This is an excellent question. I'll start by saying that most of us in the landscape design industry tend to see things only from our own perspectives and our own limited experiences, so you are likely going to get responses that tell you that these people to this and those people do that. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending how you look at it, in any profession (landscape design, landscape architecture, design/build, landscape contractors, landscape maintenanace, ...) there is no standard operating procedure. It is as diverse as the people who make up each component of the industry. That good news is that there is someone out there that will do exactly what you want both in terms of procedure and product. The bad news is that it might take a lot of hunting and leg work to find someone that fits. The key thing is not to get too locked down with the idea that you need only to look for someone who has the title of one of these. The truth is that this type of work is done both well and poorly by some folks in each of the described categories. You should strive for someone (or entity) that typically does what it is you are asking for (product and procedure) rather that someone who is reaching up to it or someone reaching down to it. You want your project to be typical. That means they are competent and capable and you are just as important as the next client. You might find that many LA offices might view your job as less important by comparison to others that they typically do. Although they may be great at what they do, chances are that your project is not really what they do, so that would not make them great for you. You might find an LA that typically does little projects that are not as grand as yours. That would not be good either. If you look hard enough (or just get lucky) you might find an LA that does exactly what you are asking for. Now you can substitute either "design/build" or "landscape designer" for LA in everything I just described and it is equally true. However, people exist under these titles in greater numbers giving you a larger pool to fish in. The biggest pool is the design/build contractor. S/He is often the best value because the goal is not to make a living on designing, but to use design in order to get work. This means that it will often cost less for the design and that the design process can be much more straight forward and direct since they would rather get to the point of building than racking up design hours. The project is designed to work the strengths and profitability of that company which is great if you are familiar with their work and you trust in their "brand". However, your goals might diverge from theirs a bit. The independent designer should be working for you rather than toward the goals of contractors. One problem here is that it is very difficult to know how capable the designer is at making a plan that does not leave too many variables to bidding contractors. A designer is simply someone who designs. Some have great and diverse experience both artistically, technically, graphically, and from a managerial angle. But some are people who just thought it would be cool to do landscape design. So, you really have to do your homework. My opinion is that your best bet in terms of efficiency in finding someone is to search out landscape projects in your area that are very appealing to you on similar priced homes and find out who did the work (local, capability equals your taste, probably a similar budget). People are pretty easy to talk to if you see someone outside and complement their landscape. They'll talk (probably crediting themselves for the ideas). Gush on them and find out who built it. Chances are that it will be a design/build firm simply because there are more of them. I hope this helps. Don't rule out any of them based on title. There are great capabilities in all of these. I'm an LA, by the way.

Courtney, Thanks for saying I am a wonderful teacher. Sometimes I really, really struggle with the best way to make a point without coming across as an overbearing organic wacko. (smiling and poking fun at self as I say that) The post in which I told you that chemical companies fund the very research that says their products are "most effective" was one of those times. I could tell you had really done your research and understood WHAT you read, but just wondered if you had thought about who was paying for that research? In many ways, the research system in this great nation of ours is evil....and not just with regards to the gardening world....how about in the pharmaceutical world as well? There is such a complicated financial relationship between the companies who MAKE/MARKET the products and the very researchers/agencies who evaluate their safety and effectiveness. I find it impossible to imagine university researchers and regulatory agencies are not influenced by the large multinational firms who market these products AND fund the research that studies these companies' own products. There is a superb book out that studies the complicated relationships that exist in the agricultural/horticultural world. It is called THE WAR ON BUGS and was written by Will Allen. It basically describes in great detail the vast ongoing collusion between the chemical firms, the university researchers who study their products AND the media. These three groups have combined to convince us all that commercial agriculture cannot "feed the world" without a heavy reliance on chemicals. I highly recommend this book. It is the best explanation of the complicated relationships/processes that I have ever seen. I linked info on The War On Bugs below. If you go to that link, read the review by Dr. Rob Williams near the end of that webpage. This is a book that everyone interested in horticulture and agriculture should read. And, how much of the chemical pesticide-related research is funded by the chemical manufacturers themselves? Research done in the 1990s found the chemical manufacturers and their industry lobbying groups were funding 66% of the research at that time, and it was increasing at a rate of about 3% a year. (As government cuts research funding, the manufacturers step in and fund more and more and more.) OK, I'll stop going on and on about the chemical manufacturers! I bought Milky Spore powder in a 40 oz. can and applied it over the 10,000 s.f. closest to the house, following label directions. When you have acreage (even 1 acre!), you just can't treat all of it, so I concentrate on the area closest to the house, yard, barn, garden, etc. If I had felt like I needed to do additional treatment, I probably would have treated a 10,000 s.f. area every year until I felt I'd covered all the area I wanted covered. Keep in mid that Milky Spore powder is a bacteria that should grow and spread on its own over time. Nolo Bait for grasshoppers works the same way--once you establish it on your land, you often have it forever after. I think I walked around with the cannister and sprinkled about 1 t. every 4 feet in a sort of checkerboard pattern. They also make milky spore powder dispensers or spreaders. I never try to treat a really large area because it costs too much to do so. I just treat what I can. Dawn

I'm also of the opinion that I would do something with the headboard before I would mess with the nightstands. I would paint the headboard the same color as the trim in the room (white?), so it would give the feel of blending in as a piece of architecture. With it white, it would be a blank canvas and maybe you could visualize it a pretty complementing color to the room later on. I think the color of the headboard wood looks a little dated, but the shape and form is simple and classic. That's my reasoning for painting. I would not paint the nightstands. I think the effect would be weird, and the shadows created would contrast too much right on the furniture. Nightstands would appear to be black and white because of the shadows created...they would not just look white (hope that makes sense). I like the nightstands, but they do have a complexity to them. I would be careful with adding cane or something on the doors. It wouldn't take much hacking to make them look like an overdone craft project. Also, I think the nightstands in their current color are great. With a white or very neutral blended headboard, you could really play off the darker wood nightstands with some decor pieces elsewhere in the room. Gayle

It's not a bad idea to convert to a heat pump from propane. Outside the delivery problems propane is a danerous gas. Not dangerous when used properly, but mishandled and it can level a city block. (I don't think the OP is in the city, so I am using a metaphor when I say this.) A solar system will have to be quite large to handle the energy needs of ANY resistance type heating system (electrical strip heat in any comibination draws alot of power), then if you're off grid you will also need large battery banks of power to supplement those needs to run the heat when the sun isn't shining. Trying to do this DIY, is going to be a costly lesson in futility. A heat pump can reduce those demands placed on solar systems, BUT you will still need battery back up system of some kind OR grid tied system. The more power you burn, the more solar panels and batteries you will need. The cost of batteries never goes away. There's cost in maintaining them, if you set them up improperly meaning they are drained to far down or not down far enough this will effect the life of the batter... which leads to even more cost. If you undersize the solar system and battery system.... you're going to be cold. So while you think you have problems with a propane system now, there may come a day in which you wish you could just call someone to fill the propane tanks, deal with the inconvenience of having to wait it out... but not have to be continuously jacking with an 'off grid solar system' that no one will touch because you installed it. It's either that or you call a solar system company they come out and tell you the system is inadequate and want to install an entirely new system... which ultimately will put you in a bad position. Either way... whatever the OP decides to do... they are going to learn how to be extremely energy conscious in their daily lives. A little bit of advice: cut your engery needs. It's far cheaper to build a solar system with low energy needs than higher energy needs. Not only cheaper up front, but also in maintanance and ultimately replacement costs. (The solar system, nor anything else on this planet will last forever.) I think if it were me in this situation with a family (IE multiple people in the home) I would use a duel fuel combination of propane furnace and heat pump. Use the heat pump in mild weather and only use the propane furnace when weather dips below 32F for any significant amount of time. Given the advances in heat pump tech you might be able to run the heat pump as low as 20F using the heat of propane furnace during defrost. If the OP is living alone it's a toss up as your needs one day may include living with more people in the home.