Cost of Going Green Too Steep for Board

BY TOM EMBREY: STAFF WRITER

Going green by spending more green is not an option members of the Board of Education are willing to consider when building two new schools.

Board members and a representative from the firm designing both schools discussed environmentally friendly options for the new middle school, as well as the impact those features would have on an already tight budget, Tuesday night.

The school system recently purchased land in Vass for the middle school and has begun the design work. Land for the elementary school has not been purchased, and it was not discussed during the meeting. Both schools are scheduled to open in the fall of 2009.

Katherine Peele, a representative with LS3P Associates Ltd., said her firm is progressing on design work and hopes to present a site plan to the board in April or May and eventually bid the project later this summer.

"Our major concern

is budget," Peele said.

Peele discussed several design alternatives that are more environmentally friendly, such as geothermal ground source HVAC system, solar hot water system, stormwater and water reclamation systems, and energy monitoring systems.

Assistant Superintendent Larry Upchurch told the board he and the school system staff supported environmentally friendly options but that because of the increase in costs, he could not recommend them.

"We are trying to be good stewards (of the county money), promote sustainability and teach our children," Upchurch said, "but the reality is, we cannot recommend that because of the fear of the initial budget."

All the possible energy-saving features are more costly and would drive up the price tag of the school.

Peele estimates that a geothermal ground source HVAC system would cost an additional $12,800 for cost analysis and design. The system itself would cost about 20 percent more than a conventional one. Total cost would be about $440,000. The payback period, or time to realize a saving from the added expense, could range from five to 15 years.

"Geothermal (ground source HVAC) would not be in the budget," Peele said.

She also said that as the payback time range increases, the risk of equipment failure increases.

"Equipment starts to run out," she said. "You never pay for it because you are always having to replace equipment."

Board members were mindful of the budget.

"I like green (environmentally friendly)," said board member Joe Vaughn. "I don't see how we can spend money we don't have."

Board member Charles Lambert added, "I don't think this board ought to tell them to go over budget."

The budget is tight because the square footage of the building has increased slightly to accommodate a larger gym, auditorium and classrooms. The building will also have a sprinkler system that was not included in the original budget. The sprinkler system is required by the international building code.

Another factor driving up costs is the increasing cost of fuel.

"The gas you put in your car or truck can have an impact on any material that goes into building your building," Peele said.

Board members expressed an interest in the more environmentally friendly options, such as smaller-scale and pilot programs to conserve energy, but declined to increase the budget to pay for the more expensive ones.

"I think we need to move forward on the two buildings (middle school and a new elementary school)," said board member Sue Black. "I think these are things we can incorporate into future buildings, but I don't see how we can make changes at this late stage."

Contact Tom Embrey at 693-2473 or by e-mail at tembrey@thepilot.com.