, more programming....remember that we open the buildings 18 hours a day. We promised that from the outset.

I'll stop there before I get any longer winded. Hope this helps.

Ed, thank you for giving us some background into why the buildings were built the way they were. Glad to hear that Gov. Strickland is green friendly, maybe in the future Lakewood will be able to get some grant money for some green improvements. And I will say again that I don't mind the extra use of energy. Only one of my children is in a new school, but he has no complaints. The building is the same temperature year round which I think only adds to the educational process, teachers don't have to deal with students freezing or sweating. And the technology is fabulous and it gets used. So don't get me wrong even though I said the schools weren't green that doesn't mean I don't absolutely love them. Thank you again for posting on the deck, it really let's people know you do care.

Hi,
Thanks, Mr. Favre for the explanation. I agree that it was promised to keep the schools opened longer. But it was also promised that the schools would be green. You said the State's main focus was construction cost. That may be but I'm sure you and anyone that owns property in Lakewood and that is thus subject to paying property taxes is concerned about ongoing operational costs. And conventional wisdom says energy costs are skyrocketing.

That being said, one thing that Southwest Airline did a few year back that gave them a big finanical advantage was they locked in long term on fuel when the market was lower. Seeing that oil is right now quite "cheap" can the Schools and the City lock in long term on these cheap prices?

We did promise to keep the school open longer. We did not promise to make the schools green because we knew at the time it would not fly with the State. We said we would try to incorporate green when we were able to do so. We knew they there were green items we were not going to able to do.

I fully understand and appreciate property taxes and ongoing operational costs. Just like other Lakewood property owners, I pay it as well. Although they may not be as green as we would like, the savings realized by the newer, fewer buildings is the main reason the District has been off the ballot for operational money for this long.

Like Southwest model, the District has engaged in group and advance purchasing of electricity and natural gas for some time now. We also know that in this unregulated environment, that is a moving target.

I need to correct myself. The newer, fewer buildings is not the main reason the schools have not asked for additional operating funds, but it is a significant contributor.