Smart Practices from FAST: Facilities
Smart practices related to the maintenance of facilities were the most frequently cited areas for potential cost savings by school districts.
The facilities category includes all practices related to the management or operation of school district facilities, including maintenance and energy conservation. In the 2011-12 school year, Texas school districts spent $4.3 billion on plant maintenance and operations, accounting for 10.5 percent of all operating expenditures.
* Enrollment is approximate.
School districts are finding cost-efficient ways to keep their school buildings, grounds and other facilities clean and safe through preventive maintenance, better use of technology and the streamlining or consolidation of custodial staff.
|Cedar Hill||Dallas||8,100||Reduced its maintenance schedule in half by cleaning buildings every other day instead of every day, allowing the district to cut 15 custodial positions.||$300,000|
|Coppell||Dallas||10,000||Uses scheduling and tracking software to increase the productivity of maintenance personnel and eliminate the need for more employees.||$40,000 annually|
|El Paso||El Paso||62,100||Created a second shift of maintenance workers working four 10-hour days weekly on repair work beyond school-occupied hours. Uses a computerized work-order system to track maintenance requests. Consolidated custodial services and schedules only necessary personnel, allowing it to reduce some 12-month maintenance positions to nine-month positions.||Annual savings of $200,000 due to work-order system; $300,000 annually from consolidation|
|Lamar||Fort Bend||22,900||Contracts with the Region 4 Education Service Center to manage its Maintenance and Operations Department. Region 4 has created a preventative maintenance team, modified workflows to absorb additional square footage without adding personnel, reduced the energy budget and provided employee training at no additional cost.||$1,600,000|
|Mesquite||Dallas||36,900||Placed recycling bins in all 1,300 classrooms as well as administrative buildings and athletic stadiums, allowing the district to eliminate half of its waste pickups.||Saved $57,000 in disposal costs in 2009 and $85,000 in 2010; expects savings to reach $100,000 in 2011|
|Mission||Hidalgo||15,400||Uses an outside contract for monthly HVAC filter changes; uses a computerized work-order system to track maintenance projects.||Annual spending on maintenance is $288,000 less than the average of similar districts|
|Pettus||Bee||400||Increased efficiency of its maintenance function by reducing the number of central staff positions and hiring (or training) maintenance staff to work on HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems.||$10,000 annually|
|Richardson||Dallas||34,300||Adapted work crew schedules to optimize work flow, allowing fewer staff to serve more facilities. Issues hand-held devices to maintenance staff that link directly to a central system that prioritizes and tracks work orders, eliminating the need for large inventories of replacement parts because the system can generate and fill purchase orders quickly.||$500,000 annually|
|Sam Rayburn||Fannin||450||The district’s metal fabrication shop produces fixtures and equipment such security fences, saving money that otherwise would be spent on external contractors.||Shop recently built a security fence that saved district an estimated $10,000|
|Spring Branch||Harris||32,300||Saved money on repairs and replacement parts by standardizing fixtures and equipment such as lighting, ice machines, water fountains, laundry equipment, walkways and ramps. The district also has a preventive maintenance program that identifies cost-saving measures such as winterizing plumbing lines and identifying leaks in plumbing pipes.||Annual spending on facilities maintenance is $4.3 million less than the average for similar districts|
Sharing facilities with other districts or local governments is another smart practice. Several districts reported sharing recreational facilities, disaster recovery sites, office space and other facilities for a substantial savings.
|Alpine||Brewster||1,100||Shares facilities with both the 588 Purchasing Co-op and a field office of the Region 18 Education Service Center (ESC). The 588 Co-op rents office space in the district’s administration building, and ESC 18 rents office space in a district field office.||The district collects $21,600 annually in rent and uses it for building maintenance and operation costs|
|Cedar Hill||Dallas||8,100||Worked with the city of Cedar Hill to build a $27.5 million government center that houses district and city administrative offices as well as the police department.||About $1 million in construction costs as well as $50,000 annually in operating costs|
|El Paso||El Paso||62,100||Maintains several agreements with the city of El Paso for use of city baseball and softball fields and swimming pools. The district, in turn, allows use of school playgrounds and facilities by various city programs and the community at large.||Annual facilities maintenance spending is $5.5 million less than the average of similar districts|
|Friendswood||Galveston||6,000||The City of Friendswood and the district partnered to share land for a park and new middle school. Students can use park and athletic facilities during the school day, while allowing public access to the facilities outside of school hours. The city waived permit and construction fees as part of agreement.||$300,000 from waived municipal fees, plus additional savings related to lower land acquisition costs.|
|Irving||Dallas||34,140||Adopted a facility rental policy with a tiered cost structure based on organization and event type. This program helps the district recoup some of its maintenance and utilities costs.||Anticipates $300,000 annually in new revenue|
|Post||Garza||900||Uses the city of Post’s baseball and softball fields during sports seasons. The school district maintains the fields during the season but is not responsible for upkeep during the off season, thus saving on equipment and staff costs.||Annual facilities maintenance costs are about $239,000 less than the average of similar districts|
Energy and Water Conservation
Utilities account for a large portion of school district operating costs. The costs of heating and cooling and lighting can be contained through technologies such as energy-efficient lighting, programmable thermostats, “virtual” servers and energy management software.
|Alief||Harris||45,100||Removed many old and inefficient lighting systems, replacing them with more energy-efficient units. Is installing new roofing systems that have better insulation and reflective surfaces. Earned one-time rebates through a program administered by the local electric provider to improve energy efficiency in schools. Uses contracts with energy aggregators for additional savings.||$185,000 annually|
|Aubrey||Denton||1,700||Adopted a four-day work week during summer to reduce electricity spending. Closes schools on weekends to reduce electricity consumption. Has reduced consumption by about 25 kilowatt hours per month.||$2,500 annually|
|Blackwell||Coke||150||Installed a wind turbine to provide electricity.||$3,000 per month on electricity costs|
|Booker||Lipscomb||400||Installed new HVAC equipment that uses programmable thermostats.||Expects 10 percent energy savings|
|Cedar Hill||Dallas||8,100||Negotiated with utility to cut rate by 20 percent. Installed programmable thermostats and energy-efficient lighting in gyms.||Lower utility rate saves district $400,000 annually; programmable thermostats save an estimated $225,000 each year; energy-efficient gym lighting saves $45,000 annually|
|Channing||Hartley||150||In 2000, district buildings were retrofitted with energy-efficient systems and connected to a central control panel.||Annual spending on utilities is $24,000 less than the average of similar districts|
|Coppell||Dallas||10,000||Implemented districtwide energy management system; installed energy-efficient equipment and automatic light sensors. Installed energy-saving bulbs, ballasts and timers for the HVAC system, reducing annual electricity use by more than 10 percent.||$200,000 annually|
|Dallas||Dallas||157,100||Contracts with a utility billing auditor to review utility bills for errors and to recover any overcharges from electricity providers. HVAC systems set at 69-71 degrees in heating season and 75-78 degrees in cooling season; shuts these systems down one hour prior to the end of the school or work day. Has installed a geothermal heat pump system that uses less energy than a conventional HVAC system.||$6.7 million annually|
|Denver City||Yoakum||1,500||Replaced all 137 HVAC units with more energy-efficient equipment.||Annual spending on utilities is $84,000 less than the average of similar districts|
|Dumas||Moore||4,300||HVAC is on a central control system. District pays a stipend to a staff member to act as energy manager, tracking the costs of utilities and sending out reminders to shut off equipment during school breaks.||$200,000 annually|
|El Paso||El Paso||62,100||Has remote power management on 1,100 workstations, automatically shutting them down at night and on weekends. Laptops default to sleep mode after 30 minutes of inactivity. Uses 18 “virtual” servers, which allow the consolidation of multiple servers on one machine and reduce electricity consumption.||Remote power management saves more than $51,000 annually; laptop sleep mode saves $28,000 annually; virtual servers save $17,000 annually|
|Era||Cooke||450||Uses basic steps such as turning off lights and air conditioners and replacing outdated lighting with more efficient units. Under the state’s Optional Flexible Year Program, students can be dismissed from school 10 days before the end of the actual school year if they pass their classes and state tests, allowing the district to close some classrooms and other facilities a few days early each year.||$4,000|
|Frenship||Lubbock||7,000||Energy management system monitors electric use in all district buildings, allowing district to track energy consumption trends and adjust usage when necessary.||Annual spending on utilities is $1.4 million less than the average similiar districts.|
|Friendswood||Galveston||6,000||In 2005, began upgrading air conditioning and heating systems as well as lighting, plumbing and kitchens in schools with outdated infrastructure.||$150,000 anually|
|Frisco||Collin||30,600||Some schools use geothermal ground-source heat pumps in lieu of conventional HVAC systems. District uses an energy recovery ventilation system to reduce the amount of energy needed to heat or cool incoming air. District uses laminated roofing materials to reduce heat conducted into buildings and has installed motion sensors to turn off lights in unoccupied rooms. A centralized irrigation control system monitors water use.||In 2009, spent about $770,000 less on electricity and natural gas at schools with geothermal ground-source heat pumps than it would have with conventional HVAC systems.|
|Jim Hogg||Jim Hogg||1,100||All campuses connected to a centralized HVAC system that operates at predetermined times.||$180,000 annually|
|Keller||Tarrant||30,200||Has implemented a four-day work week and a “dark week” during summer to reduce utility expenditures.||$744,000 annually|
|Klondike||Dawson||200||Has installed energy-efficient lighting and HVAC units are timer-controlled.||Annual spending on utilities is $22,000 less than the average of similar districts|
|Mesquite||Dallas||36,900||A centrally controlled energy management system for HVAC is in use in 42 of 47 schools. Programmable networked thermostats installed in all portable classrooms. All lighting equipped with efficient fluorescent bulbs. Electric booster water heaters have been replaced with natural gas units.Read||$688,000 annually for the energy management system; $141,000 a year from water heater replacements; plus $369,000 in incentive reimbursements from the local energy provider.|
|Mission||Hidalgo||15,450||Has installed window screens and energy-efficient lighting; joined Region One electric purchasing consortium; and registered with utility to receive rebates for efficiency upgrades.||$21,000 annually plus $30,000 in rebates|
|Northside||Bexar||88,200||Energy management control system controls all lighting, heating and air-conditioning. Computers and monitors configured to turn off automatically after a period of inactivity. Restrooms retrofitted with low-flow toilets.||$2.9 million annually|
|Olton||Lamb||750||Installed computer-controlled thermostats in all schools capable of turning electricity off at preprogrammed times.||Annual spending on utilities is $28,000 less than the average for similar districts|
|Palacios||Matagorda||1,500||Member of an electrical co-op, Energy for Schools Pool 19.||Annual spending on utilities is $328,000 less than average of similiar districts.|
|Pettus||Bee||400||In 2007, district conducted a thorough energy efficiency upgrade of lighting and HVAC systems; removed window air conditioners and glass walls to seal and insulate them.||No savings estimate, but annual spending on utilities is $107,000 less than the average of similar districts|
|Post||Garza||850||Has installed an energy management system for HVAC; all new units controlled from a central location.||Annual spending on utilities is $71,000 less than the average of similar districts|
|Richardson||Dallas||34,300||Has upgraded all district facilities with energy-efficient windows, roofs, lighting, appliances and HVAC systems. Installed a central HVAC control system and separated its HVAC systems into zones to better control ambient air temperatures. The district also fuels its vehicles with propane instead of gasoline for a 30 percent savings, and buys propane direct and in bulk.||$2.9 million annually|
|Sam Rayburn||Fannin||450||Built its own water well to reduce the cost of watering its football fields.||$6,000 annually|
|Sands||Dawson||250||A member of Energy for Schools, an electric utility aggregator that negotiates retail electricity purchases by estimating the district’s annual electricity usage and finding providers in the competitive electricity market.||$8,500 annually|
|Shamrock||Wheeler||350||Replaced all lighting systems with energy-efficient lights and is replacing HVAC equipment in its buildings. Replaced inefficient ovens in cafeterias and added energy-saving convection ovens||Annual spending on utilities is $36,000 less than the average of similiar districts|
|Spring Branch||Harris||32,300||Negotiates with energy companies to obtain reduced prices for its energy needs. Recently entered into a contract negotiated before the expiration of the previous one to earn an early-signing discount. The district’s energy manager implements efficiency and conservation strategies to lower energy consumption.||$2 million annually|
To make their building programs as cost-effective as possible, some fast-growing districts use architectural prototypes – floor plans based on optimal instructional designs.
These designs can be used on multiple projects, saving time and money on design work and reducing architectural fees by an amount equivalent to 1 to 2 percent of total construction costs.
Texas school districts spent nearly $8.5 billion on facilities acquisition and construction in 2009. Greater use of architectural prototypes could cut some of these costs.
Architectural fees usually account for 6 percent of total construction costs – nearly $510 million in 2009. Since prototypes generally entail fees of 4 to 5 percent, districts might have saved from $85 million to $170 million, assuming no architectural prototypes were used that year.
Sources: Texas Education Agency, Dallas Public Education Advocates, Texas Association of School Business Officials, Elgin Independent School District, Leander Independent School District, Round Rock Independent School District and Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District.
SECO Programs for School Districts
The Comptroller’s State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) provides technical assistance, grant and loan programs that can benefit school districts.
Through its Energy Efficiency Partnership program, SECO offers on-site technical assistance to public schools, hospitals, colleges and universities, including energy audits, recommendations for retrofits and other conservation projects, on-site training for building operators and maintenance staff and assistance with energy policies.
SECO’s LoanSTAR revolving loan program, the largest of its type in the U.S., provides low-interest loans for energy-efficient retrofits to public buildings. Its school district energy efficiency grant program provides grants of up to $35,000 for on-site renewable energy generation, advanced heating and air-conditioning systems, electric utility metering technology, window film and other conservation projects.
SECO estimates that their programs can result in a 20 percent energy savings for each facility that undergoes a retrofit.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts State Energy Conservation Office.