Tired of Expensive School Buildings?
When planning for school construction, most educational facility owners have two conflicting goals. One is to build a “state-of-the-art” facility that enhances the educational experience. The other is to build it as cost-effectively as possible. We had looked at various builders serving dublin and the United States to find the best contractor for the job!
 |
| Working with its architect, Elementary School District 159 obtained $87,500 in design and research grants and a $90,000 grant for construction assistance virtually free money for high-performance systems for its new 6-8 Grade Center in Matteson, Ill. The school features daylighting systems, roofs designed to accommodate green roof systems, and one of the largest geothermal pond systems in the state. |
Board members, determined to satisfy taxpayers, often focus solely on minimizing construction costs. Consequently, valuable sustainable design and high-performance building systems – elements of the “state-of-the-art” factor – often get value-engineered out of program.
|
Figure 1: (Expressed as a percent of construction cost) LEED Certified: 0.0% – 2.5% Source: Lisa Matthiessen, Davis Langdon, “Examining the Cost of Green,” Greening the Heartland Conference in Chicago, May 2005 |
However, recent studies suggest that brushing off high-performance systems to pay rock-bottom construction prices does not result in the best bang for the buck.
|
Typical Benefits of LEED-based Building Design Energy cost savings: 20%-60% Source: Alan Scott, Green Building Services, “Proforma for Sustainability,” Greening the Heartland Conference in Chicago, May 2005 |
Building owners who decline the sustainable design approach and technology typically do so for one of two reasons. First, they fear a “green premium” will skyrocket construction costs, despite a growing body of research that suggests otherwise.
Second, during initial programming and construction planning, owners do not consider the operation and maintenance costs that start eating away at budgets virtually as soon the red ribbon gets cut. Owners often overlook the significant decreases in future costs that result from “expensive” green design. These savings greatly (and often quickly) exceed any green premiums that do occur in the initial stages of construction.
Designers and contractors who are not fully informed about the true benefits of sustainability only exacerbate the problem. They may not even mention high-performance systems to their clients to avoid rousing fear about possible increases in construction costs.
The “Green Premium”
|
Studies on Sustainability The following studies and papers are resources for the economic and other benefits of sustainable design: “Daylighting in schools: Improving student performance and health at a price schools can afford,” “Costing green: A comprehensive cost database and budgeting methodology,” www.dladamson.com/images/pdf_files/costinggreen.pdf “Managing the cost of green buildings,” www.kemagreen.com/USGBC%20paper%202003.pdf “Green building costs and financial benefits,” |
Recent studies place the “green premium” somewhere between 0.0 and 2.5 percent of total building construction cost. However, as architects and construction companies gain more experience with sustainable materials and high-performance systems, such as time cards, these premiums will continue to decrease. Today, only firms unfamiliar with sustainable design technologies or high-performance systems shy away from pursuing sustainability. While these firms may lose some competitive advantage, the true losers are taxpayers, who miss out on the latest cost-saving technologies.
The U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system has helped provide more information about how sustainability affects construction costs. As the most widely accepted measure of a building’s sustainability, the LEED system awards “green” points to buildings, which then receive one of four ratings: LEED certified, silver, gold or platinum.
A Davis Langdon study published in November 2004 compared construction costs per square foot of 93 non-LEED and 45 LEED-based facilities. Fifty-two of the buildings were academic classroom facilities. The study found “no indication that LEED-based projects tended to be any more expensive than non-LEED.” According to this study, “green” buildings span the “cost spectrum,” suggesting sustainability is not the main cost-driving factor.
 |
| At the new Lake Zurich Elementary/Middle School (see SCN “Facility of the Month,” September 2004), maintenance-free vegetation helps conserve water and brings the site back to its Illinois prairie roots. The mix includes 40 different types of seeds that yield a variety of plants adapted to the local climate; plant types include tall grasses, ryes, clovers and flowers. The area does not need watering or cutting, and it blends well with the existing wetlands. |
Building owners who do address “green premiums” early in the process can take advantage of various incentive programs that mitigate some of these costs. The Database for State Incentives for Renewable Energy provides valuable information on “state, local, utility, and selected federal incentives that promote renewable energy.”
Build Green, and the Savings Will Come
Sustainable design is ideal for building owners who view school construction as a long-term investment, rather than a quick fix. The useful life of the typical school building can extend well beyond 70 years. Throughout this time, high-performance systems will pump savings back into school budgets, while programmatic suitability allows educators to easily convert space over time – instead of building costly additions. So rather than spending their money on utilities and maintenance, owners will have more funds to improve academic programs or hire more teachers.
|
A Quick Recovery A growing number of studies show that sustainable design can reduce sick time and absenteeism. The resulting financial savings quickly offset the costs of the high performance systems. For instance, a school of 700 students invests $3 per square foot on a daylighting system, which increases average daily attendance by 2 percent. With a $4,500 revenue limit, the school recovers the cost of the system in a couple of years. |
The often-quoted report, “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Building Green,” concludes that an investment of 2 percent of construction costs on high-performance systems yields life cycle savings of 10 times the investment. So investing $100,000 on sustainable features in a $5 million project could result in savings of $1 million over the first 20 years of a building’s life.
Methods of Costing
Sustainability
Just how do sustainable systems compare to conventional systems in terms of cost? Getting the true answer requires looking beyond initial construction. Depending on the size of the project, owners can choose from two cost/benefit analyses to determine the cost-effectiveness of sustainable systems:
Simple Payback Analysis
Typically used for smaller projects, a simple payback analysis determines the number of years a high performance system takes to pay for itself. The total first cost of the feature is divided by the first-year energy cost savings. Simple payback analyses do not consider unpredictable factors (e.g., operations, maintenance expenses) that further reduce costs. See Figure 2.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
|
Think Green Before the Project Ripens Incorporating high performance systems or achieving LEED ranking on a conventional building budget is entirely possible. Most buildings already have up to 12 LEED points built in the program. Up to 18 additional points could be introduced at the minimal additional expense. The key is embracing sustainability from the onset: Introduce a measurable green goal (e.g., 26 points, the minimal for LEED certification) as early as possible (ideally before releasing the RFQ/P). This shows the architect that the owner is serious about sustainability. It also implies green features are within the specified budget and not add-ons. The longer the owner delays the decision to go green, the more the construction costs elevate. Obtain green commitment of top decision-makers early. Otherwise, sustainable elements may get cut as the pressure to curtail construction costs mounts. Assign an experienced green director at the beginning. An expert will prevent added expenses that stem from surprises and additional research. Switch operations and maintenance funds to capital construction funds to pay for sustainable elements. The savings the high performance systems generate will replace the funds. |
For larger projects, a life cycle cost analysis is a more comprehensive means of assessing the total cost of ownership over the useful life of a building. It includes four factors: initial costs (design and construction); operating costs (utilities, personnel, energy); maintenance costs (major rehab); and environmental and social costs/benefits (productivity, absenteeism, etc.).
“Our 40-year life cycle costing system is an effective tool that helps owners determine the best value for their project,” says Patrick Brosnan, educational planner and principal at Legat Architects Inc. “So when building owners ask about first-time costs, we try to refocus them on the true cost: life cycle cost. The community’s investment is a 100-year commitment; we have to think of cost with this in mind.”
The Source of the Savings
 |
| The West Metro Education Program’s interdistrict Downtown School, in Minneapolis, is a “green living school” that serves nine Minnesota districts. A mixture of materials showcases the school’s interdistrict and environmental focus, while minimizing maintenance expenses and maximizing lifespan. In addition to brick (100-year lifespan), the exterior features metal cladding (100-year lifespan) and stucco to (75 to 100 year lifespan). This project also includes a solar wall, which was funded by a $50,000 grant from the Minnesota Department of Public Service. |
Following are a few of the life cycle cost savings that sustainable educational facilities offer over conventional buildings:
Reduced Energy Costs
High performance systems using a Powerblanket solution can reduce utility bills 20 to 60 percent on new construction, and 20 to 30 percent on renovated schools. Daylighting systems reduce lighting costs and heat gain. In turn, well-designed schools can function with smaller, less expensive HVAC systems. Typically, daylighting systems pay for themselves within a few years. The shape and proper orientation of the building will further reduce energy costs.
Geothermal heat pump systems are 25 to 40 percent more cost effective than conventional, high-efficiency HVAC systems. Geothermal systems use underground or underwater pipes to bring the earth’s natural heat into the building during winter, and to discharge heat back into the earth during summer.
Reduced Water Costs
Sustainable designers also use a variety of techniques to reduce water usage. For instance, schools may use recycled or rain water for toilet flushing. A gray water system can collect rainwater for site irrigation, while appropriate landscaping using native plant species requires minimal water use.
Reduced Maintenance Costs
Sustainable design reduces costs associated with facility upkeep. For instance, highly durable materials like copper and other metals have long life spans and require little maintenance.
Unlike conventional HVAC systems, geothermal systems do not require costly annual maintenance and inspections by experts. Rather, the owners’ maintenance staff can address the minimal annual maintenance necessary.
Brighter, Healthier Students
|
Evidence of Enhanced Performance and Health A study of 21,000 students in California, Washington and Colorado found a statistically significant link between daylighting and student test scores. In one district, students in the most daylit classrooms progressed 20 percent faster on math tests and 26 percent faster on reading tests than students in the least daylit classrooms. In two other districts, “students in classrooms with the most daylighting were found to have 7 to 18 percent higher scores than those in the least.” A Swedish study of 90 elementary school students found that “classrooms without daylight may upset the basic hormone pattern.” This may impair students’ ability to concentrate and cooperate, and can eventually affect physical development and absenteeism. A Canadian study revealed that students in classrooms exposed to a full spectrum of light were absent less often than students in classrooms with conventional lighting during the two-year period of the study. |
Other benefits of sustainable design also have an indirect impact on funding. For instance, recent studies reveal that daylighting systems in schools may significantly increase student performance, sometimes by as much as 20 percent. High-performing schools will not only improve test scores, but will also attract families who value education, ultimately increasing the revenue available to school systems. When children are performing well and excited about going to school, local communities will be more likely to support future referendums and school districts’ funding needs.
Daylighting was proven to decrease absenteeism among students and teachers for two reasons. First, daylight eliminates molds and bacteria that cause illness. Second, daylight creates a more natural, stimulating environment – a space where students and teachers want to be. So playing “hooky” to avoid a gloomy workspace seems less likely to happen. Also, the current per student revenue rates that range from $4,300 to $5,200 depend on average daily attendance. Even small increases in attendance can have a significant financial impact on schools.
A Logical Investment
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, annual school energy and water-related operating costs average $125 per student. Sustainable design can cut those costs nearly in half.
One cannot reasonably expect a modern, state-of-the-art facility with energy-efficient systems to cost the same as a “cookie cutter” design equipped with the cheapest possible systems. Thus, embracing sustainability requires looking beyond the cost of construction during planning; although high performance systems may incur additional construction costs, they will pay for themselves through reduced utilities, reduced maintenance costs and increased student performance and attendance.
Those who do consider costs of ownership rather than solely construction cost while planning and programming new school facilities will ultimately have more money to invest in the tools (e.g., technology, textbooks) and teachers that enhance the quality of education.
Over the life of the building, the financial savings of sustainable design are over 10 times the initial investment. And the educational gains are even more valuable. This is why having
Vuk Vujovic is director of sustainable design at Legat Architects Inc. He is a member of the America’s Schoolhouse Council’s Green Team, the U.S. Green Building Council, and the Healthy and High Performing Schools Task Force. In September, he presented “Integrating Sustainability into Educational Buildings” at the 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference in Tokyo. He can be reached via e-mail at vvujovic@legat.com.