REGIONAL - The utility bills are in on the first full year of operation under the St. Louis County School District’s controversial new facilities plan— and it appears the savings promised by consultant and general contractor Johnson Controls Inc. have fallen far short of expectations.

Back in 2009, as JCI sought to convince school board members and the public of the wisdom of its plan, company officials cited a wide range of cost savings, including an estimated $380,000 a year on utility costs. The company claimed that by reducing the number of schools, from seven K-12 facilities to four K-12 schools and a single elementary school, the district would significantly reduce its energy usage— and achieve substantial cost savings.

The school district spent $748,187 in the 2009-10 school year on utilities for the seven schools it operated at that time, according to the district’s own records. Those bills included the cost of heating fuels, electricity, and sewer and water.

Yet in the just-completed 2012-13 school year, the district paid slightly more in the same categories, despite operating fewer schools, and two newer schools.

In total, the district spent $750,696 on heating fuels, school electricity and sewer and water. That includes nearly $44,000 annually for technical oversight of its wastewater treatment facilities and municipal water supplies at its new North Woods and South Ridge schools, expenses it did not incur with its former school buildings.

While the district reduced its number of school buildings, consolidating school facilities has apparently saved the district very little. In the 09-10 school year, the school district spent $144,885 to operate the AlBrook and Cotton schools combined. The district paid just under $142,000 for utilities this past school year at the new South Ridge School, which replaced those two former schools.

The district did see savings from the consolidation of the former Cook and Orr schools into the new North Woods School. That was primarily due to the very high cost of operating the Cook School in recent years, as fuel oil prices skyrocketed to record levels. The Cook School had been much cheaper to operate when it was heated with coal. The Orr School, which was heated with coal until it closed in 2010, had traditionally been the least expensive of the district’s seven schools to operate.

In the 09-10 school year, the district had spent $225,000 on utilities for the Cook and Orr schools combined. In the just-completed school year, the district spent just under $150,000 to operate the North Woods School, for a total savings of $75,000.

The district also saved on utilities at the Tower-Soudan School, spending approximately $60,000 in the 12-13 school year, compared to almost $98,000 in the last year the district operated it as a K-12 facility.

But savings at some facilities have been offset by higher costs for utilities at the Northeast Range School, where the district spent almost $290,000 on basic utilities, most of that for fuel oil. That’s far higher than the $198,000 the district spent operating the school in the 09-10 school year, and it represents nearly 40 percent of the district’s total spending on utilities for schools.

Comparisons

can be tricky

Comparing energy costs from year-to-year can be difficult, since energy prices are notoriously volatile. What’s more, the new facilities replaced heating systems that formerly ran on coal at several schools, switching to propane in most cases.

The bottom line, however, is that it appears that the decisions made by JCI and school officials in regards to heating, lighting, and other utility-related expenses, failed to deliver any significant cost savings for the district.

Where did the savings go?

The utility costs at most of the new schools are close to JCI’s original projections. The company projected that utilities at the new North Woods School would cost $150,000 annually, almost exactly what the district spent in the 2012-13 school year. The $60,000 the district spent operating the Tower-Soudan School this year was actually less than the $85,000 a year that JCI had predicted. The district spent approximately $100,000 on utilities at the Cherry School, or just under the $105,000 projected by JCI.

So why hasn’t the school district achieved the $380,000 in utility savings JCI promised? There are at least three reasons, including:

‰ Some schools have exceeded JCI’s cost projections by a significant amount. At $142,000 for utilities, the South Ridge School exceeded JCI’s projection of $105,000 by nearly $37,000. At the same time, costs at the Northeast Range School are approximately $90,000 above the $200,000 annual utility expense predicted by JCI.

‰ JCI never accounted for the cost of operating the new wastewater treatment facilities and municipal water supplies it was required to install at the new South Ridge and North Woods schools. At nearly $50,000 a year in operating costs, that was a significant oversight.

‰ JCI appears to have significantly overstated the district’s actual utility costs in its original calculations. The company’s proprietary “master spreadsheet,” which the Timberjay obtained through an official information request, indicated total utility spending to operate the district’s seven schools at $992,676. That was based on the district’s budgeted spending for the 2008-09 school year, developed at a time of record high energy prices, which soon declined significantly.

Even so, the district routinely over-budgets volatile expenses like energy, and often spends only about 85 percent of its utilities budget in a given year. Using budgeted numbers developed at a time of historically-high energy prices allowed JCI to bank an all-but-automatic 15-20 percent “savings” simply by comparing excessive budgeted figures with the actual spending that would be achieved once the district had implemented the new facilities plan.

For example, the district budgeted $878,020 for utilities in the 09-10 school year, the last time the district operated all seven schools. Comparing that amount with the $750,000 that the district spent on utilities for its schools in the 2012-13 school year would appear to demonstrate a substantial savings to the district.

Yet the district did not spend $878,020 on utilities in the 09-10 school year— in fact, it spent $748,000 operating all seven schools, or slightly less than it did this past school year.

Questions, but no answers

The lack of operational savings first attracted the attention of school board members last year, following a Timberjay report on the utility costs at the South Ridge School. At the time, board members asked the school district’s business manager for an analysis of the energy savings, or lack thereof. But board members have yet to see any cost comparisons, despite multiple requests.

“I’ve asked for operating costs going back a couple years,” said board member Nancy Wall Glowaski, who represents the Orr area. But she said she is yet to see any information on the issue. “I’d like to see the information come out. We need some straight answers on this.”

School administrators, including Superintendent Teresa Knifechief and Business Manager Kim Johnson did not respond to questions and a request for comment from the Timberjay regarding the utility costs in the district.