posted by Joe Polk at 2:45 PM /
Faithful Blog-Lebo reader Fen Labalme recently had a great post on his blog about why we should consider building a L.E.E.D. certified high school. His posting says that the list is from Rob Papke, Mt. Lebanon Council PTA Environmental Chair, but I'm not sure where Rob published it originally. Interesting read for sure.
Link: http://blog.fen.net/2008/03/07/top-5-reasons-to-build-an-leed-certified-high-school/
Link: http://blog.fen.net/2008/03/07/top-5-reasons-to-build-an-leed-certified-high-school/
Labels: high school, L.E.E.D., school district
16 Comments:
Rob Papke is PTA Council Environmental Chair, and a big fan of LEED certification. He has spent many hours researching and has a lot of information that should be considered by those making the decisions for the high school project. His article is for our PTA newsletters. Please take note that Rob's information is not the opinion of PTA Council; that would require a vote from ALL units, and there are plenty of opinions, so we do not have an official position statement on LEED certification. His article cites information from National PTA, which we do support. We do feel it is our obligation to inform and educate parents and that is simply what the article sets out to do. Hopefully, it will get people talking and investigating on their own and involved in the process.
Building/Renovating responsibly is a no-brainer.
Looking at a 400,000-500,000 square foot facility, the incremental cost is proffered at $1.2 - $1.5 million ($3 per sq foot). And the financial return is estimated at 4 times the cost ($12 per square foot) - - as much as $6,000,000. Our Board will have no difficulty understanding this cost-benefit analysis. Why are there not more L.E.E.D. projects?
Rob Papke published this in the Foster Forecast which is the Foster Elementary School newspaper, reaching the parents of many children likely to benefit from a green high school.
As Bill mentioned, while building green will cost a bit more in the short term, it will save us all money in the longer term. Not to mention lessening the likelihood of asthma and other diseases that standard, more toxic building materials can induce in young bodies spending a lot of time within their walls.
But it will be a tough sell, as 60% of the Lebo population is older and has no young children, so they won't want to see their taxes go up "for nothing". One school board member has suggested the possibility of a Public Private Partnership as one way to cover the initial costs without raising taxes.
In the mean time, I urge all interested parties to email the school board and let them know how important a L/E.E.D. certified high school will be to our children - and our community.
The "great post on his blog" link leads one to Rob Papke's "Top 5 Reasons to Build an L.E.E.D. Certified High School". Mr. Papke cites a number of legitimate reasons to consider a "Green" school, IF the final decision is to build an entirely new high school, but that decision is still to be made. But let's be serious - included in reason #1 he states that green schools lead to "improved teacher retention and lower health costs". Mt. Lebanon DOES NOT have a teacher retention problem. Mt. Lebanon teachers do not leave until they retire. They are paid well above-average salaries and contribute very little toward their health care coverage. Any "lower health costs" will simply slow the increases paid by the community year after year. Any savings in energy and water costs will go unnoticed as long as 74% of the budget goes to teacher salaries and benefits which continue to rise every year.
One more thing. I believe that the percentage of ML residents who do not have children in school is closer to 70%, and not wanting taxes to go up for nothing is hardly an unreasonable expectation, whether you have children in school or not.
One correction to my first comment. According to both the school district and the municipality 76% of Mt. Lebanon residents do not have children in school.
There will be a talk tomorrow night in Woodland Hills about how Niagra Falls School District employed a PPP to construct an $85 million school with no tax increase. Please see the article below:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_555670.html
If family committments allow, I will be at this meeting.
Joe,
Does that percentage include renters or is that number only homeowners?
Thanks,
gina niewodowski
I'll amend Gina's question, since "Mt. Lebanon residents" may include Mt. Lebanon children:
What percentage of Mt. Lebanon taxpayers do not have school-age children?
What percentage of Mt. Lebanon households do not include school-age children?
The 2000 census figures say that 33% of households had kids under 18 living with them.
Rather than counting the number of taxpayers or housholds, let's just try to estimate the number of Lebo residents who benefit directly from investment in the schools. I reckon that includes MLSD students and their parents, and as well as pre-school-age children and their parents, who will benefit in the future from investments made now. (assume that in- and out-migration roughly balance out)
According to the MLSD district profile, there are 5416 students enrolled in the district.
Lets assume one unique parent per student. (This estimate is tricky: siblings share parents, but some households have single parents. We could make this estimate more precise if we had stats on the number of parents and children per household. This info is embedded in the census info, but I don't have time to try to tease it out, because the figures don't separate "household size" and "family size" for households with kids vs households w/o kids.)
That gives us 10,832 students and their parents. If we assume that pre-school children follow roughly the same distribution as school-age children, we can estimate 5416 x 5/12 = 2256.66 kids aged 0-4 years. Adding their parents using the same model as before (and rounding), we get 4513 citizens who will benefit from the schools soon.
That gives 10832+4513 = 15345 lebo residents.
The 2000 census figures gave 33,017 residents, so that gives us roughly 46% of residents who benefit directly from the school district.
Or... from the census figures, 24.8 percent of the population is under 18. 0.248 x 33,017 = 8818 kids. Factor in the parents and we get roughly 16,376 people or just about 50%.
BTW, don't assume from my previous posting that I believe that only those families with students in school should have to pay for the schools. Frankly, I think that's BS.
Every municipality has a high percentage of people who do not use their schools directly. If that reasoning were applied there would be no schools at all, anywhere.
Clearly, some additional logic needs to be applied. How about:
"We care if our neighbors' children get a good education."
Otherwise we get:
"I don't read books, so we don't need a library."
"I don't set my house on fire so we don't need a fire department."
"I don't walk so we don't need parks."
You see where this is going I hope.
Some of these comments are ridiculous. Nobody is arguing that those who do not have children in school should not pay taxes, and those of you attempting to further this position know that very well.
How about considering the fact!! that the 24% of Mt. Lebanon "dwelling units" who do have children in school, and think that no expense is unreasonable, are asking (demanding) that the other 76% participate, without objection, in the never-ending cost increases. Anytime someone questions expenses they are immediately accused of being anti-education.
And yes, the numbers are 76%/24%. Go to the MLSD website and read the 2007-2008 Mt Lebanon School Budget Enrollment Statistics for 2006 - the latest year shown.This is information supplied by the district and the municipality, not assumptions based on the 8 year old census report. The District report does not identify renters, though it does break out "two family and multifamily dwelling units. And what does that matter? Is there an implication that renters don't pay taxes and should not be included in the statistics? What some of us are asking for, and have been for years, is that the school board excercise some fiscal responsibility, something that a majority of the current board seems intent on doing. We all want the best - education for all our children, house, car, etc. - but in the real world we must sometimes forgo what we want for what we can afford.
I'll admit that I have a school-age child that would benefit from a LEED certified school. But I also want to see my chosen town and community grow - not in size, but in energy, vitality and strength. While providing good education is a key factor to this, so is leading the way in forward thinking. The world is in environmental crisis, and if we would rather use our money on (say) a new flat-screen TV than help create a better world, well, that's the problem.
A LEED certified high school would propel Mt Lebanon into the forefront of progressive thought, attracting the people, businesses and teachers that will make this an even better place to live than it already is.
Let's not sit back and say "it's good enough" or "it's not my problem". Let's work together to make Mt Lebanon - and the world - a better place.
Fen said: Let's not sit back and say "it's good enough" or "it's not my problem".
I can see you're not from around here. ;-)
Given the nature of the world today, there is little doubt that the high school project will have a number of "green" components and perhaps even some level of LEED certification. That's just they way most buildings are being built these days. But let's stop with all of the wild generalizations. If you honestly expect me to believe that by building a LEED certified school we will attract new and/or better people, businesses and teachers at any noticeable level . . . well, I'm just not buying it. Sorry to be the cynic.
I would also point out that it was reported this week that the Pirates will "go green" this year @ PNC Park, but I don't think anyone could label them as leaders in "progressive thought"
Again, sorry to be the cynic.
Post a Comment
<< Home