Facilities Benchmarking Report

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Facilities Benchmarking Report"

Audra O’Connor’
6 years ago
Views:

Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials Facilities Benchmarking Report 20 5 (Based upon 20 3-4 data)

1 Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials Facilities Benchmarking Report 20 5 (Based upon data) c PASBO 2015 Rights Reserved Unauthorized copying strictly prohibited April 2015 PASBO Facilities Benchmarking Report

PASBO FACILITIES BENCHMARKING REPORT Introduction The Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials (PASBO) began a process in 2004 with the first Facilities Benchmarking Survey that was

2 PASBO FACILITIES BENCHMARKING REPORT Introduction The Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials (PASBO) began a process in 2004 with the first Facilities Benchmarking Survey that was intended to increase the availability of data to assess facilities costs across the state. The 2015 survey continue this effort so that continuing assessment of the key factors that influence facilities costs can be analyzed as districts continue to experience the financial constraints resulting from difficult budget conditions. Survey Methodology The results presented throughout this document use data provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and the Facilities Benchmarking Survey released by PASBO in February This year s survey had 193 respondents from all across the Commonwealth. Some of the questions asked this year differed in scope from previous benchmarking surveys. As such, we will not focus too much on historical comparisons, but will use this year to reset the bar for future surveys. The data we received is summarized both in total and by regions. Responses by region and a visual depiction of the regions are below. A visual depiction of the regions is below: 1

3 In addition to summarizing data by region, some data will also be summarized by the enrollment size of the District. Responses by District size are below. Number of Districts Responding by Enrollment Amount Totals by Size Statewide Expense Data Before getting into more granular survey data, it is important to put into context recent changes in school spending overall. The last few fiscal years have been uniquely challenging for School Districts. Since , the total amount of spending in the 2600 function (which contains most of the physical plant expenses) has fallen. In , total 2600 spending was over $2.1 billion dollars, it fell to just under $2 billion in , and barely topped the $2 billion mark in This is a more than 5% overall decrease in Physical Plant Expenses from to $2,150,000, Expenses $2,100,000, $2,050,000, $2,000,000, $1,950,000, $1,900,000,

4 Total expenses also took a dip during this period of time. Total expenses were just under $25.1 billion in , fell to $24.8 billion in , and climbed to $25.6 billion in Total expenses grew by 2% between and at the same time 2600 expenses fell by 5%. Putting those two things together, the percentage of budgets consumed by 2600 expenses has also fallen. In 10-11, 2600 expenses were above 8.4% of total expenses, that fell to 8.0% in , and 7.8% in It isn t just current physical plant expenses that are declining. Most new buildings and major renovations are debt financed. The total amount of debt outstanding has fallen over the last three years. Clearly part of that reason was the PLANCON moratorium that started in Total outstanding debt was at $26.4 billion in , rose to $26.8 billion in , and then tumbled to $25.8 billion in , an almost 4% decrease in a year. 3

5 It is clear from this data, that both maintenance and major renovation type expenditures have been negatively impacted by the recent difficult budget situations. Outsourcing While outsourcing has certainly grown in all areas over the past three years, there were only 18 respondents who indicated that they have outsourced all or most of the custodial function. This equates to just over 7% of repsondents. 4

6 EnergyStar A new question this year was about participation in EnergyStar. 61 respondents indicated they did participate in the program, which was just over 31% of all respondents. Air Conditioning Most respondents reported some level of air conditioning within their buildings. 10% of respondents indicated they had less than 20% of their buildings air conditioned, and 55% of respondents indicated that 100% of their buildings were air conditioned. The median percentage of air conditioned buildings was 85%. Cost Data We reported the Statewide Data above that showed in , the 2600 function expenses had fallen to 7.8% of total expenses. The number reported by respondents for data, shows that 2600 expenses were 8.3% of total General Fund expenses for these Districts. When factoring in those maintenance expenses that are accounted for in the Capital Reserve funds, this adds another.6% above Total General Fund spending to bring the total to 8.9% of the Total General Fund and Capital Reserve Fund spending. In addition to the average statistics reported above, we break down the data into quartiles in total and by region below. Most of the data we report will be similar to the format below. The first column will represent the state as a whole, with each region reported to the right of the state total. We will also summarize the data by quartiles, with the first row representing the top value of the first quarter, the second row showing the median or value directly in the middle, and the third row showing the bottom value of the top quarter. It also needs to be noted that lower is not necessarily better and higher is not necessarily worse. The best way to minimize cost is to not spend any money on anything. While that achieves the goal of minimizing cost, it also means that nothing gets done. The data below can give you a reference as to what is being done overall across the state and region, but do not think of the data as target numbers to achieve. Ultimately a balance between cost and achieving a particular outcome needs to be decided. That will vary based upon other financial burdens in your District. 5

7 General Fund Facilities Expenditures as a Percent of Total General Fund Expeditures 25th Percentile 7.42% 8.72% 7.49% 7.79% 7.04% 7.41% 7.33% Median 8.30% 9.27% 8.61% 8.48% 7.70% 8.00% 8.05% 75th Percentile 9.18% 9.96% 9.09% 9.56% 8.72% 8.61% 8.73% General Fund and Capital Reserve Facilities Expenditures as a Percent of Total General Fund and Capital Reserve Facilities Expeditures 25th Percentile 8.00% 8.86% 8.53% 8.28% 7.63% 7.82% 7.67% Median 8.87% 9.69% 9.09% 9.15% 8.45% 8.40% 8.80% 75th Percentile 9.83% 10.71% 9.74% 10.05% 9.59% 9.11% 10.19% Facilities Expenditures per student 25th Percentile $1,170 $1,252 $1,201 $1,095 $1,075 $1,198 $1,268 Median $1,344 $1,503 $1,298 $1,251 $1,229 $1,362 $1,557 75th Percentile $1,609 $1,688 $1,495 $1,375 $1,386 $1,684 $1,814 Facilities Expenditures per square foot of space 25th Percentile $5.55 $5.96 $5.52 $5.29 $5.11 $5.87 $7.51 Median $6.45 $6.86 $5.77 $5.87 $5.82 $6.87 $ th Percentile $7.69 $7.70 $6.74 $6.51 $6.58 $7.62 $9.61 The regional data above does show that there are significant variations in expenses based upon the location in the state. Much of this is driven by differences in salaries as will be demonstrated later. Below we take a look at some data summarized by the number of students in the District. As the District size grow larger, the percentage of the budget spent on facilities falls. When put on a per student basis, that also happens for the first three categories, but rises for the group above 7,000 students. Facilities Expenditure per student and per square foot of space include both General Fund and Capital Reserve spending. General Fund Facilities Expenditures as a Percent of Total General Fund Expeditures 25th Percentile 7.42% 7.49% 7.42% 7.40% 7.38% Median 8.30% 8.74% 8.22% 8.05% 7.90% 75th Percentile 9.18% 9.42% 9.33% 8.91% 8.87% Facilities Expenditures per student 25th Percentile $1,170 $1,213 $1,159 $1,102 $1,221 Median $1,344 $1,387 $1,341 $1,294 $1,386 75th Percentile $1,609 $1,649 $1,566 $1,612 $1,693 6

8 Utilities Expenses In addition to looking at total spending on facilities as summarized above, we will focus on individual program areas. The first breakout will be utilities expense. Again, we need to caution that there are various reasons why you may be above or below the numbers reported. A District with limited air conditioning will generally speaking have a lower utilities cost than one that is fully air conditioned. Certain types of energy may be less expensive than other types of energy, but may not be available everywhere. Keep all of this in mind when considering why your District may be at the high end or low end of the ranges reported below. Utilities Expenditures per student 25th Percentile $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Median $ $ $ $ $ $ $ th Percentile $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Utilities Expenditures per square foot of space 25th Percentile $1.01 $0.91 $0.85 $1.01 $1.09 $1.05 $1.05 Median $1.21 $1.24 $1.11 $1.19 $1.23 $1.30 $ th Percentile $1.46 $1.46 $1.30 $1.46 $1.40 $1.58 $1.52 Equipment Expenses Equipment expenses showed the greatest variation both in the range of values at the state level as well as the variations between regions. Since equipment purchasing has a lumpiness to it, i.e. it tends to last a while so a big purchase one year will likely mean a smaller purchase the following year, this is not a particularly surprising outcome. Equipment Expenditures per student 25th Percentile $6.14 $9.68 $6.38 $11.12 $6.47 $3.75 $3.84 Median $20.95 $26.54 $18.30 $31.89 $20.41 $16.51 $ th Percentile $52.18 $57.20 $40.83 $60.00 $45.60 $32.06 $57.45 Equipment Expenditures per square foot of space 25th Percentile $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 Median $0.11 $0.13 $0.10 $0.16 $0.11 $0.07 $ th Percentile $0.24 $0.27 $0.18 $0.33 $0.22 $0.15 $0.30 Staffing Levels and Compensation The number of people employed by type of position and the compensation levels paid are always of interest in our Benchmarking surveys. As you might expect, the compensation levels will vary significantly by region. We will breakout the data as we did for the expenditures above on a per student and per square foot basis. 7

9 Custodial Data Average Custodial Salary Average 31,307 38,952 26,954 26,667 27,860 31,577 39,703 Students/Custodial FTE 25th Percentile Median th Percentile Square Feet/Custodial FTE 25th Percentile 20,665 19,985 16,940 20,733 22,918 21,433 21,841 Median 23,509 21,391 22,542 24,729 24,608 24,808 22,385 75th Percentile 27,962 25,249 27,009 28,568 29,036 29,543 26,299 We will once again bring in a couple of measures that focus on the size of the District. As you can see below, as the size of a District grows, the number of students/custodian rises. One could think of this as some economy of scale. On the flip side, as the size of the District grows, the average custodial salary rises. Students/Custodial FTE 25th Percentile Median th Percentile Average Custodial Salary Average 31,307 27,094 30,036 33,980 38,458 8

10 Maintenance Data Average Maintenance Salary Average 42,979 44,774 37,677 36,667 41,188 39,264 55,968 Students/Maintenance FTE 25th Percentile Median th Percentile Square Feet/Maintenance FTE 25th Percentile 86,621 94,844 55,819 85, ,705 80,283 83,351 Median 124, , , , , , ,339 75th Percentile 179, , , , , , ,457 When we switch from regional data to enrollment data for maintenance work, we see a similar yet slightly different outcome on a per student basis. For less than 7,000 students the number of students per maintenance worker grows, generally reflecting economies of scale, but perhaps reaching a diseconomy of scale within the largest Districts. Salaries do grow consistently as the size of the District increases. Students/Maintenance FTE 25th Percentile Median th Percentile Average Maintenance Salary Average 42,979 35,422 42,438 46,517 50,324 9

11 Grounds Data Average Grounds Salary Average 37,699 43,130 36,289 30,139 33,655 36,840 47,374 Students/Grounds FTE 25th Percentile ,008 1, ,000 Median 1,288 1,288 1,057 1,533 1, ,654 75th Percentile 2,036 2,485 1,837 2,021 1,427 2,183 2,201 Acres Maintained/Grounds FTE 25th Percentile Median th Percentile Students/Grounds FTE 25th Percentile ,042 1,025 Median 1,288 1,119 1,063 1,438 1,778 75th Percentile 2,036 1,321 1,736 2,242 2,709 Average Grounds Salary Average 37,699 37,408 33,298 38,444 50,574 10

12 Supervisory Data Average Supervisory Salary Average 68,593 71,376 53,598 58,478 74,825 71,407 90,761 Students/Supervisory FTE 25th Percentile 1,158 1, ,023 1,700 1,317 1,317 Median 1,816 1,904 1,282 1,504 2,554 1,963 2,085 75th Percentile 2,560 2,583 2,102 1,915 3,160 2,529 3,202 Square Feet/Supervisory FTE 25th Percentile 243, , , , , , ,547 Median 377, , , , , , ,633 75th Percentile 526, , , , , , ,641 Students/Supervisory FTE 25th Percentile 1, ,554 1,697 1,148 Median 1, ,899 2,422 2,381 75th Percentile 2,560 1,187 2,215 3,615 3,484 Average Supervisory Salary Average 68,593 53,598 67,684 76,596 79,151 Conclusion Thanks to all of you who took the time to submit data. We recognize that with the downsizing that has occurred in the past few years, every minute has become even more precious. With any collection of data, there is much that lies beneath the surface. With 500 different Districts structured in 500 different ways, there will be details that may cause a particular district to be low in one area, while being high in another. As mentioned before, lower is not always better and higher is not always worse. Some themes do emerge. As Districts grow in size, they tend to gain some efficiencies, but also tend to see salaries increase. Certain regions of the state have higher costs than others. We hope that this compilation of data will help you as you continue to have to make difficult resource decisions. 11

Food Service Benchmarking Report 20 6

Pennsylvania Association of Business Officials Food Service Benchmarking Report 20 6 (Based upon 20 4-5 data) c PASBO 2016 All Rights Reserved Unauthorized copying strictly prohibited PASBO FOOD SERVICE