Docstoc

Post Occupancy Evaluation Law Enforcement Center Ramsey County

Document Sample
Post Occupancy Evaluation Law Enforcement Center Ramsey County Powered By Docstoc
					Post Occupancy Evaluation
 Law Enforcement Center
     Ramsey County




            Prepared for the
      Solid Waste Management
        Coordinating Board
               Prepared by the
 Center for Sustainable Building Research
         University of Minnesota
               John Carmody
              Kathleen Harder
                Sarah Birtles
               Virajita Singh
           Jonee Kulman Brigham
                 Linda Solis
             Katherine E. Dale

          December 22, 2004
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                    3

1: INTRODUCTION                                                                      7

     Project Description
     Background
     Methodology
     Objectives

2: SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES                                                          12

     Site
     Water
     Energy
     Indoor Environmental Quality
     Materials
     Waste

3: PROCESS                                                                         25

     Introduction
     Evaluation by Key Participants

4: OUTCOMES                                                                        30

     Economic
     Environmental
     Human
     Community

APPENDICES                                                                         36

     A:   Specifications Review
     B:   Outcome Data Sheets
     C:   Key to Life Cycle Assessment Units
     D:   Occupant Survey Form




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   1
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is one of five studies of
sustainable building pilot projects by the University of Minnesota team. We would like to thank the Solid
Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) for funding these studies, and the SWMCB
committee for their guidance and direction. Committee members included Leslie Wilson, Carver County;
Warren Wilson, Dakota County; Sue Doll, Anoka County; Paul Kroening, Hennepin County; Nicky
Stewart, Washington County; Cathi Lyman-Onkka and Michael Reed, Ramsey County; Erin Barnes-
Driscoll and Laura Millberg, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance; and Jan Lucke, Richardson
Richter and Associates.

The study would not have been possible without the participation and cooperation of numerous
individuals at Ramsey County. We appreciate the time and efforts of Fred Shank, Principal Project
Management Consultant; Gary Mrachek, Building Manager; Julie Munkelwitz, Head of Courts
Administration; Dimitri Burroughs, Undersheriff and Lieutenant Mike Vodovoz, both with the Ramsey
County Sheriff's Department. We also thank the Law Enforcement Center employees who participated in
surveys and a focus group. We also appreciate the insight and assistance provided by the architect,
Nicholas Marcucci, and consulting engineer, Kevin Marshall, at Wold Associates, as well as by the
contractor's representative, Mark Miller, at McGough Construction.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   2
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Executive Summary

The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) is committed to the reduction of non-
municipal solid waste (non-MSW) specifically generated through building projects in its constituent
counties. To address this issue, the SWMCB funded the Center for Sustainable Building Research
(CSBR) at the University of Minnesota to provide design assistance to the counties on several pilot
projects. To learn from these projects, the SWMCB asked CSBR to conduct Post Occupancy Evaluations
(POEs) of selected projects across the counties. The Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center was
selected as one of these projects.

The POE research methodology consisted of general building data gathering, observational walkthroughs,
plan and specification reviews, and collection of energy, water and waste data. Interviews were conducted
with key participants including County project managers, facility managers, architect, contractor, and
building occupants. Surveys on indoor environmental quality were given to building occupants.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center (LEC) consolidated its former Adult Detention Center,
located on Kellogg Boulevard facing the River, and the Jail Annex, which was part of the St. Paul Public
Safety Building, to a new location in the Lafayette Park industrial area. The LEC is a pre-trial holding
facility for both men and women. The project includes a jail tower housing an average of 380 inmates;
administration for the County Sheriff's Department; courts and a training facility. The building's total area
is 297,000 square feet with 278 full-time employees. Completed in November 2003, the project cost
approximately $47.6 million.
The Law Enforcement Center's training facility (firing range and classroom) is shared with other local
groups including the St. Paul Police Department; East Metro Training Facility; smaller police forces such
as White Bear Lake; Highway Patrol; Washington County as well as Ramsey County. This eliminated the
need for Washington County to build its own separate facility. Relocating the jail from the St. Paul
riverfront opened up the original site for redevelopment such as recreation, housing and entertainment in
keeping with the St. Paul Mississippi Framework Plan.
The selected site was previously developed land in an urban setting and connected to transit and utilities.
The building envelope is secure and energy efficient. An emphasis was placed on daylight and energy
efficiency. Where possible, occupants are close to a window in order to optimize daylight and views. The
inmates also have direct access to natural light and ventilation at the clerestory level, though glazing is
translucent in order to block the view outside. Glazing type and location, insulation, and other building
elements were optimized using an energy simulation program during design. Efficient lighting fixtures
and controls as well as innovative efficient HVAC system features were used.
The St. Paul District Energy system was extended to serve the LEC. Recently, the district system has
been upgraded to use waste wood as a fuel source in addition to traditional energy sources. District
Energy provides heating and cooling for the building with biomass, a clean wood waste from chipped tree
trimmings and industry. Currently waste wood accounts for 45-50 percent of District Energy’s fuel, but
this will increase to 60-80 percent within the year. Other fuels include natural gas, low-sulfur eastern coal
and fuel oil. District Energy uses an estimated 275,000 tons of waste wood per year, which helps with the
waste disposal problem. Currently, 600,000 tons of waste wood is produced in the metro area.
Durability was the main priority in material selection. Often this meant reducing materials down to
concrete floors and painted gypsum board walls in high-use, high-maintenance areas such detention cells
and service corridors. The most unique example of material efficiency is in the use of pre-cast concrete



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   3
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


cells. These cells were pre-manufactured off site and installed by crane, reducing construction material
waste and improving schedule efficiency. Furthermore, precast components offer the potential to
dismantle the building for future reuse. Other elements of the building allow for adaptability and future
expansion. A shell space was provided above the courtrooms for future court expansion. The building was
also sited so that a second jail tower could be added north of the existing tower in the future.


SUSTAINABLE PROCESS

Key features of the process included:
•    The use of the Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide to educate the team and set sustainability goals.
•    The use of Xcel’s Energy Assets program to ensure energy efficient design and documentation of the
     results.
•    Fred Shank, project manager, was new to the process and was the designated champion, but he claims
     no one really championed it: "[We] did what we could but there was a learning process involved".
•    Sustainable design was not included in the RFP or program requirements. However, Fred Shank
     indicated that the emphasis on sustainability has improved within the County just in the last couple of
     years and these elements are included in RFPs for more recent projects.


SUSTAINABLE OUTCOMES
Economic
•    In the original analysis provided by the Xcel Energy Assets program, the building design saved
     $58,059 per year in energy costs. The cost of additional energy efficiency strategies was $38,043 but
     this was offset by an incentive of $59,550. Because of the change to District Energy, the actual return
     to the County from Xcel was $21,615 since the efficient chillers and reconditioned boilers were
     dropped from the project. During the 4.6 month period of winter 2003-2004, Ramsey Law
     Enforcement Center spent a total of $206,840 or $0.74 per sq.ft on energy costs. This is too early to
     draw conclusions about actual use.
•    According to waste bills analyzed over a five month period from January-May 2004, the average
     operation waste cost/per month is $915. Ramsey Law Facility was charged $78.74/ton, which
     includes a fuel charge, solid waste management tax, and a county environmental charge.
•    Over approximately 5 months from November 2003 to April 2004, the average monthly building
     water cost for Ramsey Law Facility was $831.95 and the average monthly sewer cost was $1,364.40.
Environmental
•    In the original analysis provided by the Xcel Energy Assets program, the building as designed saved
     35% in total energy compared to a building that just meets the State Building Code. This translates
     into savings of 2425 tons/year in CO2 emissions, 4.15 tons per year in SO2 emissions, 5.60 in NO
     emissions, and 0.20 tons of particulates. This analysis was based on using a conventional boiler and
     chiller. The County decided to eliminate the cost of the boiler and chiller and use chilled and hot
     water supplied by District Energy. Because of the different fuel mix for District Energy, actual
     pollutant savings are not available but overall energy savings are likely to be of the same magnitude.
•    During the first 4.6 month winter period, Ramsey Law Enforcement Center used a total of 57.1
     KBTU/sq.ft. Of that 38% came from electricity, 59% from District Energy (heating), 3% from
     District Cooling, and 0% from natural gas.



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   4
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


•    The electric energy use during this period resulted in environmental outcomes of 62.6/sq.ft primary
     energy, 1.7 lbs./sq.ft. solid waste, an air pollution index of 1/sq.ft., a negligible water pollution index,
     9.4 lbs./sq.ft. global warming potential, and 22 lbs./sq.ft. weighted resource use. Life Cycle measures
     for District Energy have not been obtained at this time.
•    According to waste bills analyzed over a five month period from January-May 2004, the average
     monthly quantity of operation waste generated was 12 tons. Waste generated per person is 0.01
     ton/month or 20 lbs/person/month.
•    Over approximately five months from November 2003 to April 2004, the average monthly building
     water consumed was 408,100 gallons. The average monthly water consumption per person is 218
     gallons. In comparing this with other residential buildings, note that these numbers are based on a 40
     hours per week occupant basis.

Human
•    A survey addressing indoor environmental quality in the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center
     was administered to employees who work in the building. The survey contained general questions
     regarding employee perceptions of the sound environment, lighting, thermal comfort, air quality,
     health, etc. In general, respondents indicated they are somewhat satisfied with a number of
     dimensions integral to indoor environmental quality. While they are not dissatisfied, the finding that
     respondents are not more than somewhat satisfied, on average, indicates that the indoor
     environmental conditions in the building could be improved. In particular, individual comments
     reveal the desire for more natural light and better air quality.

Community
•    St. Paul District Energy provides heating and cooling for the building. The centralized system
     produces fewer emissions than separate boilers and eliminates over 100 smokestacks in St. Paul.
     District Energy uses an estimated 275,000 tons of waste wood per year, which helps with the waste
     problem. Furthermore this project connected District Energy to the north side of the freeway allowing
     connection to other buildings in the future.
•    The Law Enforcement Center's training facility (firing range and classroom) are shared with other
     local groups: the St. Paul Police Department; East Metro Training Facility; smaller police forces such
     as White Bear Lake; Highway Patrol; Washington County as well as Ramsey County. This eliminated
     the need for Washington County to build its own separate facility.
•    Relocating the jail from the St. Paul riverfront opened up the original site for redevelopment such as
     recreation, housing and entertainment in keeping with the St. Paul Mississippi Framework Plan.
•    Reduced water and energy use result in less demand for new infrastructure to treat water and
     wastewater, as well as build new power plants.
•    Waste recycling, recycled materials and less material use through efficient planning all contribute to
     less need for landfills.

RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several key elements that enable a County to successfully design, build and maintain
sustainable projects while creating an ongoing process of improvement. These are listed below with
recommendations for the County to achieve them.
•    Adopt sustainable design guidelines or standards and ensure they are followed on all projects.



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   5
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


     It is recommended that the County consider adopting the new Minnesota Building Design Guidelines
     (B3 project). These guidelines provide a detailed process and method of tracking project outcomes
     that will be used consistently for state funded projects (www.msbg.umn.edu). These guidelines are
     also transparent to LEED which counties may wish to use to receive national certification of
     exemplary green building projects.
     Note: Ramsey County followed the MSDG to some extent on this project, but there was no sense that
     anything was required.
•    Select consultants with sustainable design experience.
     Counties should have language in their Request for Proposals that requires an experienced sustainable
     design team.
     Note: RFP language was not included in this project, but reportedly it has been used on subsequent
     County projects.
•    Find and empower a champion within the County to ensure follow through and success.
     A successful sustainable project needs an informed and enthusiastic champion with decision making
     authority. Even if there is a champion leading sustainable design, there must be clear support from the
     County and all parties must buy in to the process.
     Note: A stronger voice with decision making authority would improve chances of success.
•    Follow an integrated design process beginning in early planning stages.
     Integrated design means involving the entire team as early as possible in the process. Ideally,
     sustainable design goals should be set at a kick-off meeting during planning stages before program
     and budget are firmly established.
     Note: On this project, sustainable design was introduced midway through the process without buy in
     from all parties. This can be improved.
•    Conduct energy analysis and specification review.
     During the design phase in all projects, it is particularly important to conduct energy use analysis
     during to identify and document savings. In addition, conduct a rigorous specifications review and
     require that sustainability criteria be included in the specification sections as appropriate.
     Note: Energy analysis was done on this project contributing to significant outcomes. Specification
     review needs to be more rigorous.
•    Conduct periodic post occupancy evaluations on all buildings.
     Post occupancy evaluations should be conducted periodically on all buildings as a tool for continuous
     improvement and to assess actual building performance. Whenever possible, performance results on
     one building should be compared to those for other similar buildings. Key performance indicators
     include energy and water consumption and waste generation. If possible, track employee satisfaction,
     absenteeism, turnover, and health care costs. Identify appropriate measures of productivity and assess
     employee performance. Track performance of sustainable design strategies over time and document
     the costs and benefits of particular features to inform future facility development.
•    Educate the public.
     Continue to educate staff and public on sustainable strategies used to increase awareness of the
     benefits of sustainable design, and encourage public support of investing in sustainable design for the
     benefit to the community now and in the future.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   6
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Chapter 1. Introduction

The Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center was selected as one of several County building projects to
be evaluated in the metropolitan area served by the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board
(SWMCB). In this section, the building project is described followed by background information,
methodology and objectives of the study.


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center (LEC) consolidated its former Adult Detention Center,
located on Kellogg Boulevard facing the River, and the Jail Annex, which was part of the St. Paul Public
Safety Building, to a new location in the Lafayette Park industrial area. The LEC is a pre-trial holding
facility for both men and women. The project includes a jail tower housing an average of 380 inmates;
administration for the County Sheriff's Department; courts and a training facility. The building's total area
is 297,000 square feet with 278 full-time employees. Completed in November 2003, the project cost
approximately $47.6 million.
The Law Enforcement Center's training facility (firing range and classroom) is shared with other local
groups including the St. Paul Police Department; East Metro Training Facility; smaller police forces such
as White Bear Lake; Highway Patrol; Washington County as well as Ramsey County. This eliminated the
need for Washington County to build its own separate facility. Relocating the jail from the St. Paul
riverfront opened up the original site for redevelopment such as recreation, housing and entertainment in
keeping with the St. Paul Mississippi Framework Plan.
The selected site was previously developed land, in an urban setting and connected to transit and utilities.
The building envelope is secure and energy efficient. An emphasis was placed on daylight and energy
efficiency. Where possible, occupants are close to a window in order to optimize daylight and views. The
inmates also have direct access to natural light and ventilation at the clerestory level, though glazing is
translucent in order to block the view outside. Glazing type and location, insulation, and other building
elements were optimized using an energy simulation program during design. Efficient lighting fixtures
and controls as well as innovative efficient HVAC system features were used.
The St. Paul District Energy system was extended to serve the LEC. Recently, the district system has
been upgraded to use waste wood as a fuel source in addition to traditional energy sources. District
Energy provides heating and cooling for the building with biomass, a clean wood waste from chipped tree
trimmings and industry. Currently waste wood accounts for 45-50 percent of District Energy’s fuel, but
this will increase to 60-80 percent within the year. Other fuels include natural gas, low-sulfur eastern coal
and fuel oil. District Energy uses an estimated 275,000 tons of waste wood per year, which helps with the
waste disposal problem. Currently, 600,000 tons of waste wood is produced in the metro area.
Durability was the main priority in material selection. Often this meant reducing materials down to
concrete floors and painted gypsum board walls in high-use, high-maintenance areas such detention cells
and service corridors. The most unique example of material efficiency is in the use of pre-cast concrete
cells. These cells, installed by crane, were pre-manufactured off site, reducing construction material waste
and improving schedule efficiency. Furthermore, precast components offer the potential to dismantle the
building for future reuse. Other elements of the building allow for adaptability and future expansion. A
shell space was provided above the courtrooms for future court expansion. The building was also sited so
that a second jail tower could be added north of the existing tower in the future.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   7
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


PROJECT DATA

Project Name:                              Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center (LEC)
                                           425 Grove Street
                                           St. Paul, MN 55101

Building type/function:                    Adult detention center, courts, and Sheriff's department training and
                                           administration.
Building Area:                             297,000 square feet
Site Area:                                 6.5 acres
Number of Stories:                         6-story jail tower, 3-story administration tower
Owner:                                     Ramsey County

Project Manager:                           Fred Shank
                                           Ramsey County Property Management
Current Facility Manager:                  Gary Mrachek

Full Time Equivalent Staff:                278
Annual Operating Cost:                     Unknown
Delivery process:                          "Assisting General Contractor" Design/build
                                           Project Management by Ramsey County

Schedule:
       Start planning:                     Discussions began in 1988; Planning commenced in 1994.
       Start design:                       October 1999
       Complete design:                    September, 2001
       Start construction:                 December, 2001
       Complete construction:              November, 2003


Budget:

    DESIGN
       Construction:                           $ 47,636,328                 (total payments to GC)
       Furniture/fixtures:                      $ 1,027,274
       Telecom./Data:                               $ 90,434
       Site Development:                         $1,017,859
       Professional Services:                    $3,224,492
       Property Management:                      $1,000,356
       Site Acquisition:                         $6,457,131
       Other                                       $636,135

          TOTAL BUDGET                         $ 61,090,010




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   8
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


Architect:                                 Wold Architects and Engineers
                                           Nick Marcucci, Project Architect
                                           305 St. Peter Street
                                           St. Paul, MN 55102
                                           651-227-7773 (tel)
                                           651-223-5646 (fax)
                                           mail@woldae.com (email)

Electrical Engineer:                       Wold Architects and Engineers

Mechanical Engineer:                       Wold Architects and Engineers

Structural Engineer:                       Bakke, Kopp, Ballou & McFarlin (BKBM)
                                           5930 Brooklyn Blvd.
                                           Minneapolis, MN 55429
                                           763 843 0420 (tel)
                                           763 843 0421 (fax)

Site Utility Engineer:                     Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
                                           3535 Vadnais Center Drive
                                           St. Paul, MN 55110
                                           651 490 2000 (tel)
                                           651 490 2150 (fax)
Construction
Site Construction:                         Glenn Rehbein Excavating
                                           Jason Volkenant
                                           8651 Naples Street NE
                                           Blaine, Minnesota 55449-6727
                                           651 919 6444 (tel)
                                           763 784 6001 (fax)
                                           jvolkenant@rehbein.com (email)

General Contractor:                        McGough Construction Company, Inc.
                                           Mark Miller
                                           2737 Fairview Avenue North
                                           St Paul, MN 55113-1372
                                           651 492 6550 (tel)
                                           651 633 5673 (fax)
                                           mmiller@mcgough.com (email)




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   9
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


BACKGROUND

The Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) is committed to the reduction of non-
municipal solid waste (non-MSW) specifically generated through building projects in its constituent
counties. To address this issue, the SWMCB funded the Center for Sustainable Building Research
(CSBR) at the University of Minnesota to advise on several pilot projects. To learn from these projects,
the SWMCB asked CSBR to conduct Post Occupancy Evaluations (POEs) of selected projects across the
counties. This report will contribute to a knowledge base that county agencies can use to provide more
sustainable buildings that represent the best investment of county money over the lifecycle of each
project.

According to data collected by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the region landfilled
approximately 1.2 million tons of non-MSW, in construction, demolition, and special waste landfills in
1997. In addition to landfilling, non-MSW was managed through processing, incineration and beneficial
reuse (e.g. land application).

The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan is the basis for managing the six-county metropolitan area's solid
waste through the year 2017. The Regional Solid Waste Master Plan was prepared by the SWMCB, a
joint powers board of the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington in
conjunction with the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).

The Master Plan recognizes, for the first time, that non-MSW should receive greater attention in regional
decision making. It recognizes that in order to develop non-MSW policies and programs, however, it will
be necessary to collect data, evaluate environmental impacts and regulatory issues, and identify best
management practices. It also establishes expectations that government, businesses and the waste industry
take responsibility and make decisions in a manner that will minimize environmental harm and encourage
reuse, recycling and resource recovery.

The Intermediate Non-MSW Management Outcome #5 in the Regional Master Plan states that by
2005, 80% of the region's public entities will evaluate and where feasible, incorporate sustainable
architectural guidelines in the planning process for construction and remodeling of government
buildings.

It also states: “Hennepin County anticipates completion of the Sustainable Design Guide and Rating
System by the end of 1998. The University of Minnesota has received a grant to continue enhancing the
Sustainable Design Guide and Rating System and establish case studies and training programs. From this
model, guidelines will be developed. In order to achieve this outcome, the SWMCB will need to
collaborate with others, provide input into guideline development, and adopt guidelines as a regional
policy. These guidelines will 1) help reduce the amount of waste generated from construction and
deconstruction of buildings, 2) reduce the toxicity of the materials used, 3) encourage the use of recycled
products, and 4) provide reuse options for construction materials.”

 The Negotiated County Outcomes in the SWMCB Regional Master Plan include the following
specifically with respect to Dakota County:

“Ramsey, Carver, Dakota and Washington Counties will:
• Evaluate and, where feasible, incorporate by December 31, 2005, sustainable architectural guidelines
   in the planning process and procurement of architectural services for the construction and remodeling
   of all County government buildings and other County projects using public financing.



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   10
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


•    Undertake efforts so that public entities in the county incorporate sustainable architectural guidelines
     in the planning process for the construction and remodeling of all government buildings, including
     projects using public financing.”


METHODOLOGY

The intention of a Post Occupancy Evaluations (POE) is to learn from an existing building so it's
operation may be improved and lessons can be applied to future projects. The design and delivery of
buildings is a complex process whose outcomes are affected by numerous factors not all of which are
within the control of team or individuals responsible for the process. The scope of a POE can vary widely.
Within a limited budget and scope, the SWMCB POEs attempt to integrate an assessment of
sustainability with the building performance concerns of traditional POEs. The research methodology
consisted of general building data gathering, observational walkthroughs, plan and specification reviews,
and collection of energy, water and waste data. Interviews were conducted with key participants including
County project managers, facility managers, architect, contractor, and building occupants. Surveys on
indoor environmental quality were given to building occupants.


OBJECTIVES

Sustainable development seeks a balance between first cost and lifecycle economics, environmental
responsibility, health and well being of human occupants, and community values and needs. To relate
these broad concepts to the building development process, sustainable development goals are often
organized by categories of Site, Water, Energy, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Materials, and
Waste. All phases of development potentially affect sustainable performance from planning, pre-design
(site selection and programming), design, construction and commissioning, and operation. To assess how
well these goals are achieved on a particular project, the report is organized around these fundamental
questions:

•    What sustainable strategies were used? Were there any issues or barriers with implementation of the
     strategies?

•    How effective was the process used to achieve the sustainable development?

•    What are the outcomes of sustainable development in terms of the “Quadruple Bottom Line” —
     economics, environment, human occupants, and community?

The SWMCB POE analysis team describes The Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) as “a variation on the
commonly referenced ‘Triple Bottom Line’ used in sustainability literature. The ‘Triple Bottom Line’
refers to accountability to all of the value systems of a sustainable society -- human and ecological
performance in addition to economic performance. The ‘Quadruple Bottom Line’ divides the ‘human’
category into ‘human occupant’ and ‘community’ in order to reflect the very different way architecture
affects individuals who inhabit the building versus the buildings impact on the larger local and global
communities.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   11
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Chapter 2. Sustainable Strategies

SITE STRATEGIES


MSDG Strategy 1.1: Direct Development to Environmentally Appropriate Areas

Description
• The site was previously built on and connected to local municipal services and mass transit.
• The Griffin Building, a 5-story brick building on the site, was restored as the new St. Paul Police
   Headquarters. Three brick buildings were demolished: a 3-1/2-story industrial building, a 1-story
   building and a 3-story building at the corner of Lafayette Road and Grove Street.

Implementation
• A fuel oil tank was punctured on site and the hazardous material spill was abated. However,
   brownfield development was not an intention of the site selection.

MSDG Strategy 1.2 Maintain and Enhance Biodiversity and Ecology of the Site

Description
• While most of the site remains as hard surface asphalt parking and concrete sidewalks (approximately
   85%), and the impetus for new planting was more aesthetic than ecological, the project made
   improvements from what was there. Before construction the site was almost 100% impervious.
• Spec Section Clearing and Grubbing (02232) indicates proper protection of plants and trees to remain.
• An integrated pest management plan has been implemented with the intent to reduce the use of
   pesticides.


MSDG Strategy 1.3               Use Microclimate and Environmentally Responsive Site Design Strategies

Description
• Trees and shrubs were planted around parking lots and at the southeast corner of the site (Grove and
   Lafayette). However, their placement was mostly for streetscaping, with no real attention to shading
   or cooling.
• Cut-off fixtures were used in the parking lot.

Implementation
• No problems have been reported about site lighting.

MSDG Strategy 1.4 Use Native Shrubs Trees and Plants

Description
• More than half the site plantings on the plant list are native to the region.

Implementation
• Native plants and how to handle substitutions are not specifically called out in the Spec Section Turf
   and Plantings (029XX).




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   12
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


•    The irrigation system turns on daily, except when raining. The sprinkler zones are time-adjusted for
     the types of plants being watered.

MSDG Strategy 1.5 Use Resource Efficient Modes of Transportation

Description
• A transit stop is immediately adjacent to the site, at the corner of Grove and Lafayette. There are 57
   stops within the two-block area.
• Bikes and motorcycles have been designated a parking area on site.
• Showers and lockers are provided for all staff in the fitness center.

Implementation
• There are no bike lockers or racks installed in the designated bike area.
   Currently, of the 278 full time employees, there are only two cyclists.
• Despite the urban location, proximity to transit and showers available, an estimated 95 percent of
   employees drive to work. The employees at this facility are primarily a car culture. Two reasons can
   be sited: employees can be held for four hours overtime, and therefore need flexibility; and as a 24-
   hour building some employees work in shifts, which is not necessarily conducive to busing or biking.
• The County's metropass offer has not proved to be an incentive.



WATER STRATEGIES

MSDG Strategy 2.1 Manage Site Water

Description
• A storm sewer system has been constructed to separate sanitary and storm sewers. The roof drains
   directly into the storm sewer.
• The roof and north surface parking lot act as holding ponds to slow the rate of stormwater runoff.
• Following the St. Paul Stormwater Management plan, site runoff rates improved from 17.5 cubic feet
   per second to less than 12.4 cubic feet per second.

Implementation
• The County's Project Manager proposed water infiltration at parking islands with 'rock beds' and
   'water gardens' but the idea was lost in the process and the design team went with traditional curb and
   gutter.
• The County worked successfully with other property owners in the block to sod their easements right
   up to adjacent buildings. In this cooperative effort, the county agreed to maintain these areas of sod.


MSDG Strategy 2.2 Use Gray Water Systems

Description
The Project Manager presented the idea of a gray water system early on in the process, but there was no
follow-through in design.


MSDG Strategy 2.4 Conserve Building Water Consumption



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   13
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


Description
• The specifications call for 1.6 gallons per flush (GPF), or less for toilets and 1.0 GPF for urinals. (The
   EPACT requirement is 1.5 GPF).

Implementation
• Efficient toilets were installed in keeping with the function of the building, rather than for
   sustainability. Specifically, cell toilets are more efficient than others due to overflow protection.
• There is a problem with inmates stuffing toilet paper down toilets, but the toilets in the cells have
   performed best for this type of facility.



ENERGY STRATEGIES

MSDG Strategy 3.1 Optimize Placement and Configuration for Energy Performance

Description
• Windows have been minimized on the north side prison tower. Windows are larger, almost full
   height, at the south side corridor and concentrated on the southeast face at the administrative tower.

Implementation
• The design team started addressing sustainability too late in the game to affect building placement,
   but architects where able to maximize opportunities for daylighting as the program had been laid out.
• In general, it appears energy did not drive building placement.


MSDG Strategy 3.2 Optimize Building Envelope Thermal Performance

Description
• According to the Xcel Energy Assets Report, the building was designed with an R-30 roof and R-20
   wall. A typical wall section shows sheathing tape at insulation joints. Insulation is cast in the precast
   prison cells, creating a tight building envelope.
• Low-E glazing has been used for all windows and, for security reasons, triple pane glass is used at
   prison cells.

Implementation
• Detailing a tight building envelope is standard practice for the architect, and in particular for the
   maintenance and security requirements of this building type.
• Bifold garage doors were considered for the sallyport (garage) in place of an overhead door, which
   takes longer to open and close and lets all the heat out. However, an overhead door was installed due
   to budget.


MSDG Strategy 3.3 Provide Daylighting Integrated with Electric Lighting Controls

Description
• South glazing and a curved west-facing wall provide daylight in the corridors and main stairway.
   Interior vertical blinds and dimming sensors were provided in dayrooms, classroom, perimeter offices
   and conference rooms.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   14
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


•    Dimmers are located on: all fixtures in corner dayrooms; fixtures within ten feet of glazing in second
     and third floor classroom spaces; all fixtures in south-facing circulation spaces and fixtures within 20
     feet of the glazing on the west-facing clerestory over the circulation atrium. In the administration
     area, the middle bulb in each fixture is daylight sensitive.
•    The curved wall with clerestory windows brings light in from above at the main stairway. Perimeter
     offices and classrooms, primarily east-facing, receive natural light. Sidelights and glazing in doors
     provide some natural light to core open office and administrative areas.
•    Light shelves and monitors were not included in the project, although the windows are inset in the
     brick wall. The inset shades windows on the upper level on east wall and provides an upper level
     overhang on the south corridor wall.
•    Clerestory lighting is provided at dayrooms and in the main booking area in the detention tower.

Implementation
• Security issues reduced the potential for daylighting the detention area. In the cells, bars are spaced 4
   inches on center with translucent glazing. To keep inmates from having visual access to the outside,
   clear glazing is provided at the clerestory level in the dayrooms.
• According to the Energy Assets Verification Report, less than ten percent of the intended lighting is
   photocell controlled. This is largely due to elimination of photo-controlled lighting in detention
   exercise areas, and reducing control in offices to one lamp instead of three.


MSDG Strategy 3.4 Provide Efficient Electric Lighting Systems and Controls

Description
• Occupancy sensors were proposed and lighting was designed to a 50 footcandle level in offices and
   classrooms.
• Occupancy sensors were installed in corridors, stairwells, classrooms and offices.
• For security reasons, lights are always on in the cells. However, a dimmer reduces the light level at
   night during sleeping hours.
• F32T8 fixtures with electronic ballasts were installed in private offices and small conference rooms.

Implementation
• DOE-2 simulations were performed to determine efficient lighting in corridors, classrooms and
   offices. The occupancy sensors have been adjusted from a 5-minute delay to a 20-minute delay in
   offices.
• Task lighting was not included in the budget and it appears, in general, staff has not supplied their
   own since occupying the building.
• Lighting efficiency surpassed design expectations in offices. Fixture size and spacing were designed
   to reduce lighting power density to 1.55-1.75 watts per square foot in private offices and small
   conference rooms. The lighting power density was measured as 1.37 watts per square foot.
• Lighting efficiency surpassed design expectations in the classroom and conference rooms; Fixture
   size and spacing was designed to reduce lighting power density to 1.10-1.30 per square foot in
   classroom and large conference room. The lighting power density was measured as 1.07 watts per
   square foot.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   15
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


MSDG Strategy 3.5 Maximize Mechanical Systems Performance

Description
• Energy efficiency was encouraged through operational cost savings and financial incentives offered
   through Xcel Energy Assets program. DOE2.1 Energy Modeling was used to determine efficient
   strategies and associated costs.
• The building is divided into separate climate control zones: jail tower, courts, administration tower
   and infirmary. To meet each area's different operating hours and functional requirements, there are 17
   air handling units (AHU) and 228 variable-air-volume (VAV) and mixing box zones.
• St Paul District Energy, which has doubled its efficiency since 1979, provides heating and cooling for
   the building. The centralized system produces fewer emissions than separate boilers and eliminates
   over 100 smokestacks in St Paul. In addition, the plant simultaneously produces heat and electricity
   for its own use and to sell back to the grid. This process is known as cogeneration or combined heat
   and power (CHP). District Energy's cooling serves 14 million square feet downtown and heating
   serves 28 million square feet. District cooling reduces clorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions.
   Cogeneration will reduce emissions by an estimated 75 percent, CO2 by 280,000 tons/year, sulfur
   dioxide by 80 percent and soot by 50 percent. Burning wood waste reduces reliance on coal by 80
   percent.
• Variable speed drives were installed in air handler supply fans, return fans, and secondary hot water
   and chilled water pumps.
• Sensible heat recovery in the jail tower via Heat Exchangers Section (15755) recovers heat from the
   exhaust air to the unconditioned ventilation air.
• Specification Section (15850) indicates that "Energy-efficient motors [shall have a] higher efficiency
   than 'average standard industry motors' IEEE Standard 112".
• Occupancy sensors were installed for variable air volume (VAV) boxes in large conference rooms,
   staff dining area and classrooms.

Implementation
• District Energy became a financially viable option rather than reusing boilers from the Benz building
   because District Energy would pay for the connection. The value is that the north side of the freeway
   is connected to District Energy for future projects. The decision to connect to District Energy
   eliminated the new chillers and boilers in the project. While this decision was sustainable on many
   levels, credit for efficient chillers and boilers accounted for nearly half of Xcel Energy Assets' peak
   kW savings. This shortfall distorted the results, making it appear that the project did not meet energy
   efficiency goals.
• Thermostats are centrally controlled by facilities management.
• Heat from the kitchen's refrigeration system acts as a supplement to HVAC in the sally port-garage.
• There were no notable problems reported to facilities management in the first four months of
   operation.


MSDG Strategy 3.6 Use Efficient Equipment and Appliances

Description
• There was no formal purchasing plan for Energy Star equipment and appliances.
• No energy-efficient requirements were specified for hydraulic elevators under Section (14240).




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   16
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


MSDG Strategy 3.7 Use Renewable or Other Alternative Energy Sources

Description
This facility is connected to St. Paul's District Energy, which has been upgraded to use waste wood as a
fuel source in addition to traditional energy sources.
• District Energy provides heating and cooling for the building with biomass, a clean wood waste from
    chipped tree trimmings and industry. Currently waste wood accounts for 45-50 percent of fuel, but
    this will increase to 60-80 percent within the year. Other fuels include natural gas, low-sulfur eastern
    coal and fuel oil.
• District Energy uses an estimated 275,000 tons of waste wood per year, which helps with the waste
    disposal problem. Currently, 600,000 tons of waste wood is produced in the metro area.
• Twelve percent of the electricity from Xcel Energy comes from renewable sources, including
    biomass, hydro, dry fuel, and wind.

Implementation
• No issues.

MSDG Strategy 3.8              Integrate All systems and Reduce Total Energy Use

Description
The project team worked with Xcel Energy's (formerly NSP) Energy Assets Program to improve on the
building's energy performance. Analysis was performed by the Weidt Group using DOE-2.1E modeling.
Energy Assets lumped their recommendations together into three bundles. Based on a balance between
upfront costs, reasonable payback periods and financial incentives offered by Xcel, the team selected
Bundle #2, with a projected annual savings of 35 percent.

Implementation
• The decision to rely on District Energy over reusing boilers from the Benz building and a new
   efficient chiller had a dramatic impact on reaching the Energy Assets goal. However, for many other
   sustainable reasons, District Energy made sense for the project.
• Verification of the completed building determines the project achieved 54.6 percent of peak kW
   savings anticipated. Excluding the efficient chiller and boiler, the project reached 99 percent of its
   target.


INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (IEQ) STRATEGIES

MSDG Strategy 4.1 Provide a Clean and Healthy Environment

Description
• As a detention center, the building exceeds ventilation requirements. The mechanical system is
   designed around life safety-smoke evacuation in the holding area, and a CO2 sensor was provided in
   the courtrooms. During periods of high occupancy, the CO2 sensor alerts the system to draw air from
   adjacent zones to increase fresh air ventilation and CO control of ventilation fans is provided in
   garage areas.

Implementation
• See survey results in outcomes section.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   17
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


MSDG Strategy 4.2 Control Moisture to Prevent Microbial Contamination

Description
The building envelope was well detailed, and the building properly ventilated.
• Details show attention to flashing and sealing built-up roof, pea gravel to keep weeps clear of mortar,
   weep ventilator and Specification Section (07110) Waterproofing calls for composite sheet
   membrane, a durable product providing good moisture protection.
• Carpet was not installed in high-maintenance areas such as the detention tower.
• The HVAC system included desiccant dehumidification.
• Under Section (01720) Project Record Documents there are no requirements listed for on-site
   documentation of cleaning procedures and material storage to prevent moisture buildup or dirt
   accumulation.

Implementation
• See survey results in outcomes section.


MSDG Strategy 4.3 Provide Ample Ventilation for Pollutant Control and Thermal Comfort

Description
• See Strategy 4.1. Outside air quantities were determined based on required airflow per person from
   ASHRAE 62-1989, assuming peak occupancy. CO2 levels are not controlled or monitored.

Implementation
• See survey results in outcomes section.


MSDG Strategy 4.4 Provide Appropriate Thermal Conditions

Description
• Digital controls have been provided for air handling units.
• Variable-air-volume boxes are zoned according to function: kitchen, first floor courts, 8-hour
   administration area, 24-hour administration area.
• Operable windows are provided in the detention tower recreation areas.

Implementation
• See survey results in outcomes section.


MSDG Strategy 4.5 Provide Effective Lighting

Description
There is significant daylighting in the building, particularly in the administrative areas and in the
detention tower.
• In the booking area, light is used to produce a calming effect in order not to agitate newly detained
    inmates. The area is a 2-story space with clerestory light on the south side. In the detention area,
    natural light typically comes in at clerestory level to maintain quality light, while eliminating views to
    the outside, and potential escape. There are mostly private offices with windows in the administrative
    tower, except that reception is typically in the interior with borrowed light. Vertical blinds, a deep




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   18
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


     overhang at the upper level and window set back on the building's east side provide shading in
     perimeter offices. There are no windows or daylight in the conference administration area.

Implementation
• We observed that many staff kept their doors open, allowing more light to filter into the core
   workspaces than the sidelights alone permit.
• All thirteen employees in court administration have complained about not having windows. They are
   located in the center of the building adjacent to the courts.
• See survey results in outcomes section.


MSDG Strategy 4.6 Provide Appropriate Building Acoustical and Vibration Conditions

Description
With many separate functions in the building, acoustic controls were important to the project. A
consultant was hired for the gun range design. Rifles are audible but handguns are not. In addition to
acoustical insulation, the firing range was located in the building as far away from other occupants as
possible. It sits adjacent to the kitchen, which has loud equipment running constantly, and above the
garage. The remaining walls and roof of the firing range are exterior.

Implementation
• Acoustic treatment in the firing range performs very well.
• In hindsight, the architect would have improved acoustics in holding cells adjacent to courts. They are
   all hard surface and difficult to remediate at this point.
• Cells and holding room floors are about 50 percent carpet with acoustic ceiling tile. This was a way to
   balance acoustics and maintenance.
• Sound attenuation was provided at the upper half of the concrete block walls in the detention area's
   interview rooms (four on the second floor and three in pre-booking). Interviews are tape-recorded so
   acoustics are important at this location.
• Courtrooms use typical acoustic treatment and function well.
• The emergency generator was relocated outside of the building to an enclosed space because of the
   noise.




MSDG Strategy 4.7 Provide Views, Viewspace and Connection to Natural Environment

Description
• Exterior and interior windows have been provided to provide views and connection to the indoor and
   outdoor environment. Approximately 40 percent of employees in the administration tower have direct
   access to a window. Viewspace was eliminated in the north tower where inmates have access to light
   only in dayrooms and cells.

Implementation
• Most complaints come from the court administration staff. They are located centrally on the first floor
   and have no visual connection to the outside.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   19
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


MATERIALS STRATEGIES


MSDG Strategy 5.1: Use Materials with Low Environmental Impact During their Life-Cycle

Description
• Materials were chosen for durability and low maintenance requirements.

Implementation
• There is not any language in the specifications, which calls out requirements for durability; however,
   a review of the design indicates the durable materials and products were selected (painted concrete
   block, brick and concrete floors in service corridors). With this building type, security and durable
   surfaces outweigh other criteria. Therefore, little would be done differently today despite many more
   green products on the market.
• Specification review indicates very little in the front end to alert the contractor and subcontractors of
   sustainable goals. Hazardous waste disposal and paint primer selection is an exception.
• According to 'Spec Section: 01700 Closeout', submittals for certification of content (recycled, low-
   VOC, locally manufactured) were not requested.
• There is no signage to educate the occupants and operations staff about the building’s low
   environmental impact materials.
• A life-cycle assessment tool, such as ATHENA or BEES, was not used to determine negative
   environmental impact of materials.


MSDG Strategy 5.2: Use Salvaged and Remanufactured Materials
Description
• Fuel oil tanks were salvaged from the Benz Building on site.
Implementation
• In addition to the fuel oil tanks, two Boilers from the Benz Building were to be reused on the project.
   However, District Energy was presented as a more financially viable alternative. District Energy paid
   to connect the facility to the heating and cooling infrastructure. Extending District Energy across the
   freeway provides the opportunity for future buildings to connect also.
• Furnishings from the old facility were 22 years old, so all new furniture was selected for the building.
• Reuse of materials during construction was not specified. For example, under Section (03100)
   Concrete Formwork, no requirements for saving and reusing forms were mentioned.

MSDG Strategy 5.3: Use Recycled Content Products and Materials

Description
• The paint primer used is 20% post-consumer recycled content. Asphalt with 20% recycled content
   was used in the parking lot.

Implementation
• Specification sections do not call for recycled content materials.



MSDG Strategy 5.4: Use Materials from Renewable Sources

Description


Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   20
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


•    Specification Sections 06100 Carpentry and 08200 Wood Doors do not indicate a requirement for
     FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification.

Implementation
• Wood used in the project was not FSC certified.


MSDG Strategy 5.5: Use Locally Manufactured Materials

Description
• The project manual does not specific locally manufactured materials.

Implementation
• The contractor estimates approximately 60% of materials were local, produced within 500 miles of
   the project, however there was no tracking or documentation of materials according to this sustainable
   attribute.


MSDG Strategy 5.6: Use Low VOC-emitting Material

Description
• Low-VOC (volatile organic compound) products were not specified for curing agents, sealants,
   adhesives, paints, coatings, and carpets; although, a low-VOC curing agent was included as an option
   under Section 03300 Cast-in-Place. Under Section 09680 Carpet installation was not scheduled to
   avoid off-gassing.

Implementation
• See survey results in outcomes section.


MSDG Strategy 5.7: Use Durable Materials

Description
Finishes were chosen for their ease of maintenance and long wear.
• Floor finishes were minimized and sealed concrete proposed as a durable alternative to other floor
    coverings in service corridors.
• Structural steel, metal deck and framing were prime painted or galvanized for durability.
• Abuse and impact-resistant gypsum board was called out in the specifications for security and
    minimal maintenance.

Implementation
• Durability was a priority for this building type. Sustainable goals did not impact the durability of the
   products used on the project.
• Despite durable painted metal doors, paint is chipping off where food and laundry carts continually
   come in contact, after only a few months.
• The team would have preferred solid surface counters, but p-lam was installed due to budget.
• VCT flooring is already showing wear. A more durable flooring alternative such as linoleum would
   have been more appropriate in high traffic areas.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   21
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


WASTE STRATEGIES

MSDG Strategy 6.1: Reuse Existing Buildings

Description
• Of the four buildings on site, one was reused. The five-story brick Benz building was converted to the
   St. Paul Police headquarters.

Implementation
• The Police headquarters moved from 10th and Robert in St. Paul to be adjacent to the Law
   Enforcement Center. While it is convenient for the police force to be adjacent to the Law
   Enforcement Center and training facility, the project caused political controversy costing triple the
   proposed budget.


MSDG Strategy 6.2: Design for Less Material Use

Description
• Materials were kept to a minimum in service corridors by using sealed concrete floor and block wall.
• Some exit stairs remain unfinished fabricated steel.
• Technology has helped to build less. Video-visiting from lobby area to inmate cell reduces the need
   for additional secured spaces, corridors, visiting areas and terminals.
• The firing range and training facilities are shared with other local groups: the St. Paul Police
   Department; East Metro Training Facility; smaller police forces such as White Bear Lake; Highway
   Patrol; Washington County as well as Ramsey County.

Implementation
• Sharing the training facilities eliminated the need for Washington County to build its own separate
   facility.
• Concrete floors were considered for the jail tower as well as service corridors. However, vinyl
   composite tile (VCT) was used in the jail tower because it is easier to maintain.


MSDG Strategy 6.3: Design Building for Adaptability

Description
• The design includes a shell space designated for future court expansion.
• Access flooring was specified in limited locations for ease of equipment installation and adjustment
   over time.
• The site is designed to accommodate a second jail tower to the north of the existing tower for future
   expansion.

Implementation
• The head of courts feels there is already a need for additional court space, and thinks the shell space
   should have been built out at the time of construction.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   22
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


MSDG Strategy 6.4: Design Buildings for Disassembly
Description
• The drawings show pre-cast concrete floors, columns, beams and jail cells.

Implementation
• Steel structure was welded together, rather than bolted, making disassembly more difficult. This is an
   indication of durability of the building rather than disassembly for reuse.


MSDG Strategy 6.5: Salvage and Recycle Demolition Waste

Description
• The County worked directly with the demolition contractor on demolition, which included three
   existing buildings and parking lots. The plan separated materials into items of historic value, building
   components, hazardous materials, and mechanical equipment. The salvage goal was 80%.
• Specification Section (02228) Removing Pavement and Miscellaneous Structures indicates to salvage
   materials designated by owner.
• Existing chainlink was used as construction fence on the project.
• Existing light poles were installed at the Maplewood campus.
• Materials salvaged include: light fixtures, A/C units, fan motors, two antique steam engines from 415
   Grove building, asphalt, steel and brick.

Implementation
• There was a demolition plan provided by the demolition contractor: "Carl Bolander and Sons Co. is
   committed to recycling as many of the building components as is practical and cost effective."
   However, the Specs did not cover 80 percent recycled/salvaged goal so the demo contractor was not
   held accountable; 65 percent is estimated as the actual amount of demolition waste salvaged. In
   hindsight a penalty for not reaching 80 percent should have been included in the specification.
• Bolander's demolition recycling report indicated that timber roof stringers from the 415 Grove
   building would be salvaged if revenue gains met salvage cost. However, salvage of the stringers was
   not documented, suggesting that saving them from demolition was cost-prohibitive.
• Asbestos contamination made recycling of some materials difficult.

MSDG Strategy 6.6: Recycle Construction Waste

Description
• The project's goal for construction waste was 75 percent.
• Construction waste was minimized using pre-cast concrete components, including pre-cast modular
   jail cells. These cells, manufactured in Omaha, conserve material through efficient manufacturing in a
   controlled environment.

Implementation
• Specification Section (01720) Project Record Documents does not request documentation of waste,
   cleaning procedures and material storage (to prevent moisture buildup or dirt accumulation)
• Construction waste was sorted off-site by Tarraf/ VEIT Disposal Systems. VEIT was not asked to
   keep a detailed record for this project. The contractor estimates 25 percent was landfilled, 60 percent
   recycled and 15 percent salvaged, which is typical practice.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   23
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


MSDG Strategy 6.7: Reduce and Recycle Packaging Waste

Description
• Designers were instructed to include recycling of packaging waste.

Implementation
• There was no follow through on this strategy.


MSDG Strategy 6.8: Reduce and Recycle Waste from Building Users

Description
• Cans, glass, plastic, office paper and cardboard are recycled. Bins have been provided under each
   desk for office paper and there are collection bins in each office area.

Implementation
 • No issues.


MSDG Strategy 6.9: Reduce and Properly Dispose of Hazardous Waste
Description
• Hazardous waste is to be disposed of properly during building construction and operations.

Implementation
•    Specification Section (00840) Safety Program instructs subcontractors to properly handle and dispose
     of hazardous chemicals, but does not recommend minimizing their use in the project.
•    Currently, there is no hazardous waste plan. Medical waste and firearms have separate licenses for
     disposal. The facility manager will handle paints and solvents separately.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   24
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Chapter 3. Process

INTRODUCTION

This portion of the post occupancy evaluation is directed at the building delivery process. As key
participants in the process were interviewed, they were also asked some general questions about the
building design.

Interviews were conducted with Ramsey County Property Manager Fred Shank; Gary Mrachek, Building
Manager (Property Management-Law Enforcement Center); Nick Marcucci, Project Architect (Wold
Architects and Engineers); lead occupants Dimitri Burroughs, Undersheriff with the Ramsey County
Sheriff's Office and Lieutenant Mike Vodovoz with the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department Detention
Division.

In each interview, participants were asked the following questions:

1. How was sustainable design included in the design process? (i.e. committee structure, decision
    makers, timing issues)
2. Who were the champions of the process that led to successful sustainable design?
3. What were the barriers to including sustainable design?
4. Were sustainable design tools or standards used? Which ones and to what extent?
5. How did outside technical consulting firms contribute to the sustainable design process?
6. Were there any issues related to regulatory requirements that affected sustainable design?
7. Were there any capital budget issues?
8. Were sustainable requirements incorporated in the RFP and contract requirements? If so, were they
    followed?
9. What was the role of first cost versus life cycle cost analysis in decision making?
10. What are the best features of the process?
11. What are the worst features of the process?
12. What do you think are the important lessons from the project?

13.   What are the best features of the building?
14.   What are the worst features of the building?
15.   Are there major or common complaints from the users of the building?
16.   Have there been any building alterations?




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   25
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


EVALUATION BY KEY PARTICIPANTS

1. How was sustainable design included in the design process? (i.e. committee structure, decision
   makers, timing issues)

     Sustainable design was initially introduced in Fall 1999 through a memo from Susan Haigh, a
     Ramsey County Commissioner, to the Ramsey County Director of Property Management Jolly
     Mangine. As funds for sustainable consulting had become available through SWMCB, she
     recommended that this project implement the newly developed Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide
     (MSDG). Haigh highlighted the project's location close to the Capitol and environmental
     organizations, MPCA and DNR, as an opportunity to lead in environmentally conscious design. Well
     into schematic design, Fred Shank, Project Manager, worked with the Center for Sustainable Building
     Research (CSBR) to set targets using the MSDG framework. Inspired by the Governor's Green
     Government Council's (GGGC) presentation on sustainable projects in Pennsylvania, Fred
     emphasized integrated sustainable design at meetings. While everyone agreed that sustainable
     architecture was 'the right thing to do', sustainability was overshadowed by other priorities in the
     process.

     The following schedule indicates the introduction of sustainability into the design process:
     The kick off meeting for sustainable design was on 1/26/00. The MSDG Scoring Summary is dated
     4/1/00. By that time, schematic design (SD) was underway and the SD report was submitted 5/18/00.
     Design development was completed 8/31/00. The first draft of the Sustainable Design Goals was
     dated 6/7/01. The Project Manager claims that if sustainable design was identified at the initial budget
     development phase, prior to Schematic Design, possibly more could have been achieved.

     From the architect's perspective, pressure came from Ramsey County to focus on sustainable goals,
     but that wasn't a top priority of the design team. CSBR made recommendations and some were taken.

     The lead occupants were also made aware of sustainable design, and attended two or three meetings
     on sustainability offered by John Carmody and Rebecca Foss (CSBR). To them, it was "like taking a
     course": very educational but there was a lot of the information they didn't understand. At the time
     sustainability didn't seem like a priority.

2. Who were the champions of the process that led to successful sustainable design?

     Fred Shank, project manager, was new to the process and was the designated champion, but he claims
     no one really championed it: "[We] did what we could but there was a learning process involved".

3. What were the barriers to including sustainable design?

     The project manager cities introducing sustainability too late in the process, which prevented
     integrated sustainable planning, as the budget was already set and building layout had basically been
     established.

     The facilities manager and lead occupants agreed that sustainability was lost to budget and function.
     This facility was selected by Ramsey County as the sustainable pilot to test the MSDG. Though the
     project timing coincided with the guide's development, the project type was a difficult fit. For
     example, security issues and separations of use were prioritized over sustainable goals. Budget also
     drove the project leaving little flexibility for new innovation.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   26
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


     According to the architect, the original site design was more urban, to integrate better into the
     community. However, after 9/11 security issues pushed the building back to the 'shopping mall'
     model.

4. Were sustainable design tools or standards used? Which ones and to what extent?

     The Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide (MSDG) was used following the SWMCB's
     recommendation. CSBR worked with the design team to track the MSDG Project History and Scoring
     Summary. DOE2-2.1 Energy Modeling was done through the Energy Assets Program.

5. How did outside technical consulting firms contribute to the sustainable design process?

     Ramsey County had $25,000 in the budget for sustainable consulting fees for two buildings.
     Commissioner Haigh recommended the Law Enforcement Center as one of these projects.
     Consultants included Xcel Energy (formerly NSP) Energy Assets, which hired the Weidt Group to
     provide energy analysis and projected cost savings. A consultant was brought in for firing range
     acoustics. CSBR provided sustainable design guidance and recommendations throughout the project.
     They handed out MSDG binders and met with architects and engineers on more than one occasion.
     They met with owner's reps and the project manager as well. CSBR made the following observations
     based on these meetings: the architects showed little enthusiasm, feeling that much of what was being
     presented is already a part of their practice; the Sheriff's Department was fixed on program resulting
     in a limited focus on sustainability. CSBR felt that if they were part of the team from the beginning
     of the project, the design team would feel less like sustainability was being imposed on the project.

6. Were there any issues related to regulatory requirements that affected sustainable design?

     As a detention center, the architect felt it wasn't feasible to consider some materials and technologies
     for the project. Though in the past few years more environmentally sound products have become
     available, there is little the design team would do differently on this project type.

7. Were there any capital budget issues?

     According to the Project Manager: "The project was in the planning phases and budgets were
     established when sustainable architecture was instituted. While a number of energy conserving
     concepts were designed into the building design, sustainable strategies that represented additional cost
     were not incorporated. [However, an emphasis on] sustainable architecture for the LEC project did
     result in achieving significant strategies." In schematic design sustainable features such as daylighting
     and an energy efficient building envelope were incorporated. However, innovations that would add
     cost to the project, recovery system, were not considered because the budget continued to increase as
     the project went through the design development. For example, PM Fred Shank proposed holding
     tanks below the parking lot with fiber glass tubes for site irrigation, but the idea was lost early on due
     to budget constraints.

     Strategies outlined in the Energy Assets report, Bundle 2, added upfront cost to the project. However,
     Xcel Energy provided a payback that became part of the budget's revenue stream. The report
     indicates a payback of $59,550. However, the actual return to the County was $21,615 since the
     efficient chillers and reconditioned boilers were dropped from the project when District Energy was
     chosen.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   27
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


8. Were sustainable requirements incorporated in RFP and contract requirements? If so, were
   they followed?

     No. However, Fred Shank indicated that the emphasis on sustainability has improved within the
     county just in the last couple of years. Sustainable architecture was included in a recent suburban
     court project's RFP: "The Proposer will develop sustainable architecture guidelines and specifications
     for the project that incorporate material re-use/recycling, and environmentally friendly building
     materials/construction methods and submit a report with the schematic design package describing the
     guidelines established for the project and highlighting innovations specific to the project." Under
     'Scope of Services' the RFP requires the proposal to include an understanding of 'Sustainable
     Architecture', three examples of projects integrating sustainability and a plan for creating guidelines
     and specifications.

9. What was the role of first cost versus life cycle cost analysis in decision making?

     Life-cycle cost analysis was not performed for materials on this project. Rather, interior and exterior
     materials were selected based on their known durability. Consideration was given to life cycle cost of
     mechanical and electrical systems, through the Energy Assets program, and in the decision to connect
     to District Energy.

     The architect points out that the building was designed around staff efficiencies, which is as much an
     operating budget issue as mechanical systems design.

10. What were the best features of the process?

     The architect noted that the number of people from the Sheriff's Department and County were limited
     to keep the group focused and in communication. They were a good group to work with and the
     project was successful as a result. He also noted that getting input from different departments went
     well and there was generally a good relationship with the client and building users.

     The lead occupants enjoyed the hands-on process and appreciated being consulted.

11. What were the worst features of the process?

     Although the lead occupants claimed that being consulted was the 'best feature' of the process, it was
     also the worst part of the process. To them, it felt as though they were part of a two-tiered team. They
     were asked for their opinions, and would leave a meeting thinking something was going to be
     included, but it would get "value engineered" out of the project.

     The main issue that came out of the questions was that sustainable design was not included early
     enough in the process. Although implementing sustainable design in this project was a challenge,
     Fred Shank feels that the team was "still successful, and it was a learning tool".

12. What do you think are the important lessons from the project?

     Sustainable Design should be included in the RFP so that intentions are clear and the team is
     accountable. An inspiring champion is needed and sustainability should be start early. The client
     needs to be sold on the idea. In this case the Sheriff's representatives were not sold on the idea.

     The architect openly admitted that sustainability wasn't a priority and claimed that if it was made a
     requirement, design firms would approach projects differently.


Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   28
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center




     Ramsey County's project manager came out of the process asserting that sustainable requirements
     should be mandated like the American Disabilities Act requirements. They should also be included in
     the RFP so the consultant is selected with this in mind.

13. What are the best features of the building?

     Everyone interviewed agreed the layout serves the complex program very well. The project manager
     also commented on the positive impact of technology on space and cost. A video-conference system
     allows visitors to connect from the waiting area with inmates without creating additional secured
     space in the detention area. The architect elaborated on the attributes of the building layout; the
     philosophy of 'innocent until proven guilty' is reflected in the layout (and subsequent process an
     inmate is taken through), as well as the circulation and quality of space. For example, the booking
     area is open and light to provide a calming effect, which is particularly important as an inmate begins
     the detention process.

     Lead occupant Dimitri Burroughs stated the best feature of the building is "that it's new. The old
     building was crumbling." This affects how inmates feel and behave and how the staff perform. The
     new building is brighter and lighter; automated features such as light sensors in bathrooms are a
     novelty. Perhaps the feeling will wear off, but it is a great improvement over the old facility.

14. What are the worst features of the building?

     The project manager's greatest concern is planning for future expansion. He would like to have seen a
     more developed master plan. He agreed the layout serves the complex program very well. The facility
     manager said that the deliveries/freight coordination should be handled all on first floor. In addition,
     the building's expanse and divisions create inconveniences for janitorial staff and equipment. The FM
     also commented that parking as it relates to building entrances could have been better thought out.
     From the lead occupants' perspective, the staff is still in "new car mode"; the worst features have yet
     to be discovered.

15. Are there major or common complaints from the users of the building?

     Lead occupants and facilities management have heard none so far. Complaints will be identified in
     the surveys.

16. Have there been any building alterations?

     Building alterations have been minor, and typical of this building type. One-way film has been added
     to interior windows in the first floor pre-arraignment area between the cell block and courts; they had
     problems with inmate obscenities (mooning). Some minor acoustic remediation was required in the
     detention area interview rooms, four on the second floor and three in pre-booking. Conversations are
     recorded in these rooms and the original design did not account for this. Facility management has
     been tweaking systems, but there have been no major adjustments.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   29
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Chapter 4. Outcomes

The intention of sustainable design in the broadest sense is to enhance the environment, the economy, the
community, and the health and well-being of people. Sustainable development goals, or strategies are
often organized into categories of Site, Water, Energy, Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Materials,
and Waste. While progress towards sustainability is often measured by achievement of a particular set of
strategies, whenever possible they should be measured against the actual “sustainable outcomes.” This
chapter attempts to evaluate the “Quadruple Bottom Line” of economic, environmental, human, and
community performance for this project. It should be noted that incomplete or unavailable data makes it
impossible to do a complete accounting, but this type of information should be collected for future
projects.
This study presents outcomes whenever possible, but in some cases data is not available or the scope of
the study doesn’t permit detailed analysis.
The outcome statements below summarize the key findings from the outcome data analysis and put them
into context. The outcomes shown are based on what is tabulated in more detail in the “Outcome Data
Sheets” which are included in the appendix.
Operational comparison to similar buildings, or benchmarking, can be a useful comparison point. When
benchmarking, it is important to use caution, and take into consideration the many differences that affect
operation of a facility, including variations in program specifics, hours of operation, and other factors that
influence results, but do not indicate quality of construction or operation. To make benchmarks
comparable for buildings of different sizes, the units are often translated into per square foot values or per
full time equivalent (FTE) occupant values. Some areas of the facility are unfinished for future growth
therefore per square foot values are for the gross conditioned area, except in Spatial Measurements
section. FTE occupant values are based on average total people-hours per week divided by 40 hours to
get a comparable number of full time equivalent occupants. This allows per-person comparisons across
buildings which may have different operating hours. The 40 hr/wk basis makes the FTE numbers more
comparable to buildings used for weekday work. Use caution in comparing to other residential facilities
that may use a 24 hr/day basis.
There was no benchmark available for comparison with Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center.



ECONOMIC OUTCOMES

Overall Measures and Indicators of Economic Performance
As part of the POE, a variety of economic indicators were analyzed to help identify the overall
performance of the project towards desired economic outcomes. Documents used in the analysis include:
utility bills, waste and recycling hauling bills, third party consultant reports, and other project
documentation.

Selected Indicators of Overall Economic Outcomes
          Operating Energy Cost
          Operating energy costs are based on total utility bills including any basic charges, peak demand
          charges, taxes, etc. Utility bills include gas, electric, District Energy (heating) and District
          Cooling.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   30
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


          In the original analysis provided by Xcel Energy Assets program, the building design saved
          $58,059 per year in energy costs. The cost of additional energy efficiency strategies was $38,043
          but this was offset by an incentive of $59,550. Because of the change to District Energy, the
          actual return to the County from Xcel was $21,615 since the efficient chillers and reconditioned
          boilers were dropped from the project.
          To get a good picture of how a building uses energy it is most useful to look at a full year of
          operation after the first-year start up issues are resolved. However, the operating energy costs that
          were available at the time of this POE were for only the first four and a half months of operation.

          During the 4.6 month period of winter 2003-2004, the Ramsey LEC spent a total of $206,840 or
          $0.74 per square feet on energy costs. An Energy Assets report predicting energy use was
          performed before it was decided to switch from conventional heating and cooling systems and
          utilities to district heating and cooling. Despite its basis on different systems, it is interesting to
          note that the initial Energy Assets report estimated the total Energy Cost/ Yr would be $183,376
          or $ 0.67 per sq.ft. The actual cost of energy exceeds estimates by 10% and represents only 39%
          of the year. The first cost versus operating cost trade-offs and implications can be very different
          for conventional heating and cooling systems compared to district heating and cooling and this
          may explain the energy cost difference here. While operating costs appear higher with district
          energy than with conventional systems and utilities, chiller and boiler plant equipment, space and
          maintenance costs are saved compared with conventional approaches.

          Spatial Cost Impacts:
          Construction $/FTE occupant, puts the issue of space utilization into economic terms; if the
          building is half occupied, it cost twice as much per person served.

          The total construction cost (building and site improvements) for Ramsey Law Facility was
          $180.77 per square foot of building. Building construction costs accounted for $174.79 per square
          foot of building, or 96.5% of total costs. Site construction cost was $6.36 per square foot of site
          or 3.5% of total construction costs. Based on average occupancy of employees and inmates the
          total construction cost per person equaled $28,649. The square foot unit in this Spatial Measures
          section is based on gross area including unconditioned space.

          The Law Enforcement Center's training facility's firing range and classroom are shared with other
          local groups: the St. Paul Police Department; East Metro Training Facility; smaller police forces
          such as White Bear Lake; Highway Patrol; Washington County as well as Ramsey County. This
          eliminated the need for Washington County to build its own separate facility.

          Construction Waste Cost:
          The project has no documentation of construction waste or costs available at this time.

          Operational Waste Cost:
          Depending on what activities are generating waste, operating waste cost may be more applicable
          to report in either a per sq.ft. basis or a per/person basis.

          Waste costs for Ramsey Law Enforcement Center include the cost of standard operational waste
          service provided by Aspen Waste Management and regulated medical waste service provided by
          Stericycle. This additional service and cost is required due to the type of facility and is regulated
          by state and federal guidelines.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   31
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


          According to waste bills analyzed over a 4 month period from February-May 2004, the average
          operation waste cost per month is $783.73. Ramsey Law Facility was charged $76.21 per ton,
          which includes a fuel charge, solid waste management tax, and a county environmental charge.
          The total waste cost per person is $0.42/month.

          The facility is included in a contract between Eureka Recycling and the City of St. Paul that will
          provide recycling service for the next 13 years and is therefore not billed directly for the service.
          By recycling, there is an average monthly savings of $85.22 based on the total weight of waste.
          The Ramsey Law Enforcement Center is currently recycling only 10% of the waste by weight and
          has the potential to save even more in operating waste costs.

          The cost for medical waste service is a flat rate of $47.58 per month. At the rate Ramsey Law
          Facility generates medical waste (average 0.27 cubic yards per month) the cost per cubic yard is
          $175.98.

          Water and Sewer Cost:
          Depending on building activities, building water cost may be more applicable to report in either a
          per square foot basis or a per person basis.

          Water and Sewer costs are based on total bills, and may include charges beyond consumption
          charges, for example city water testing fees.

          Storm water cost impacts were not studied.
          Over approximately five months from November 2003 to April 2004, the average monthly
          building water cost for Ramsey Law Facility was $831.95 and the average monthly sewer cost
          was $1,364.40. Sewer is billed by water usage, and rates are 40% higher than water rates. The
          facility does have irrigation but has not been refunded for water diverted from the sewer. It is not
          known if irrigation water can be tracked separately, but its effect in this winter period is likely to
          be negligible. The average cost/ person is $0.44/month for water and $0.73/month for sewer,
          totaling $1.17/person/month.


ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES

Overall Measures and Indicators of Environmental Performance
As part of the POE, a variety of environmental indicators were analyzed to help identify the overall
performance of the project towards desired environmental outcomes. Documents used in the analysis
include: utility bills, the County’s waste sort report, waste and recycling hauling bills, third party
consultant reports, and other project documentation. In addition, the estimated energy savings impact on
other environmental outcomes was modeled using Athena Life Cycle Analysis Software.

Selected Indicators of Overall Environmental Outcomes

          Operating Energy:

          Operating energy impacts are based on Athena™ Environmental Impact Estimator Software
          Version 3.0 from the Sustainable Materials Institute. The impacts associated with energy
          generation, distribution, and consumption are typical for Minneapolis. The outcomes are a sum of




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   32
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


          the gas and electric impacts. Athena does not have impact information for a cogeneration plant
          like District Energy.

          See the appendix section “Key to Life Cycle Analysis Units” for more detail.

          In the original analysis provided by the Xcel Energy Assets program, the building as designed
          saved 35% in total energy compared to a building that just meets the State Building Code. This
          translates into savings of 2425 tons/year in CO2 emissions, 4.15 tons per year in SO2 emissions,
          5.60 in NO emissions, and 0.20 tons of particulates. This analysis was based on using a
          conventional boiler and chiller. The County decided to eliminate the cost of the boiler and chiller
          and use chilled and hot water supplied by District Energy. Because of the different fuel mix for
          District Energy, actual pollutant savings are not available but overall energy savings are likely to
          be of the same magnitude.

          To get a good picture of how a actually building uses energy it is most useful to look at a full year
          of operation after the first-year start up issues are resolved. However, the operating energy costs
          that were available at the time of this POE were for only the first four and a half months of
          operation. Given this caveat, the energy results follow for reference:

          During the first 4.6 month winter period, Ramsey Law Enforcement Center used a total of 57.1
          KBTU/sq.ft. Of that 38% came from electricity, 59% from District Energy (heating), 3% from
          District Cooling, and 0% from natural gas.

          During this same period the peak electric demand was 2.9 Watts per square foot. An Energy
          Assets report predicting energy use was performed before it was decided to switch from
          conventional heating and cooling systems and utilities to district heating and cooling. Despite its
          basis on different systems, it is interesting to note that the winter peak demand of 2.9 Watts per
          square foot is 10% higher than the initial Energy Assets estimated annual peak demand for the
          selected bundle which was 2.6 Watts per square foot, even though the predicted model included a
          chiller that typically contributes significantly to annual peak demand.

          The electric energy use during this period resulted in environmental outcomes of 62.6/sq.ft
          primary energy, 1.7 lbs. per square foot solid waste, an air pollution index of 1 per square foot, a
          negligible water pollution index, 9.4 lbs. per square foot global warming potential, and 22 lbs. per
          square foot weighted resource use. Life Cycle measures for District Energy have not been
          obtained at this time.

          Spatial Measures:
          Within the Spatial Measures section, where units are expressed as per square foot, they refer to
          gross square feet (including unconditioned space).

          The square foot unit in this Spatial Measures section is based on gross area including
          unconditioned space. The architect estimates a ratio of net to gross area of 95%. The ratio of
          gross building area/ site area is 107%.

          The gross area/FTE occupant (including employees and inmates) is 158 square foot. Note that
          the occupancy density varies greatly in different areas of the building.

          Construction Waste:
          The project has no documentation of construction waste available at this time.



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   33
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center




          Operational Waste:
          Depending on what activities are generating waste, operating waste may be more applicable to
          report in either a per square foot basis or a per person basis.
          Waste quantities for Ramsey Law Enforcement Center include standard operational waste service
          provided by Aspen Waste Management and Eureka Recycling, and regulated medical waste,
          service provided by Stericycle. This additional service is required due to the type of facility.
          Disposal is regulated by state and federal guidelines.

          According to waste bills analyzed over a 4-month period from February-May 2004, the average
          monthly weight of total waste generated was 11.4 tons. Of that total waste generated,
          approximately 10% (1.1 tons) was recycled. By volume, the facility has the potential to recycle
          62% of their total waste. Currently they are trying to increase the number of recycling bins in the
          office area to help increase the amount of waste recycled. Materials collected for recycling are:
          cardboard, glass, steel and aluminum, newspaper, and miscellaneous office paper. Eureka will be
          adding plastic recycling by the end of summer 2004. Waste generated per person is 0.006 tons
          per month or 12 lbs. per person per month.

          Additional regulated medical waste is produced in small quantities. The facility generates a
          monthly average of 0.27 cubic yards. This volume is a known amount and is not based on
          container size.

          Water and Sewer:
          Depending on building activities, building water use may be more applicable to report in either a
          per square foot basis or a per person basis.

          One may assume building water use and quantities discharged to the sewer have similar
          comparisons if there are no strategies that would alter an ‘inflow equals outflow’ relationship. For
          example, if there is no on-site sewage treatment that would reduce sewer compared to water; or
          no gray water flushing that would reduce potable water use compared to sewer; etc. then the
          water into the building tends to equal the water out of the building (plus waste material.)

          Site design for water issues should consider both irrigation and stormwater management.
          Irrigation water use is tracked separately where possible. Gallons irrigation water per non-built
          site area is an indication of the potable water efficiency of the site design. Stormwater outcomes
          were not calculated for this analysis.

          Over approximately five months from November 2003 to April 2004, the average monthly
          building water consumed was 408,100 gallons. The average monthly water consumption per
          person is 218 gallons. In comparing this with other residential buildings, note that these numbers
          are based on a 40 hours per week FTE occupant basis.

          The quantity of water discharged to the sewer is assumed to be equal to water usage based on
          water bills. However, Ramsey Law Facility does have an irrigation system that would have led to
          a reduction in the quantity discharged to sewer. Currently there are no records available to
          quantify that amount, but for this winter period the impact is likely to be small if any.




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   34
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


HUMAN OUTCOMES

A survey addressing indoor environmental quality in the Ramsey Law Enforcement Center was
administered to County employees who work in the building. The survey contained general questions
regarding employee perceptions of the sound environment, lighting, thermal comfort, air quality, health,
etc. Fifty-six employees who work in the building responded to the survey. The following report
presents the findings generated by the survey. [Means and standard deviations (SD) derived from the 7-
point category scales are given in parentheses.]

•    Survey participants were asked how healthy they feel after completing their work in the building each
     day. On average they feel between somewhat healthy to healthy after completing their work in the
     building each day (Mean: 5.6; SD: 1.2). In comparison, they feel slightly healthier when they are not
     in the building (Mean: 6.3; SD: 0.8).
•    When asked “To what extent do you think your productive work is affected by the interior
     environmental conditions of the building?”, respondents said the building has very slightly increased
     their perceived productive work. (Mean: 4.5; 1.0).
•    Respondents are somewhat satisfied with the quality of the sound environment in their workspace
     (Mean: 4.5; SD: 1.6). Individual respondent’s comment: “Doors slam loudly in the courtroom.”
•    Nine of the 56 respondents (16%) notice vibration (e.g., from mechanical systems in the building).
     Those who notice the vibration report that they are somewhat more than not at all annoyed with the
     vibration (Mean: 3.1; SD: 2.0). This relatively low average response indicates that vibration does
     not seem to be a problem for those who work in the building.
•    Respondents are somewhat satisfied with their workspace furnishings (Mean: 4.8; SD: 1.5).
•    Respondents have a very slight view of the outdoors when they are seated in their workspace (Mean:
     1.7; SD: 1.2).
•    Nine of the 56 respondents have operable windows in their workspace.
•    Respondents are somewhat satisfied with the overall lighting in their workspace (Mean: 5.2; SD:
     1.2).
•    There does not seem to be much natural light in the building. On average, respondents said they have
     slightly more than no natural light in their workspace (Mean: 2.3; 1.3).
•    Respondents said they have somewhat more than no glare in their workspace (Mean: 3.0; SD: 1.7).
     On average, glare does not seem to be a problem in the building.
•    Respondents are somewhat satisfied with the temperature in their workspace during the heating
     season (winter months) (Mean: 4.9; SD: 1.5).
•    Respondents are neither very dissatisfied nor very satisfied with the temperature in their workspace
     during the cooling season (Mean: 4.4; SD: 1.6).
•    Respondents are somewhat satisfied with the air quality in their workspace during the heating season
     (Mean: 4.8; SD: 1.4).
•    Likewise, respondents are somewhat satisfied with the air quality in their workspace during the
     cooling season (Mean: 4.6; SD: 1.4).
•    Employees who responded to the survey are slightly satisfied to somewhat satisfied with the
     ventilation system in their workspace (Mean: 4.5; SD: 1.5).




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   35
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


     Additional comments regarding how the building and/or landscaping could be improved:
       - very hot in the area Nov-May. –seems cooler in some areas, hot in other; a little uneven
       - card reader on employee lot should have an intercom to central control in the jail, camera does
            monitor area incase card was forgotten
       - seating on the outside of the property to enjoy a sunny day
       - love our new building
       - very cold in some places in the building are very smelly, like sewer
       - secure parking area – free from nonauthorized
       - faster activation and cycling of transfer/release sliders and booking sliders
       - fence in parking lot so no one can walk through
       - faster door open to slow and take awhile
       - this place is always cold
       - could increase air quality – fresh air in our changing room
       - need more fresh air
       - need vents to get all the odors out
       - I like the building. The hallways and walkways are nice and wide and the ceilings are high, so
            you don’t feel cramped, it’s also very bright so it seems clean. If I have any complaints, it
            would be the temperature, it always seems very warm when you work in central control and
            lobby control. It just seems like the air in there is stuffy. Otherwise no complaints
       - increase air quality
       - just outside our office is a waiting area for people seeing the hearing officers. The smell can
            be overwhelming. Ventilation is poor. There can be a musty smell in the back hallways. I
            know there has been water and damage and am concerned about hidden mold/ mildew
       - This is a new building and we have not experienced a full year of seasons yet. I would
            comment, however, that any building that is designed without windows and/ or natural light in
            the work areas is not planned correctly
       - good working environment overall – I only wish we had windows in the office
       - I wish I had a window to see outside.
       - It’s always too cold. Waiting area needs better ventilation

Summary

In general, respondents indicated they are somewhat satisfied with a number of dimensions integral to
indoor environmental quality. While they are not dissatisfied, the finding that respondents are not more
than somewhat satisfied, on average, indicates that the indoor environmental conditions in the building
could be improved. In particular individual comments reveal the desire for more natural light and better
air quality.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES

•    St Paul District Energy provides heating and cooling for the building with lower environmental
     impact than conventional systems. This project connected District Energy to the north side of the
     freeway allowing connection to other buildings in the future.
•    Relocating the jail from the St. Paul riverfront opened up the original site for redevelopment such as
     recreation, housing and entertainment, in keeping with the St. Paul Mississippi Framework Plan.
•    Reduced water and energy use result in less demand for new infrastructure to treat water and
     wastewater, as well as build new power plants.
•    Waste recycling, recycled materials and less material use through efficient planning all contribute to
     less need for landfills.


Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   36
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Appendix A: Specification Review


SECTION             TITLE                               REVIEW COMMENTS                                                 RESPONSE
                                                                                                                        COMMENTS

Bidding             Used McGough’s                      No comments on sustainable design
Documents           Standard Subcontract                requirements; nor on disposal procedures
00510               Agreement (Labor &                  for hazardous materials (17.1)
                    Materials) 1993/rev95
00840               Safety Program (These               Requirements for subcontractors to properly
Safety              are Contractor’s (CM at             handle and dispose of hazardous chemicals
Program             risk) doc’s and reflect             they use in their operations; no
                    GC recommendations                  recommendations to reduce use of such
                    for means and methods               chemicals.
01010               Summary of Work                     No comments on sustainable design
                                                        requirements

01300               Submittals                          No comments on sustainable design
                                                        requirements (no lists, no certifications
                                                        identified)
01400               Quality Control                     No comments on sustainable design
                                                        requirements; generic requirements for
                                                        typical and special inspections
01500               Temporary Facilities                No comments about waste management or
                                                        scheduling, or special operations to
                                                        maintain good indoor air quality both
                                                        during construction and after occupancy.
01630               Substitutions and                   Nothing unusual; typical language about
                    Product Options                     substituting for environmentally preferable
                                                        products
01700               Closeout                            Nothing about closeout submittals for
                                                        certification of content (recycled, low-
                                                        VOC, locally manufactured)
01720               Project Record                      No requirements listed for on-site
                    Documents                           documentation of waste, cleaning
                                                        procedures, material storage (to prevent
                                                        moisture buildup or dirt accumulation)
02228               Removing Pavement                   Salvage of materials designated by Owner
                    And Miscellaneous                   (stockpiling at location indicated by
                    Structures                          Owner.) Installation of salvaged materials
                                                        also required. Locate items on Drawings
                                                        (Sewer pipe relocated.)
02232               Clearing and Grubbing               Protection of plants and trees to remain;
                                                        proper disposal of some tree types is
                                                        specifed.
023xx               Site Grading,                       All topsoil removed from site; follow
Sections            Excavation, Backfill,               MnDOT specs – not comments on recycled
                    Trenching sections                  aggregate, on-site use, etc.



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota          37
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


029xx               Turf and Plantings                  No requirements for specifically native
                                                        plants called for in spec (or for how to
                                                        handle substitutions) (see plant list)
                                                        Turf and plant stock all by Mn/DOT specs
03100               Concrete Formwork                   Only Douglas fir called for, no seconds
                                                        allowed, no requirements for saving/reusing
                                                        forms wherever possible
03200               Concrete                            No specific percentage of recycled content
                    Reinforcement                       called for in the rebar

03300               Cast-in-place Concrete              •       At exterior and interior concrete,
                                                          low-VOC curing agents not specified;
                                                          acrylic, low-VOC curing agent is
                                                          specified as option
                                                        •       No recycled content granular fill
                                                          called for specifically; if it meets
                                                          Mn/DOT requirements it could be used
                                                        •       Flyash allowed (not more than 25%
                                                          for footings and 20% for other
                                                          applications; but only batch tickets verify
                                                          how much was used.

03411               Precast Modular Cells               Efficient use of concrete for structural                        It would be interesting to
                                                        components; reducing requirements for                           do an LCA on the
                                                        additional security construction                                alternative types of
                                                                                                                        construction: Concrete
                                                                                                                        precast cells versus
                                                                                                                        traditional precast
                                                                                                                        structure and plank, with
                                                                                                                        steel construction.
03412               Structural Precast                  No flyash allowance specified
                    Prestressed Concrete

03450               Architect Precast                   No flyash allowance specified                                   In lieu of EIFS or brick; an
                    Concrete (Alternate)                                                                                LCA analysis would be
                                                                                                                        interesting.
04200               Unit Masonry                        No flyash component called for or allowed
                                                        in CMU; Brick not specified as locally
                                                        manufactured
05100               Structural Steel                    Galvanized primers specified for galvanized
                                                        surfaces promote durability; structural
                                                        metal framing is welded, not bolted for
                                                        easier removal or reuse – security impacts
05200               Metal Joists                        Galvanized primers specified for galvanized
                                                        surfaces promote durability; structural
                                                        metal is welded, not bolted for easier
                                                        removal or reuse – security impacts
05300               Metal Deck                          Prime painted or galvanized for durability




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota                  38
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


05400               Cold-formed Metal                   Prime painted or galvanized for durability
                    Framing                             (at exterior applications only)

05500               Metal Fabrications                  Primers/finishes: No call for waterborne or
                                                        low-VOCs; no call for higher recycled
                                                        content steel.
06100               Carpentry                           No requirements for certified, locally
                                                        produced, or less-visual quality products.
                                                        Pressure-treated wood using non-arsenic
                                                        treatments (ACQ
06400               Architectural                       Rift cut red oak called for (least efficient
                    Woodwork                            cut, premium construction – more durable
                                                        but uses more materials for veneer
                                                        matching)
                                                        Catalyzed lacquer (if factory applied, more
                                                        care taken with VOCs) is durable finish;
                                                        standard
07110               Waterproofing                       Composite sheet membrane system
                                                        provides good moisture protection; durable

07210               Insulation                          GF batts and EPS: No recycled content
                                                        req’d, no HCFC or CFC req’s.

07241               Exterior Insulation and             Less durable type of exterior cladding
                    Finish System                       (more cost effective than brick)

07415               Preformed Aluminum                  Durable, but not extensive use of material
                    Wall Panels and                     overall
                    Coping
07510               Built-up Bituminous                 Durable system (4-ply), but heavily
                    Roofing                             petroleum-based, causes off-gassing during
                                                        application
07570               Traffic Topping                     No requirements identified for air quality
                                                        control during application

07900               Sealants and Caulking               No requirements for low-VOC products, or
                                                        conditions related to application of ‘wet’
                                                        products to avoid cross-contamination
                                                        through off-gassing
08200               Wood Doors                          Factory finishing required; but oil-based                       Reduces VOCs onsite
                                                        allowed as well as water-based;
                                                        Wood species and type – custom; more
                                                        efficient use of material than rift cut or
                                                        specialty veneers; no requirements for FSC
                                                        certification
08510               Aluminum Windows,                   Aluminum extrusions – recyclable, but no
                    Storefronts,                        recycled content level called for; anodizing
                    Curtainwall                         (more negative impacts than painting) but
                                                        durable finish selection




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota               39
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


09200               Lath and Plaster                    Durable finish material


09250               Gypsum Board                        No requirements for recycled content (paper
                                                        facing or gypsum);
                                                        Abuse and impact-resistant products called
                                                        out for security and maintenance purposes –
                                                        more durable product
09300               Tile                                Durable products; no recycled content
                                                        called for; setting materials not indicated as
                                                        low-VOC; epoxies required because of
                                                        durability issues
09510               Acoustical Ceilings                 No recycled content products specified


09650               Resilient Flooring                  Vinyl specified;
                                                        Rubber flooring specified (lesser amount
                                                        than vinyl) – more environmentally friendly
09680               Carpet                              No recycled content or recyclability
                                                        specified; no low-VOC adhesives required;
                                                        No mention of scheduling installation to
                                                        avoid off-gassing or creating ‘sinks’
                                                        (although ‘after Substantial Completion’ is
                                                        indicated.)
09900               Painting                            Primer of reprocessed material specified
                                                        (20% post-consumer content) from
                                                        Hirshfield’s;
                                                        No mention of low-VOC requirements for
                                                        any paints (primers or finish coats, or
                                                        specialty paints);
                                                        Specialty paints required for durability
09960               Wallcovering                        Vinyl WC specified (for durability); no
                                                        low-VOC adhesives specified, but water
                                                        soluble; mildewcides required; Installation
                                                        on some exterior walls (but limited)
10161               Metal Toilet Partitions             For durability, painted metal (standard)


10270               Access Flooring                     Specified in limited locations (for ease of
                                                        equipment installation and adjustments over
                                                        time)
Various             Metal Accessories                   Access panels, louvers, control devices,
                                                        building accessories, loading dock
                                                        equipment, etc.: No specified requirements
                                                        for recycled content steel or aluminum;
                                                        durable, standard finishes applied
Various             Security Equipment                  Hardware, steel frames, specialty
                                                        construction: No specified requirements for
                                                        recycled content materials; all durable
                                                        finishes



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   40
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


14240               Hydraulic Elevators                 Standard operation; no requirements for
                                                        energy-efficient operation; security issues
                                                        and durability foremost



15000               Mechanical                          Evaluation of system operation using
                                                        Energy Assets program; performance
                                                        packages selected (see report)



16000               Electrical                          Evaluation of overall system requirements
                                                        indicate level of performance within Energy
                                                        Assets program; (see report); T8 ballasts
                                                        specified




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   41
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


•    COMMENTS:

     1.         In general, the specifications were entirely traditional, following CSI (Construction
                Specification Institute) rules for content and format. This standardized format provides a
                simple way to convey new information so that those using the Project Manual (contractors,
                subs, suppliers and the design/construction administration team, as well as the Owner) are
                aware of the typical and a-typical aspects of the Project. The Project Manuals did not, in any
                example, provide a clear picture of a “sustainable” project, or one which sought to achieve
                any specific goals related to sustainable design or construction.
     2.         Quite often, it is perceived by the design community that a “sustainable” or green project will
                cost more, and so calling attention to the fact that a project will be following sustainable
                guidelines or complying with specific requirements is hidden in the everyday language of the
                specifications. Another approach is to lay out quite clearly the expectations for the project,
                identifying project goals and providing individual sections that support product selection,
                evaluation, and documentation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following general considerations should be included in Division 1 – General Requirements -
specification sections:

     1.         Identify where specific administrative requirements change to accommodate project
                sustainable goals. For example:
                a. 01010 (or 01100) Summary of Work: Identify the specific guidelines to be followed, and
                    state the level of compliance required.
                b. 01030 (or 01230) Alternates: Identify whether Alternates are included to ‘upgrade to’ or
                    reduce compliance with specific guidelines or goals.
                c. 01300 Submittals: Identify when additional or non-traditional submittals are required
                    (for instance, when “Product Data” needs to include information on recycled content or
                    recyclability of products, or what factory a product is manufactured at.)
                d. 01310 Project Meetings: Identify that meetings will include discussion of documentation
                    responsibilities, construction site procedures, requirements for off-gassing and specific
                    requirements for scheduling ‘wet’ work.
                e. 01400 Testing: Identify qualifications for third-party certification or testing.
                f. 01500 Temporary Facilities and Controls: Identify clearly that construction site
                    management, including construction waste management practices, will be different. A
                    separate section on Construction Waste Management, with Submittal forms, may be
                    included to educate the contractor/subs/suppliers to the specific salvage, reuse, and
                    recycling requirements,
                g. 01600 Product Requirements: Be definite in listing goals for recycled content, local
                    manufacture, low-VOCs, and other requirements that affect products at large. Include
                    procedures for substitution submittals, outlining how products will be evaluated if
                    substituted.
                h. 01700 Closeout: For cleaning procedures, identify if specific products with lower IAQ
                    environmental impacts are to be used.
                i. 01800 Commissioning: If typical commissioning (often handled in Division 15 in
                    Testing and Balancing) is the only level required, it still may be necessary to call it out in
                    Division 1 and set parameters for implementation and verification. If additional
                    commissioning is required, it is important to make the entire construction team aware of
                    it by providing and in depth section outlining the Commissioning Plan and its
                    implementation.


Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   42
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center




Appendix B: Outcome Data Sheets
The outcome data sheets that follow show the final outcomes calculated and important calculation notes
or limitations to the numbers. The outcome data sheets are generated from other internal spreadsheets and
utility and other records sent for each building and in some cases for a comparison benchmark building.
The key data and observations from this analysis has been included in the outcomes section of the report.
Notes on the units used are in the outcomes section of the report.



  Economic Data                                                               Key               To Be Determined: data gathered but in
  RLE    Ramsey Law Enforcement Facility                                      TBD               process, and/or data needs clarification;
                                                                                                Data not gathered at this time
                                                                                                Not Applicable


                                                                                                                  Benchmark RLE              Notes                           Comments
                                                                                                      RLE                        % savings
                                                                                                                                                     Electricity and gas provided by Xcel
  Operating Energy Cost                                                                                                                              Gas charges include only basic service charge and
         Electric Consumption                              $/Sq.Ft.             /Period*               0.20                                          state and city fees and taxes, bills show no gas used,
         Electric Peak                                     $/Sq.Ft.             /Period*               0.08                                          may be connected for back-up purposes
         Total Electric                                    $/Sq.Ft.             /Period*               0.28
         Gas                                               $/Sq.Ft.             /Period*       Cost/ Sq.f ft/ Period
         District Energy                                   $/Sq.Ft.             /Period*               0.28
                                                                                                                                                     Heating and Cooling provided by District Energy and
         District Cooling                                  $/Sq.Ft.             /Period*               0.16                                          Cooling system in downtown St.Paul.
         Total Energy                                      $/Sq.Ft.             /Period*               0.72
         Total Energy                                      $                    /Period*            206,840.77
                                                 *Period not representative of 1 year, period = 4.6 months in Oct-Apr
  Design Energy Im provem ents Cost                                                                                                                  Energy Cost based on 136 day period in Oct-Apr, NOT
        Added Cost(bundle 2) Compared to                                                                                                             annual data.

        initial design                                     $                                         38,043                                          Note per sq.ft is based on       Gross Conditioned Space
        Adjusted Added Costs (with NSP
        incentive)                                                                                   27,993
        Initial Estimated Total Energy (cost
        base)                                              $                  /Yr                   192,925
        Initial Estimated Total Energy (bundle                                                                                                       Cost estimates based on initial Energy Assets report
        2)                                                 $                  /Yr                   183,376                                          which did not take into account costs for District
        Estimated Annual Energy Savings                                                                                                              Energy or a decrease in first costs.
        Compared to cost base                              $                  /Yr                    9,549
        Estimated Payback for Added
        Features                                           Years                                       4.0
        Estimated Payback for Added
        Features with NSP Incentive                        Years                                       2.9
                                                                                                                                                     Building Construction Cost =             construction cost +
  Design/Construction Measures Cost                                                                                                                  furniture/fixtures + telecom/data + pro-rated
         Total Improved Site Area                          Sq.Ft.                                   278,795                                          professional services = 47636328 + 1027274 + 90434
                                                                                                                                                     + 3160002 = 51,914,038
         Bldg Ft. Print                                    Sq.Ft.                                    90,450
         Non-building Improved Site Area only              Sq.Ft.                                   188,345
         Gross Bldg. Area                                  Sq.Ft.                                   297,000                                          Site Costs = 1774327 and does not include building
         Gross Area Conditioned Space                      Sq.Ft.                                   287,036                                          demo and sewer relocation (information from architect)
         Net Bldg. Area                                    Sq.Ft.                                   282,150
         Total Construction Cost                           $                                      53,688,365
                                                                                                                                                     Gross conditioned space is calculated because 9,964
         Buidling Construction Cost                        $                                      51,914,038
                                                                                                                                                     sq.ft of space, 3rd floor area B (courts), is unfinished
         Site Improvement Costs                            $                                       1,774,327                                         and is for future growth purposes. At this current time
         Year Completion                                                                              2003                                           the space is unconditioned and is being left out of the
         Building Construction Cost- Net Bldg Area         $/Sq.Ft.                                 183.99                                           calculations/ sq.ft.
         Building Construction Cost- Gross Bldg Area       $/Sq.Ft.                                 174.79
         Designed Peak Occupancy         (not
         including toilets, mech rms)                                                                1,057                                           Full Time Equivalent based on 40 hrs/wk
         Number of FTE occupants                                                                     1874                                            FTE employees =        278)
                                                                                                                                                     FTE inmates = 380 *168 hrs/wk = 63840/40hrs =
         Total Construction Cost per person                $/Designed Occupancy                     50,793
                                                                                                                                                     1596
         Total Construction Cost per person                $/FTE Occupant                           28,649                                           FTE Occupants        = 278 + 1596 = 1874
         Total Construction Cost per Sq.Ft                 $/Sq.Ft                                  180.77
                                                           $/Sq.Ft. Non-
                                                           Bldg Improved
         Unit Cost- Site Improvement                       Site Area                                  6.36



  Construction Waste Cost
        Recycled Waste                                     $
        Landfilled Waste                                   $
        Total Waste                                        $
        $ Savings from Recycling                           $




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota                                                                                               43
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


  Operating Waste Cost
         Recycled Waste                                     $                        /Month*              0.00                          Standard waste service provided by Aspen Waste
         Landfilled Waste                                   $                        /Month*            783.73                          Management. Charged by weight.
         Total Waste                                        $                        /Month*            783.73
         Recycled Waste                                     $/cu.yd                                       0.00                          Recyling provided byb Eureka Recycling. They are
         Landfilled Waste                                                                                68.73                          not billed for the recycling directly because they are
                                                            $/cu.yd
                                                                                                                                        part of a contract with the City of St. Paul.
         $ Savings from Recycling by yard                                                                42.53
         Recycled Waste                                     $/ton                                         0.00
         Landfilled Waste                                   $/ton                                        76.21
         Recycled Waste                                     $/sq.ft                  /Month*              0.00
         Landfilled Waste                                   $/sq.ft                  /Month*             0.003
         Total Waste                                        $/sq.ft                  /Month*             0.003
              * Based on 30 day month,does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 121 days period from months Feb-May
  Operating Waste Cost by Person           (Person = FTE Occupants found on 40hr/wk basis)
                                                                                                                                        Cost per person = FTE occupant, including inmated
         Recycled Waste                                     $/FTE** Occupant         /Month*              0.00
                                                                                                                                        based on 40hr/wk in order to compare to other
         Landfilled Waste                                   $/FTE** Occupant         /Month*              0.42                          buildings with different hours of operation
         Total Waste                                        $/FTE** Occupant         /Month*              0.42
              * Based on 30 day month,does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 121 days period from months Feb-May
                                                                                     **FTE based on 40hrs/wk
  Medical Waste Cost
                                                                                                                                        Medical waste service provided ban Stericycle, picked
         Total Waste                                        $                        /Month*             47.58                          up average every 2 months. Probably only applies to
         Total Waste                                        $/cu.yd                  /Month*            175.98                          number of inmates.
         Total Waste                                        $/sq.ft.                 /Month*            0.0002
                  * Based on 30 day month, does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 90 day period in months Jan-Mar
  Medical Waste Cost by Person          (Person = FTE Occupants found on 40hr/wk basis)
         Total Waste                                        $/FTE** Occupant         /Month*             0.025                          Cost per person found based on total FTE occupants
         Total Waste                                                                 /Month*             0.030                          based on 40hrs/wk.
                                                            $/FTE** Inmate
                                                                                                                                        Also found based on inmate FTE because waste most
                  * Based on 30 day month, does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 90 day period in months Jan-Mar   likely generated by them, not employees
  Water & Site Cost
         Total Building Water                               $                        /Month*             800.10
         Total Sewer                                        $                        /Month*            1345.32
                                                                                                                                        No deduct meter accounted for on bills. St.Paul
         Total                                              $                        /Month*            2145.41                         Regional Water Service would not track deduct meter,
         Building Water                                     $/Sq.Ft.                 /Month*             0.0027                         facility would have to track it and report to Public
         Sewer                                              $/Sq.Ft.                 /Month*             0.0045                         Works who would then credit their account. To date
         Total                                              $/Sq.Ft.                 /Month*             0.0072                         there have been no credits associated to irrigation
                                                                                                                                        water used.
         Irrigation Water                                   $/site Sq.Ft.            /Month*
         Landscape Maint/ Chemicals/ etc.                   $/site Sq.Ft.            /Month*
                     * Based on 30 day month, does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 4.9 month period in Nov-Apr
  Water & Site Cost by Person        (Person = FTE Occupants found on 40hr/wk basis)
         Building Water                                $/FTE Occupant    /Month*                0.43
         Sewer                                         $/FTE Occupant    /Month*                0.72
         Total                                         $/FTE Occupant    /Month*                1.14
         Irrigation Water                              $/FTE Occupant    /Month*
         Landscape Maint/ Chemicals/ etc.              $/FTE Occupant    /Month*
                    * Based on 30 day month, does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 4.9 month period in Nov-Apr




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota                                                                            44
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


  Environmental Data                                              Key        To Be Determined: data gathered but in
  RLE    Ramsey Law Enforcement                                   TBD        process, and/or data needs clarification;
                                                                             Data not gathered at this time
                                                                             Not Applicable

                                                                                              Benchmark RLE       Notes                              Comments
                                                                                  RLE                   % savings         Note per sq.ft is based on         Gross Conditioned Space

  Operating Energy                                                                                                        Site energy = electric Kbtu/ sq.ft + gas Kbtu/sq.ft

         Site Energy                           KBTU/Sq.Ft.**      /Period*              57.1                              Elec % of KBTU = (electric KBTU/sq.ft.) / (Site Energy
                                                                                                                          KBTU/sq.ft)
         Electric KBTU                         KBTU/Sq.Ft.**      /Period*             21.95                              Source energy = (Electric KBUT/ sq. ft *3) + gas
         Gas KBTU                              KBTU/Sq.Ft.**      /Period*              0.00                              KBTU/sq/ft (does not take into account District Energy
         District Energy KBTU                  KBTU/Sq.Ft.**      /Period*             33.48                              KBTU)
         District Cooling KBTU                 KBTU/Sq.Ft.**      /Period*              1.70                              Peak Electric Demand = Converted peak kw to Watts

         Elec % of KBTU                                                                 38%                               (divided by 1000), then divided by bldg sq.ft

         Source Energy                           KBTU/Sq.Ft.**          /Period*         66                               District Energy usage was given in mwh = converted
         Peak Electric Demand                    Peak W/Sq.Ft.          /Period*         2.9                              mwh to kwh (multiplied by 1000), converted kwh to
                                    *Period not representative of 1 year, period = 4.6 months in Oct-Apr                  KBTU (1 kwh = 3.4121414799 KBTU)

                                                            **sq.ft of conditioned space                                  District Cooling usage was given in tons-hrs = converted
                                                                                                                          to kwh (1 ton-hr = 3.52 kwh), converted kwh to KBTU (1
  Athena Life Cycle Measures (electric & gas operating energy, does not include District Energy)                          kwh = 3.4121414799 KBTU)
        Primary Energy Consumption               KBTU/ sq.ft.**         /Period*        62.6                              Cooling Peak Demand given in tons, do not know
        Solid Waste                              lb/sq.ft**             /Period*         1.7                              conversion factor to watts, waiting for information from
                                                                                                                          District Energy
        Air Pollution Index                      unit/ sq.ft.**         /Period*         1.0
        Water Pollution Index                    unit/ sq.ft.**         /Period*      0.0001
                                                                                                                          Heating and Cooling provided by District Energy and
        Global Warming Potential                 lb/sq.ft**             /Period*         9.4                              Cooling system in downtown St.Paul. District Energy
        Weighted Resource Use                    lb/sq.ft**             /Period*        22.0                              St. Paul fuel mix includes natural gas, oil, clean-burning
                                    *Period not representative of 1 year, period = 4.6 months in Oct-Apr                  coal or wood chips (biomass) to fuel systems (more

                                                            **sq.ft of conditioned space                                  specific information to be gathered)

  Design Energy Improvements                                                                                              Athena Measures based on total Xcel electric and gas
        Initial Report Cost Base Peak Electric W/sq.ft                                   2.7                              usage over 136 day period, does not include district
        Initial Report Peak Electric (bundle 2) W/sq.ft                                  2.6                              energy pollution measures
                                                                                                                          Need to call district energy to find if they have
        Estimated Savings from Strategies %                                              4%
                                                                                                                          information
        Expected strategy peak
        savings (verification, after                                                                                      Energy assets report was done before they decided to
        District Energy)                         kW                                     138                               use District Energy. A verification report was done
        Achieved strategy peak                                                                                            factoring in the changes due to District Energy supply.

        savings (verification, after
        District Energy)                         kW                                     136
        Percent achieved                                                                99%

  Design Spatial Measures
        Net Area                            Sq.Ft.                              282,150
        Gross Area                          Sq.Ft.                              297,000
        Gross Area Conditioned Space        Sq.Ft.                              287,036                                   Net Area = 95% of gross (according to architect)

        Net to Gross Percentage                                                    95%
        Building Footprint                  Sq.Ft                                90,450                                   FTE employees = 278
                                                                                                                          Inmates average = 380 Inmates in bldg 24 hrs, 7
        Gross Area I-3, Inmate Area                                             167,773                                   days/wk for total = 168 hrs/wk
        Number of FTE** Employees                                                  278                                    168 hrs * 380 inmates = 63840 hrs/ 40hrs for FTE =
        Number of FTE** Inmates                                                   1596                                    1596 FTE inmates
        Numebr of FTE** Occupants                                                 1874                                    FTE occupants = 278 + 1596 = 1874

        Designed Peak Occupancy (not including toilets, mech rms)                 1,057
        Actual Peak Occupancy (over 3 wk comparison)
        Designed Peak Occupancy (Area I-3, inmate)                                 376
        Actual Peak Occupancy (Area I-3, inmates)                                  459                                    Designed occupancy peak not including toilets/ mech =
                                                                                                                          (area A-3) 271+(area B) 410+ (area I-3, based on 1
        Gross Area/ designed peak person Sq.Ft./Peak People                        281
                                                                                                                          inmate/cell) 376 beds = 1057
        Gross Area/ actual peak person      Sq.Ft./Peak People                                                            Actual peak data not available for entire building,
        Area I-3/designed peak inmates      Sq.Ft./Peak People                     446                                    inmate peak was 459
        Area I-3/actual peak inmates        Sq.Ft./Peak People                     366
        Gross Area/ FTE Occupants           Sq.Ft/ FTE Person                      158                                    Gross conditioned space is calculated because 9,964
                                                                                                                          sq.ft of space, 3rd floor area B (courts), is unfinished
        Total Site Area                                                          278,795
                                                                                                                          and is for future growth purposes. At this current time
        Area Gross Bldg / Site %                                                  107%                                    the space is unconditioned and is being left out of the
        Area Bldg Footprint / Site %                                               32%                                    calculations/ sq.ft.
                                                                  **FTE found   on 40hr/wk basis
  Construction Waste by sq.ft.
        Recycled Waste                      cu. yds/Sq.Ft.
        Landfilled Waste                    cu. yds/Sq.Ft.
        Total Waste                         cu. yds/Sq.Ft.
        % recycled                          % by volume

                                                                                                                          Waste qty volumes based on container sizes, not
                                                                                                                          necessarily qty pick-up




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota                                                                  45
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


  Operating Waste by sq.ft.                                                                                                                      Waste qty volumes based on container sizes, not
                                                                                                                                                 necessarily qty pick-up
         Recycled Waste                        cu. yds              /Month*         18.5
         Landfilled Waste                      cu. yds              /Month*           11                                                         Waste qty by weight more accurate, landfilled waste
                                                                                                                                                 weighed, recycled waste weight estimated by typical
         Total Waste                           cu. yds              /Month*           30
                                                                                                                                                 weights, drivers record estimate of container fill.
         % recycled                            % by volume          /Month*         62%
         Recycled Waste                        cu. yds/Sq.Ft.       /Month*        0.0003
                                                                                                                                                 Operating waste based on Aspen waste pick-up,
         Ladnfilled Waste                      cu. yds/Sq.Ft.       /Month*        0.0002
                                                                                                                                                 general landfilled building waste, given in yds and tons
         Total Waste                           cu. yds/Sq.Ft.       /Month*        0.0004                                                        Weight information found on Scalehouse Invoice, billed
         Recycled Waste                        tons                 /Month*          1.1                                                         based on actual amount of waste produced
         Landfilled Waste                      tons                 /Month*         10.3
         Total Waste                           tons                 /Month*         11.4
         % recycled                            % by weight                          10%                                                          Recycling service provided by Eureka Recycling.
         Recycled Waste                        tons/Sq.Ft           /Month*      0.000004                                                        Waste recycled includes cardboard, office paper and
                                                                                                                                                 aluminum cans.
         Landfilled Waste                      tons/Sq.Ft           /Month*      0.000035
         Total Waste                           tons/Sq.Ft           /Month*      0.000039
   * Based on 30 day month,does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 121 days period from months Feb-May

  Operating Waste by Person       (Person = FTE Occupants found on 40hr/wk basis)

         Recycled Waste                          cu.yds/FTE**Occupants/Month*       0.010
         Landfilled Waste                        cu.yds/FTE**Occupants/Month*       0.006
         Total Waste                             cu.yds/FTE**Occupants/Month*       0.016
         Recycled Waste                          tons/FTE**Occupants  /Month*       0.001
         Landfilled Waste                        tons/FTE**Occupants  /Month*       0.005
         Total Waste                             tons/FTE**Occupants  /Month*       0.006
   * Based on 30 day month,does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 121 days period from months Feb-May
                                                                      **FTE on 40hrs/wk basis
  Medical Waste by Sq.Ft
                                                                                                                                                 Medical waste quantity based on SteriCycle Generators
         Total Waste                             cu. Yds              /Month*        0.27
                                                                                                                                                 Certification, given in cu. Ft, converted to cu.yds based
         Total Waste                             cu. Yds/ Sq.ft       /Month*     0.000001                                                       1 cu.ft = 0.037037 cu. Yd (source:
     * Based on 30 day month,does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 90 day period from months Jan-Mar                        onlineconversion.com)


  Medical Waste by Person     (Person = FTE Occupants found on 40hr/wk basis)
        Total Waste                             cu.yds/FTE**Occupants/Month*     0.00014
    * Based on 30 day month,does not represent annual average, from data gathered over 90 day period from months Jan-Mar

  Water & Site by sq.ft.
         Building Water                       Gal                 /Month*        396,542
                                                                                                                                    No deduct meter used for irrigation, so total sewer
         Sewer                                Gal                 /Month*        396,542
                                                                                                                                    leaving the building is unknown.
         Building Water                       Gal/Sq.Ft.          /Month*          1.34
         Sewer                                Gal/Sq.Ft.          /Month*          1.34
                   *Based on 30 day month, does not represent annual average, from data gatheredover 204 day period in months Sept-Apr
                                                                                                                                                 Irrigation system has rain monitor so sprinklers do not
  Water & Site by Person                                                                                                             turn on when not needed. System is also zoned
         Building Water                         Gal/FTE Occupant /Month*              212                                            according to plant type so over watering does not
         Sewer                                  Gal/FTE Occupant /Month*              212                                            occur.
         Irrigation Water                       lbs/site Sq.Ft.     /Month*
         Landscape Chemicals                    lbs/site Sq.Ft.     /Month*
                     *Based on 30 day month, does not represent annual average, from data gatheredover 204 day period in months Sept-Apr




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota                                                                                        46
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Appendix C: Key to Life Cycle Assessment Units

The following is an excerpt from Athena™ Version 2.02 Software Help Section:

Interpreting Results

As output, the model produces a detailed life cycle inventory for an entered design. It also generates a set
of summary results in graphical and tabular form showing:
                     · aggregate ecologically weighted resource requirements;
                     · embodied energy inputs by type;
                     · global warming potential;
                     · an index of water pollution effects;
                     · an index of air pollution effects; and
                     · solid wastes.
This section briefly describes the six environmental measures used to summarize the environmental
assessment results provided by Athena™.

Embodied primary energy is reported in Mega-joules (Mj). Embodied primary energy includes all
energy, direct and indirect, used to transform or transport raw materials into products and buildings,
including inherent energy contained in raw or feedstock materials that are also used as common energy
sources. (For example, natural gas used as a raw material in the production of various plastic (polymer)
resins.) In addition, the model captures the indirect energy use associated with processing, transporting,
converting and delivering fuel and energy.

Solid waste is reported on a mass basis in kilograms and is generally self-explanatory. No attempt has
been made to further characterize emissions to land as either hazardous or non-hazardous.

All other measures are indices requiring more explanation and interpretation. They have been developed
because of the difficulty of using and interpreting detailed life cycle inventory results. For example, it
takes considerable expertise to understand and appreciate the significance of the individual emissions to
air and water. Both categories encompass a relatively large number of individual substances with varying
environmental impacts. In the case of raw resource use, there is no real basis for comparison from one
material to another in terms of environmental impact. The model therefore compiles related numeric
results into indices that summarise the results by indicating potentials for environmental impacts.

Raw resource use can be measured in common units such as tonnes, but a unit of one resource like iron
ore is not at all comparable to a unit of another resource life timber or coal when it comes to
environmental implications of extracting resources. Since the varied effects of resource extraction, (e.g.,
effects on bio-diversity, ground water quality and wildlife habitat, etc.) are a primary concern, we want to
make sure they are taken into account. The problem is that while these ecological carrying capacity
effects are as important as the basic life cycle inventory data, they are much harder to incorporate for a
number of reasons, especially their highly site-specific nature.

Our approach was to survey a number of resource extraction and environmental specialists across Canada
to develop subjective scores of the relative effects of different resource extraction activities. The scores
reflect the expert panel ranking of the effects of extraction activities relative to each other for each of
several impact dimensions. The scores were combined into a set of resource-specific index numbers,
which are applied in Athena™ as weights to the amounts of raw resources used to manufacture each
building product. The Weighted Resource Use values reported by Athena™ are the sum of the weighted



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   47
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


resource requirements for all products used in each of the designs. They can be thought of as
"ecologically weighted kilograms", where the weights reflect expert opinion about the relative ecological
carrying capacity effects of extracting resources. Excluded from this measure are energy feedstocks used
as raw materials. Except for coal, no scoring survey has been conducted on the effects of extracting fossil
fuels, and hence, they have been assigned a score of one to only account for their mass. The weighting
factor for each raw material is set out below:

Weighted Resource Use

Same as normal resource converted to mass quantities except:
                1.   LIMESTONE * 1.5
                2.   IRON ORE * 2.25
                3.   COAL * 2.25
                4.   WOODFIBER * 2.5
Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a reference measure. Carbon dioxide is the common reference
standard for global warming or greenhouse gas effects. All other greenhouse gases are referred to as
having a "CO2 equivalence effect" which is simply a multiple of the greenhouse potential (heat trapping
capability) of carbon dioxide. This effect has a time horizon due to the atmospheric reactivity or stability
of the various contributing gases over time.

As yet, no consensus has been reached among policy makers about the most appropriate time horizon for
greenhouse gas calculations. The International Panel on Climate Change100-year time horizon figures
have been used here as a basis for the equivalence index:

CO2 Equivalent kg = CO2 kg + (CH4 kg x 23) + (N2O kg x 296)

While greenhouse gas emissions are largely a function of energy combustion, some products also emit
greenhouse gases during the processing of raw materials. Process emissions often go unaccounted for due
to the complexity associated with modelling manufacturing process stages. One example where process
CO2 emissions are significant is in the production of cement (calcination of limestone). Because
Athena™ uses data developed by a detailed life cycle modelling approach, all relevant process emissions
of greenhouse gases are included in the resultant global warming potential index.

The air and water pollution measures are similarly intended to capture the pollution or human health
effects of groups of substances emitted at various life cycle stages. In this case we used the commonly
recognised and accepted critical volume method to estimate the volume of ambient air or water that would
be required to dilute contaminants to acceptable levels, where acceptability is defined by the most
stringent standards (i.e., drinking water standards).

Athena™ calculates and reports these critical volume measures based on the worst offender -- that is, the
substance requiring the largest volume of air and water to achieve dilution to acceptable levels. The
hypothesis is that the same volume of air or water can contain a number of pollutants. However, there are
concerns about the cumulative or synergistic effects of some substances and we therefore expect to
further refine our approach in the future.

Air Pollution Index = maximum of the following, divided by 1000:
i) SULPHUR OXIDES (g) / 0.03
ii) PARTICULATES (g) / 0.06
iii) CARBON_MONOXIDE (g) / 6
iv) NITROGEN OXIDES (g) / 0.06
v) VOLATILE ORGANICS (NMHC) (g) / 6



Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   48
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


vi) PHENOLS (g) / 2

Water Pollution Index = maximum of the following divided by 1,000,000

i) DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg) / 5000.0
ii) POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (mg)
iii) CYANIDE (mg) / 0.05
iv) PHENOLS (mg) / 0.01
v) AMMONIA/AMMONIUM (mg) / 20.0
vi) NITRATE NITRITE (mg) / 20.0
vii) HALOGENATED ORGANICS (mg) / 0.2
viii) CHLORIDES (mg) / 2500.0
ix) ALUMINUM (mg) / 1.0
x) OIL and GREASE (mg) / 10.0
xi) SULPHATES (mg) / 5000
xii) SULPHIDES (mg) / 0.5
xiii) IRON and other HEAVY METALS (mg) / 3.0




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota   49
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center



Appendix D: Occupant Survey Form
                                        Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board
                                                Post Occupancy Evaluation

(1) What is your primary workspace?__________________________________________________________

For the following questions please circle a number from 1-7 that best reflects your response to the question.

(2) How healthy do you feel after completing your work in the building each day?


                 Very unhealthy 1               2          3          4         5          6          7 Very healthy

(3) How healthy do you feel when you are not in the building?


                 Very unhealthy 1               2          3          4         5          6          7 Very healthy

(4) To what extent do you think your productive work is affected by the interior environmental conditions
of the building?


              Greatly decreased 1               2          3        4           5          6          7 Greatly increased
                                                                 no effect

(5) How satisfied are you with the quality of sound environment in your workspace? This includes sounds like
echoes, equipment, HVAC, foot traffic, furniture movement, etc.?


               Very dissatisfied 1              2          3          4         5          6          7 Very satisfied

(6) Do you notice vibration (e.g., from mechanical systems) in the building?
(Please check one.) _____ Yes _____ No

If you checked Yes, go to Question 7. If you checked No, go to Question 8.

(7) If you notice vibration (e.g., from mechanical systems) in the building how annoying is it?


             Not at all annoying 1              2          3          4         5          6          7 Highly annoying

(8) How satisfied are you with your workspace furnishings?


               Very dissatisfied 1              2         3          4          5         6           7 Very satisfied

(9) What kind of view of the outdoors do you have when you are seated in your workspace?


                         No view 1            2            3          4         5        6       7 Panoramic view
                                          Very slight                                  Expansive

(10) Do you have an operable window in your workspace?
(Please check one.) _____ Yes _____ No


Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota       50
SWMCB Post Occupancy Evaluation: Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center


(11) To what extent are you satisfied with the overall lighting in your workspace?


               Very dissatisfied 1              2          3          4         5          6          7 Very satisfied

(12) How much natural light do you have in your workspace?


                             None 1             2          3          4         5          6          7 Almost like the outdoors

(13) How much glare do you experience in your workspace?


                         No glare 1             2         3          4          5         6          7 Very noticeable glare

(14) How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace during the heating season (winter months)?


               Very dissatisfied 1              2          3          4         5          6          7 Very satisfied

(15) How satisfied are you with the temperature in your workspace during the cooling season (summer months)?


               Very dissatisfied 1              2         3          4          5         6           7 Very satisfied

(16) How satisfied are you with the air quality in your workspace during the heating season (winter months)?


               Very dissatisfied 1              2         3          4          5         6           7 Very satisfied


(17) How satisfied are you with air quality in your workspace during the cooling season (summer months)?


               Very dissatisfied 1              2          3         4          5         6           7 Very satisfied

(18) How satisfied are you with the ventilation system in your workspace?


               Very dissatisfied 1              2         3          4          5         6           7 Very satisfied

(19) Do you have any additional comments on building performance? Do you have any suggestions for how the
building and/or landscape could be improved? If so, please explain them and rank the improvements in order of
importance to you.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________




Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota              51

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:1/19/2013
language:English
pages:53