LightingSouthwest OhioCincinnati

Wilmington Elementary Schools Lighting Upgrades

Wilmington City Schools asked what it would take to relight two of its elementary buildings, Roy E. Holmes and Denver Place, in Wilmington, Ohio. What came back is a budgetary proposal built as four options rather than one fixed scope, because the two buildings do not have the same ceilings and the district does not have to commit yet.

The lighting options run from least to most invasive. The first pairs LED panels in the recessed ceilings, which is most of Holmes, with direct-wire LED tubes in the strip and pendant fixtures that make up most of Denver Place. The second replaces the pendants outright with direct/indirect lighting and new strip fixtures. The third is full fixture replacement with dimming controls.

The fourth option is not lighting at all. It replaces the ceiling grid throughout both buildings with new acoustical tile and repaints the walls, on the reasoning that new light makes a tired ceiling impossible to ignore. The proposal is explicit that this option is a rough-order-of-magnitude concept and needs detailed analysis and district input before it becomes a scope of work.

Two qualifications carry across all four. Final engineering and design are required to fix the lighting scope, and because lighting components have been moving in price and availability, the proposal reserves the right to review and revise scope to match conditions when the district is ready to proceed. Nothing here has been installed — it is a budget-stage approach for a district working out how far to take a retrofit.

New linear LED fixtures along a Wilmington Elementary corridor

Classroom troffers replaced at Wilmington Elementary above hexagonal tables

Linear LED pendants under acoustic baffles in the Wilmington commons

Upgraded corridor lighting above student artwork at Wilmington Elementary

Technical Discussion

What new light shows you

The predictable result of relighting an older elementary classroom is that the room looks worse. Not the light — the room. Aging fluorescent lighting is dim, uneven and yellow, and it has been quietly covering for the ceiling grid for years: the stained tiles, the sagging runners, the mismatched replacements, the scuffs along the corridor walls at backpack height. Put clean, even light on all of it and the district has a building that is brighter and, for a while, more obviously tired.

This proposal says so up front, which is why the ceiling grid and the wall painting are in it rather than in a conversation next year. Replacing the entire grid with new acoustical tile across both buildings and repainting the walls is presented alongside the lighting, on the argument that they are one decision. The lift is already in the room. The ceiling is already open where fixtures are being swapped. Doing the grid on a second mobilization means paying again for access the lighting project already bought.

The four options are structured so the district can price that trade rather than be talked into it. Three are lighting only and differ in how far they go: panels and direct-wire tubes at the least invasive end, a pendant upgrade to direct/indirect fixtures and new strips in the middle, full fixture replacement with dimming controls at the top. The fourth adds grid and paint and is labeled in the proposal as a rough-order-of-magnitude concept requiring detailed analysis and district input.

Two things are worth reading in that structure. A retrofit that stops at the fixture is a maintenance project; one that includes the grid changes how the building reads to a parent walking in. And since final engineering and lighting-market conditions can both move the scope, the proposal is written to be re-checked when the district is ready to build.

Our Work