facilities · 2005-05-03 · parma city school district performance audit facilities 4-4 condition....

Parma City School District Performance Audit

Facilities 4-1

FacilitiesBackgroundOrganization Chart

The facilities of the Parma City School District (PCSD) are maintained by two departments:maintenance and custodial services. Both departments are under the school operations supportservices division. The following two charts show the organizational structures and staffing levelsof the two departments.

Department of Maintenance


Facilities 4-2

Custodial Services Department


Facilities 4-3

Organization Function

The department of maintenance is responsible for maintaining all PCSD facilities in a serviceable


Facilities 4-4

condition. The department is managed by the business manager who is supported by themaintenance supervisor. The department’s authorized staff consists of one working foreman, sixskilled tradesmen, made up of one plumber, one carpenter, one roofer, one locksmith, oneelectrician, one HVAC technician, seven semiskilled maintenance workers, ten general laborersand one football stadium attendant. Four of the general laborers and four of the semiskilled workersassist the skilled maintenance staff. Two of the laborers and one semiskilled maintenance employeeare assigned to each of the three high schools. The maintenance employees that are assigned tospecific schools are supervised by the custodial supervisor, but they are considered maintenancedepartment employees. The district employs three additional laborers who work in the deliverydepartment. They are not included in the analysis of this report because they do not work onmaintenance projects. The tradesmen, laborers and stadium attendant are all full time employeesand are managed by one working foreman and one maintenance supervisor. The department staffalso includes one full time clerk who divides her time between the maintenance and the custodialdepartments. The clerk receives requests for maintenance work and enters them into thedepartment’s work order system. At the time of the audit, the maintenance department had oneunfilled general maintenance position.

The custodial services department is responsible for providing a clean, safe environment for thestudents, staff and public who use PCSD facilities. Organizationally, custodial services is under thedirection of the business manager. The custodial supervisor oversees the operation of the department including ensuring the buildings are properly staffed; investigating complaints about staff andcleanliness of buildings; and testing and selecting new cleaning equipment and supplies the districtmay purchase. The custodial supervisor also assigns the 22 call-in substitute cleaners to fill in forabsent cleaners. In addition, the custodial supervisor oversees all asbestos inspections, organizesand conducts training for the custodial and maintenance staff, inspects all the schools during Augustto ensure they are ready for the first day of school and handles a variety of administrative matters. The work of the department is performed by a staff of 67 full-time and 50 part-time custodialworkers which equates to 103.95 full-time equivalents (FTEs). At the time of the audit, the custodialdepartment had two unfilled positions--one assistant custodian and one cleaner.

Summary of Operations

The maintenance department is located in the shop at Pleasant Valley Elementary School. Thetradesmen are not assigned to specific buildings. They keep their tools and equipment in their trucks at the maintenance center and travel to the buildings to perform assigned repairs and maintenance.The maintenance work is usually requested by principals and custodians. Most requests aresubmitted in writing on a work order request form or phoned in to the maintenance supervisor. Whenthe maintenance supervisor receives the work order, he assigns it a priority: safety, emergency,routine or urgent. A maintenance clerk enters the requests into the department’s work order system.Once a day, the maintenance clerk prints out the work order requests and gives them to themaintenance supervisor who delivers them to the working maintenance foremen. The foremanaccepts work orders that he will perform and distributes the remainder to the maintenance staff each


Facilities 4-5

day.

Custodial staff members are assigned to specific buildings. All school buildings have one headcustodian. Head custodians in the elementary schools do not have an assistant custodian but eachschool has two to three cleaners who work in the evenings. Head custodians in the middle schoolsare assisted by one assistant custodian and four evening cleaners. (Greenbriar Middle School hasseven cleaners assigned due to the large annex attached to the building). High School headcustodians are assisted by two assistant custodians, eight to 10 evening cleaners, one maintenancesemiskilled worker and two laborers.

Staffing

The maintenance and custodial services departments have a total of 148 employees: 32 custodiansand 85 cleaners, 25 maintenance workers (including one working foreman), one working cleanerforeman, two in supervisory positions, two administrative support positions and one administrativeposition. These 148 employees equate to 134.35 FTEs. The difference between the number ofemployees and FTEs is due to 50 part-time cleaners who work two, four or six hours per day. Thestaffing of the two departments is depicted in the following table.


Facilities 4-6

Table 4-1: Number of Budgeted Employees (FTEs) for 1998-99

ClassificationAdmin.Office

MobileCrew

SchoolBased Total

ActualFTEs

Business ManagerBusiness SecretarySupervisor of MaintenanceSupervisor of Custodial OperationsClerkWorking Cleaner Foreman

1111 11

111111

.5.901111

Total Administration 6 6 5.4

Maintenance Working ForemanLocksmithMaintenance CarpenterMaintenance PlumberMaintenance ElectricianMaintenance RooferMaintenance HVACMaintenance Semiskilled Worker Maintenance Laborer Stadium attendant

1111111441

3 6

11111117

101

11111117

101

Total Trades 16 9 25 25

Head Custodian High SchoolHead Custodian Middle SchoolHead Custodian Elementary SchoolHead Custodian Special SchoolBoard Office CustodianAssistant Custodian High SchoolAssistant Custodian Middle SchoolCleaner

3 315 1 1 6 385

33

151163

85

33

151163

71.95

Total Custodial 117 117 103.95

Total 6 16 126 148 134.35 Source: PCSD maintenance and custodial services departments


Facilities 4-7

Key Statistics

Key statistics relating to the maintenance and operations of PCSD are shown in the following table. In addition, results from American School and University (AS&U) 27th annual Maintenance andOperations Cost Study have been included in the following table and throughout this section. Thestudy surveyed school districts across the country to gather data on staffing levels, expenditures andsalaries for maintenance and custodial operations. Overall, AS&U surveys have found that “Currentattention being focused on the deteriorating condition of America’s school facilities has put thespotlight on past practices that have contributed to the present dilemma. Although poor design andconstruction decisions made in the 1960s and early 1970s by many school districts that wanted toget buildings up ‘fast and cheap’ to meet burgeoning enrollments are the primary culprits, decadesof deferred maintenance, insufficient building upkeep procedures, and years of siphoning dollarsfrom maintenance budgets have significantly contributed to the current condition.” In the study,Region 5 includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Canton, Dayton and South-Western city school districts have been identified as the peer group forcomparative purposes. The peer district analysis in this report does not include the data on PCSD.


Facilities 4-8

Table 4-2: Indicators

Number of Sites 25- Elementary Schools 15- Middle Schools 3- High Schools 1 3- Special Education School 1- Transportation Center 1- Administration Building 1- Stadium 1

Total Square Feet 2,133,319- Elementary Schools 572,119- Middle Schools 299,188- High Schools 932,202- Special Education School 27,828- Transportation Center 9,000- Administration Building 31,622- Stadium

Square Feet Per Custodial Staff (103.95) 2 17,930- Elementary Schools (45) 12,714- Middle Schools (18.7) 15,999- High Schools (35.6) 26,185- Special School (1.9) 10,341- Transportation Center (.5) 18,000- Administration Building (2.25) 14,054AS&U Cost Study Region 5 Average 23,875AS&U Cost Study National Average 20,612Peer District Average 23,679

PCSD Square Feet Per Maintenance Foreman and Tradesman (25) 3 85,333AS&U Cost Study Region 5 Average 75,000AS&U Cost Study National Average 73,245Peer District Average 132,525

1997-98 Facilities Expenditures per square foot 4 $5.28- Schools & Admin. Sites Custodial (Including Utilities) $4.49- Schools & Admin. Sites Custodial (Excluding Utilities) $3.19- Trades $0.79AS&U Cost Study Region 5 Average (M&O per square foot) $3.79AS&U Cost Study National Average (M&O per square foot) $3.64Peer District Average (M&O per square foot) $3.56

1997-98 Facilities Expenditures as a % of Total PCSD General Fund Expenditure 10.8%AS&U Cost Study Region 5 Average 9.2%

Source: PCSD Business Office; PCSD maintenance and custodial services departments; AS&U 27th Annual Maintenance Operation Cost Study

¹ 263,300 sq. ft. at the high schools are used for vocational education. ² The number of FTEs is in parentheses.3 The square footage maintained by the custodial department does not include Byers Field or 8,181 sq. ft. at theSpecial Education school for a total of 1,863,778 sq. ft.4 The square footage maintained by the maintenance department includes 261,360 sq. ft. for Byers Field stadium and 8,181 sq. ft. for Arlington Elementary for a total of 2,133,319 sq. ft.


Facilities 4-9

Financial Data The following two tables show the expenditures to maintain and operate PCSD facilities for FY1996-97 and FY 1997-98 and the budget for FY 1998-99.

Table 4-3: Maintenance and Operations Expenditures: 1996-97 vs. 1997-98

Accounts Maintenance OperationsFY 1996-97

TotalFY 1997-98

Total DifferencePercent

Changed

Salaries $813,775 $2,883,393 $3,697,168 $3,813,690 $116,522 3.2%

Benefits 267,024 946,721 1,213,745 1,136,988 (76,757) (6.3%)

PurchasedServices 350,803 1,243,755 1,594,558 1,420,930 (173,628) ( 10.9%)

Utilities 0 2,715,058 2,715,058 2,419,421 (295,637) (10.9%)

Supplies/Materials 151,594 537,469 689,063 848,547 159,484 23.1%

CapitalOutlay 20,456 72,525 92,981 39,639 (53,342) (57.4%)

Other 36,866 130,705 167,571 374,496 206,925 123.5%

Total $1,640,518 $8,529,626 $10,170,144 $10,053,711 ($116,433) (1.1%)Source: PCSD Business Office


Facilities 4-10

Table 4-4: Maintenance and Operations 1997-98 Expenditures vs. 1998-99 Budget

Accounts Maintenance OperationsFY 1997-98

TotalFY 1998-99

Budget DifferencePercentChange

Salaries $839,012 $2,974,678 $3,813,690 $3,633,103 ($180,587) (4.7%)

Benefits 250,137 886,851 1,136,988 1,324,989 188,001 16.5%

PurchasedServices 312,605 1,108,325 1,420,930 1,234,586 (186,344) (13.1%)

Utilities 0 2,419,421 2,419,421 2,102,133 (317,288) (13.1%)

Supplies/Materials 186,680 661,867 848,547 708,095 (140,452) (16.6%)

CapitalOutlay 8,721 30,918 39,639 15,500 (24,139) (60.9%)

Other 82,389 292,107 374,496 394,282 19,786 5.3%

Total $1,679,544 $8,374,167 $10,053,711 $9,412,688 ($641,023) (6.4%)Source: PCSD Business Office An explanation for some of the more significant variances in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 are asfollows: • A decrease in purchased services for FY 1998-99 Budget: The district constructed three

modular classrooms in FY 1997-98 and one in 1996-97 which caused purchased services toincrease in FY 1997-98. FY 1998-99 budget is expected to decrease because the district doesnot intend to construct any additional classrooms.

• A decrease in capital outlays and supplies and materials for FY 1998-99 budget: The

decrease in these two accounts is also attributed to the fact that the district is not planningto construct modular classrooms this year and will not need to purchase the additionalmaterials that were necessary to construct the classrooms.

• Decrease in utilities expenditures for FY 1997-98: Utilities decreased in FY 1997-98 because

the district joined an electricity consortium and continued to purchase deregulated gas. Theincrease in utilities for FY 1998-99 is partly attributed to the increase in usage due to thethree modular classrooms.


Facilities 4-11

Performance Measures

The following is a list of performance measures that were used to analyze how PCSD operates itsfacilities:

• Utilization of existing facilities• Effectiveness of long range facilities planning• Effectiveness of current needs assessment and prioritization processes and procedures• Appropriate lines of authority and responsibility• Effectiveness of supervision and evaluation processes• Adequacy of operating policies and procedures• Adequacy of maintaining a comfortable and safe educational environment• Cost effectiveness of facilities maintenance• Cost effectiveness of custodial services• Adequacy of preventive maintenance system• Utilization of staffing resources• Effectiveness of maintenance equipment and resources• Effectiveness of energy conservation measures• Efficiency of purchasing processes for equipment and supplies• Utilization of resource management tools such as scheduling and planning

Customer Satisfaction Survey

Table 4-5 presents the results of the customer satisfaction survey. The survey was distributed toa random sample of 290 PCSD employees. The purpose of the survey was to obtain employeefeedback on, and perceptions of, the quality of services provided by the maintenance department andcustodial services departments. Responses were received from 144 employees for a response rateof 49.6 percent.

The survey solicited responses to 11 statements concerning the maintenance staff and how theyperform their work and 13 statements related to the custodial staff and their work performance. Theresults indicate that, in general, the maintenance and custodial departments are approximately equalin successfully meeting the expectations of their customers. The respondents’ rating of the 24attributes ranged from 1.79 to 4.06. In responding to the question about overall satisfaction with themaintenance and custodial staffs’ work, the maintenance staff received a score of 3.77 compared to3.66 for the custodial staff. These scores indicate that district personnel are generally satisfied withthe job performance of the custodial and maintenance staff.

The survey results for the maintenance area illustrate that the highest score received was for thestaff’s behavior rather than for their performance. The tradesmen received high scores for beingcourteous and polite, for cleaning up after completing work and for being careful near children. Thethree statements for which the lowest scores were received include the following: schools are


Facilities 4-12

advised of outstanding work orders, schools are notified in advance of work to be performed andwork is scheduled so it is not disruptive. These scores indicate that the customers believe themaintenance staff could do a better job of communicating with the schools about the status of thework that has been requested and when the staff can expect the repairs to be made. The survey alsoindicates that customers believe the maintenance staff could do a better job of scheduling work sothat it is not disruptive.

The custodial staff received the highest scores in the survey for being polite and having a good workethic and attitude, for respecting school property and cooperating with the staff regarding safety ofequipment on school and facilities are safe. The three statements for which the lowest scores werereceived include the following: playground equipment is properly maintained, having a sufficientnumber of custodians and facilities are properly cleaned.

Customers were also given an opportunity to provide additional comments about the effectivenessand efficiency of the services provided by the custodial and maintenance staffs. The following isa summary of some of the more frequent comments:

• Grass should not be cut during school hours because it is disruptive. The grass around thebuildings and the sports fields gets too high before it is cut.

• Custodial staffing levels should be increased so that the schools can be cleaned morethoroughly. Many respondents commented that the quality of the cleaning work was inquestion, mostly due to the inadequate custodial staffing levels in the schools.

• Resources such as personnel, materials and supplies should be increased to meet the manyunmet facility needs throughout the district. By waiting to respond to a problem that maynot be viewed as a major safety issue such as a leaky roof, the problem can affect other areasand compound the situation, thereby requiring additional work in the long run.

• Schools need to be notified before the maintenance department begins to work inside thebuilding. Many respondents commented that classes were disrupted by loud noise. Schoolsalso would like to know the status of outstanding work orders.

These survey responses indicate that while the staff was given positive marks for how they interactwith the school employees, they were given the lowest scores for how they perform their actual worktasks.


Facilities 4-13

Table 4-5: Customer Satisfaction Survey ResultsService Attribute Teachers Admin. Clerical Others Average

Building Trades (Maintenance)

WO’s responded to in a timely manner.WO’s completed in a timely manner.Employees deliver quality services.Employees pick up and clean after completing work.Emergency work orders are given top priority.Schools notified in advance of work to be performed.Schools are advised of outstanding work orders.Work is scheduled so it is not disruptive.Workers are careful near children.Workers are courteous and polite.Overall I am satisfied with Maintenance Department.Building Trades Average

3.483.383.553.823.352.031.853.103.764.103.663.28

3.563.333.894.134.712.832.003.864.254.003.783.67

3.293.433.713.883.503.002.202.603.754.004.003.40

3.183.213.574.103.271.951.333.603.694.124.003.27

3.413.343.593.913.432.121.793.243.784.093.773.32

Building Operations (Custodial Staff)

Regular cleaning schedules appear to be appropriate.Custodial tasks are completed efficiently.Facilities are properly cleaned.Facilities are safe.Custodial services are completed in a timely manner.Custodians are polite, have good work ethic andattitude.There appears to be a sufficient number of custodiansin my building.Grounds are properly maintained.Custodial staff cooperates with staff regarding safetyof equipment on school grounds.Work appears to be scheduled according to priorities.Workers show respect to school property.Playground equipment is properly maintained.Overall I am satisfied with the custodial staff’s work.Building Operations Average

3.643.673.273.523.76

3.99

3.023.70

3.863.463.972.843.553.55

4.004.223.783.783.89

4.33

3.443.44

4.133.574.002.754.003.80

4.144.434.143.714.57

4.14

4.294.00

3.004.174.253.004.294.01

3.883.813.223.663.82

4.18

3.223.88

3.793.364.003.223.743.67

3.753.783.333.583.82

4.06

3.163.74

3.823.483.992.923.663.62

Number of Responses Received 34 92 9 9

144(49.6%)

Scale: 1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly Agree


Facilities 4-14

Findings/Commendations/RecommendationsF4.1 PCSD maintains 24 buildings and one stadium with a total square footage of 2,113,319.

There are 15 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 3 high schools, 1 special educationschool, 1 transportation center and 1 administration building. The average age of thedistrict’s buildings is 46 years. The district has two facilities that are 75 years old, threefacilities that are 50 to74 years old, 19 that are 30 to 49 years old, and none that are less than30 years old. The last schools constructed by PCSD were Dag Hammarskjold ElementarySchool and Normandy High School which were built in 1968.

Table 4-6: Age of PCSD Buildings

Level

Number of School

Buildings Average Year Built

Number withAdditions orRenovations

Elementary 15 1950 15

Middle School 3 1962 3

High School 3 1961 3

Special School 1 1964 0

Administrative & Other 2 1926 2

Total 24 1953 23Source: PCSD Business Office

F4.2 The Ohio Public School Facility Survey of 1990 conducted by the Ohio Department ofEducation (the 1990 Survey) estimated the cost to repair and upgrade PCSD’s facilities tothe minimum standards and codes for health and safety would be $67.5 million. The reportestimated it would require $40.3 million for repairs, $4.1 million to rebuild and $23.1million for additions to bring the buildings up to the minimum standards and codes.

F4.3 In July 1997, the Ohio Legislative Budget Office (LBO) updated the figures from the 1990Survey. To perform the analysis, LBO used data provided by the Ohio Department ofEducation. The data used included the results of the 1990 Survey and an on-site review ofseven of the poorer districts in the state to update the 1990 data for those districts. Thereview of the seven districts, made in the spring of 1997, showed the cost to upgrade thefacilities had risen by a factor of 1.97 since the 1990 Survey. In performing its analysis,LBO applied the 1.97 factor to 60 to 70 of the poorer districts in the state and a factor of 1.50was arbitrarily applied to the rest. After multiplying the 1990 figure by one of the twofactors, LBO then subtracted the total capital outlay expenditures reported by each districtfor FY 1990 through FY 1996 to produce its updated cost estimates. LBO’s current cost


Facilities 4-15

estimate to update PCSD’s facilities is $119.9 million.

F4.4 H.B. 412 requires school districts to establish financial set-asides for critical education itemsincluding textbooks and capital improvements. In FY 1998-99, districts were to beginphasing in these set-asides with 2 percent of its general fund revenue dedicated to each set-aside category. General fund revenue is defined as property taxes, other than homestead androllback, and basic state foundation aid. The set-aside amount increases to three percent inFY 1999-00 and four percent in FY 2000-01 and beyond. PCSD’s forecast identifies $1.3million for capital improvements set asides in FY 1998-99. In FY 1999-00, $2.0 million isto be set aside; and in FY 2000-01, $2.7 million is to be set aside.

F4.5 In 1992, the district hired Richard Fleischman Architects, Inc. to conduct an audit of thedistrict’s facilities. In its report, the architects provided a space utilization study on all thefacilities and identified repairs needed for windows, doors, ceilings, mechanical andelectrical systems. The study concluded that the final cost of the updates would be $45million over five years.

F4.6 In 1998, PCSD hired Acciarri-Draeger & Associates to conduct a facility audit of all thedistrict’s buildings. The audit was to include an assessment of the condition of each buildingand a determination of the estimated cost to bring each building into compliance with statebuilding codes, all state and local provisions related to asbestos removal, and other state andlocal provisions related to safety and health. Acciarri-Draeger estimated it would cost $110million to upgrade the district’s buildings to meet these standards.

PCSD has organized a facilities assessment and planning team to review Acciarri-Draeger’sfacility audit and to determine if the district’s facilities can meet the district’s goals. Theplanning team is made up of teachers, administrators, community members and parents andserves in an advisory capacity to the office of the superintendent.

After reviewing Acciarri-Draeger’s audit, the planning team decided that $110 million wasan unrealistic figure to take to the community for funding. The planning team re-evaluatedthe district’s needs and determined that $65 million was the minimum needed to upgradethe buildings. Forty percent of the $65 million was recommended for additions to buildingsand the remainder of the funds were recommended for renovations, mechanical, plumbingand safety issues.

F4.7 The planning team used the recommendations from Acciarri-Draeger’s audit to develop afive-year capital improvement document which provides a detailed inventory of the existingfacilities. The document lists capital improvement projects in four school clusters. Projectswere evaluated on the basis of safety and soundness. Safety issues included vehicularcirculation, sanitary and mechanical conditions, disabled facilities, emergency and exitlighting and fire and security systems. Soundness of the structure related mainly to the site


Facilities 4-16

and building envelope and included pavement condition, roofing, foundation conditions andsite drainage. Each cluster contains four to eight schools. The cost of each project, thepriority and a schedule with the year in which the project would be competed are listed witheach project. The projects are assigned a priority of one through three, with one being themost important.

The district’s current capital improvement document does not include a capacity analysis ordistrict wide prioritization of projects. The projects in each cluster are prioritized by year andby importance, resulting in a series of projects being prioritized as year one and priority one.However, it is not clear which of the projects with this priority would actually be the firstproject initiated by the district assuming the existence of adequate funding.

R4.1 PCSD should further develop the information provided in the Facilities Assessment andSpace Utilization Analysis prepared by Acciarri-Draeger & Associates. This report shouldserve as the foundation for a comprehensive facilities master plan (FMP). Specifically, thedistrict should expand the report to include a building by building capacity utilizationanalysis and prioritization of capital projects on a district wide basis. Expanding its facilitiesplanning will assist the district in the evaluation of its long-term facility needs over the next10 to 15 years. Comprehensive facilities planning which includes the careful analysis ofsupporting data can be used to determine the appropriate number of schools required toserve the current and future student populations, estimate the funding needed for repairs,renovations and new construction, document the need for school closings and consolidations,justify the sale and purchase of properties and develop cost-effective alternative uses forexisting facilities.

R4.2 As part of the FMP process, the district should prioritize the capital improvement needsidentified in the Acciarri-Draeger audit on a district-wide basis and should identify availablefunding sources. When the district has fully priortized its capital needs, it will have a clear,detailed plan for deploying resources to its most crucial projects and communicatingadditional funding needs to the Board of Education and community.

F4.8 The last time the district passed a bond issue to fund capital improvements was in 1987. Thedistrict does not have a capital improvement budget. According to the business manager,the district has never developed one because it has not had a steady source of revenue withwhich to fund capital improvements.

The district has used the proceeds from the sale of buildings and leased space to financecapital projects. In 1997, the district sold Fay Junior High School to Parma CommunityHospital for $3.2 million. The proceeds were used to fund major renovations and repairs.As of October 1998 the balance of the permanent improvement fund was approximately


Facilities 4-17

$640,000. Of that amount, $132,000 of that amount is allocated to meet the matching fundsrequired by the Power Up technology grant (See the Technology section for a discussionof this grant). The district also generates about $1,100 per month in revenue by leasingclassroom space at Arlington Elementary to the Cuyahoga County Board of MentalRetardation and Development Disabilities. These funds are deposited into the general fund.

F4.9 The district last passed a capital bond issue in 1987 for $5.1 million. In promoting the bondissue, the district promised to improve, furnish and equip school buildings and sitesincluding asbestos removal. The three largest expenditures were for roofing ($1.4 million),windows ($1.2 million) and asbestos removal ($.9 million). The district appears to have usedthe funds on the projects that they promised to voters. The district has not placed apermanent improvement levy on the ballot during the last 10 years. According to thetreasurer, the district considered placing a bond issue for capital improvements on the ballotin November 1998, but decided not to do so because the district was putting an emergencyoperating levy on the ballot at the same time. The emergency operating levy passed.

R4.3 PCSD has identified $65 to $120 million in capital improvement needs with no source ofrevenue to fund those projects. The district should develop a strategy for funding permanentimprovement needs that appear to have been neglected due to financial and other issuesidentified in this performance audit.

F4.10 PCSD has not recently completed a capacity analysis for the district’s facilities. The lasttime the district assessed capacity was in 1994. Since that time, the district has addedclassrooms and renovations to certain facilities. The capacity information that the districtprovided for this audit did not include the most recent changes. When the district assessedcapacity in 1994, both a preferred and a desirable method of calculating capacity were used.Desirable capacity was calculated by multiplying the number of teaching stations in abuilding, less set asides for art, music and special education, by 25. Preferred capacity wascalculated by multiplying the desirable capacity by a utilization factor of 80 percent. UsingPCSD’s capacity formula, the desirable capacity is 15,100 and the preferred capacity is12,080.

A review of the school districts for which performance audits have been conducted revealsthat capacity analyses of elementary schools do not normally include a utilization factorbecause the students in each class generally use one classroom for most of the day and roomsare set aside in the analysis for art, music and special education. However, when analyzingmiddle and high schools, the utilization factor is usually 85 percent rather than 80 percent.

F4.11 Table 4-7 represents one capacity analysis of PCSD’s school buildings. Capacity at theelementary levels was calculated by taking the number of teaching stations, with art, musicand special education classrooms subtracted, and multiplying it by 25 students. Capacity atthe middle schools and high schools is calculated by multiplying the number of teaching


Facilities 4-18

stations, less special education rooms, by 25 students and then multiplying that figure by autilization factor of 85 percent. Each special education room was assumed to house 10students at all schools.

Using that formula, the capacity of the district’s regular elementary, middle and highschools is 14,290. With the 1998-99 head count of 13,009 students, PCSD’s facilities areat about 91 percent of its capacity.

Assumptions: Table 4-7 estimates capacity based on the number and type of classrooms asreported by the PCSD business manager. For this analysis, capacity was determined usingthe formula contained in F4.11 which assumes 25 students per regular classroom. Modularclassrooms are also used in the district but are not included in the capacity calculations. Incalculating the functional capacity for the schools, the 85 percent utilization factor was usedat the middle and high schools.


Facilities 4-19

Table 4-7: PCSD Capacity Analysis

School Year Built

Capacity

1998-99 Head Count

VarianceFrom

Capacity Percent

Elementary Schools (15):Col. John GlennDag HammarskjoldDentzlerGreen ValleyHannaJohn MuirParkviewParma ParkPearl Rd.Pleasant ValleyPleasantviewRenwoodRidge-BrookState Rd.Thoreau Park

196719681957196019551930195919501921195519591959195519211926

420500520450350525350405425705400350475395725

387404443476327569306402440640248377410492855

(33)(96)(77)

26(23)

44(44)

(3)15

(65)(152)

27(65)

97130

92.1%80.8%85.2%

105.8%93.4%

108.4%87.4%99.3%

103.5%90.8%62.0%

107.7%86.3%

124.6%117.9%

Total Elementary Schools 6,995 6,776 (219) 96.9%

Middle Schools (3):Hillside Middle SchoolGreenbriar Middle SchoolShiloh Middle School

195819621966

743976616

531761684

(212)(215)

68

71.5%78.0%

110.0%

Total Middle Schools 2,335 1,976 (359) 84.6%

High Schools (3):NormandyParmaValley Forge

196819531962

1,4231,7841,753

1,1241,4781,655

(299)(306)

(98)

79.0%82.8%94.4%

Total High Schools 4,960 4,257 (703) 85.9%

Overall Total 14,290 13,009 (1,281) 91.0%Source: PCSD Business Office, EMISNote: The capacity represents 25 students to a classroom, with the actual number of special education rooms set aside,and a utilization factor of 85 percent applied to the middle and high schools. The number of art and music roomsat the elementary schools were provided by the business manager. Special Education rooms at all levels were assumedto house 10 students.


Facilities 4-20

F4.12 Table 4-8 shows that since FY 1987-88, PCSD’s student head count has fluctuated, with anoverall increase of 825 students during the 11-year period. The head count data representsthe total district enrollment and includes special education students.

Table 4-8: Head Count History

Fiscal Year Head Count

Percent of ChangeFrom the

Previous Year

1987-1988 12,179 N/A

1988-1989 12,312 1.09%

1989-1990 12,340 0.23%

1990-1991 12,263 (.62)%

1991-1992 12,697 3.54%

1992-1993 12,534 (1.28)%

1993-1994 12,992 3.65%

1994-1995 12,945 (0.36)%

1995-1996 12,950 0.04%

1996-1997 12,556 (3.04)%

1997-1998 13,004 3.57% Source: PCSD Business Office

F4.13 The district develops its own enrollment projections based on live birth statistics from theDepartment of Vital Statistics for the cities of Parma, Parma Heights and Seven Hills whichcomprise the boundaries of the district. The projection is also based on survival ratio datawhich track the number of students who progress from one grade to the next over a five-yearperiod. Based on the most recent projection, shown in Table 4-9, the district anticipates aslight decrease in enrollment over the next five years.


Facilities 4-21

Table 4-9: Enrollment Projection

SchoolYear

Projection K-8 Schools

Projection 9-12 Schools

ProjectionTotal

Total PercentChange from

PreviousYear

1998-99 8,697 4,225 12,922 (.63)%

1999-00 8,682 4,229 12,911 (.09)%

2000-01 8,596 4,286 12,882 (.22)%

2001-02 8,527 4,326 12,853 (.23)%

2002-03 8,463 4,371 12,834 (.15)% Source: PCSD Office of the Assistant Superintendent

The enrollment projection appears to be fairly accurate. The actual head count of 13,009 forall enrolled students for 1998-99 is only slightly higher than the projection of 12,922.

F4.14 As depicted in Table 4-7, PCSD is currently operating at 91 percent capacity. Based on theprojection that enrollment is going to decline over the next five years, the capacity will alsodecline to 89.8 percent in the school year 2002-03. This is shown in Table 4-9. Using thelowest projected enrollment figures in Table 4-9, Table 4-10 shows that PCSD studentswould occupy about 90 percent of the building capacity in 2002-03, when the enrollment isprojected to decrease to 12,834.

Table 4-10: Lowest Projected and Current Enrollment

Versus Functional Capacity

Schools

2002-03Projected

Enrollment Capacity

Over/(Under)FunctionalCapacity

2002-03Percent

Utilization

1998-1999Percent

Utilization

Elementary 6,392 6,995 (603) 91.4% 96.9%

Middle 2,071 2,335 (264) 88.7% 84.9%

High 4,371 4,960 (589) 88.1% 85.9%

Total 12,834 14,290 (1,456) 89.8% 91.0% Source: PCSD Business Manager and Office of the Assistant Superintendent

Table 4-10 shows that PCSD may have excess capacity of 603 elementary students in the2002-03 school year. Since the average capacity of its elementary schools is 466 studentsper building, PCSD may have the opportunity to close one elementary school at that time.


Facilities 4-22

F4.15 Using the square feet per student in the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) Design Manual used for construction of new school buildings, PCSD has an excess capacity at thehigh school level of about 229,878 square feet and an excess at the middle school level ofabout 11,856 square feet. The excess square footage is not sufficient to recommend closinga middle or high school. This analysis is depicted in Table 4-11.

Table 4-11: Square Footage per Student Comparedto OSFC Design Standards

Type of School1998-99 Head

CountTotal Square

FootageSquare Footage

per StudentOSFC

StandardExcess/

(Deficient)

Elementary 6,776 572,119 84 125 (41)

Middle 1,976 299,188 151 145 6

High 4,257 932,202 219 165 54Source: EMIS; OSFC Design Manual; PCSD Business Manager’s Office

R4.4 PCSD should develop a methodology for determining capacity which is updated annuallyand approved by the board of education. The district should also develop a method ofprojecting enrollment which covers a ten-year period and update the projection annually. The method of projecting enrollment should also be approved by the board of education.Current district enrollment and capacity suggest the possibility of closing an elementaryschool in 2002-03. Because of the pending financial difficulties, the district should considerclosing an elementary building immediately.

F4.16 Asbestos is regulated by both federal and state governments. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Repair Act (AHERA) requires school districts to inspect all building materialin each school building for asbestos at least once every three years. The district hired Monit-Aire, an environmental consulting company, to conduct its most recent three-year AHERA reinspection which was completed in August 1998. The reinspection recommended someminor repairs in 11 of the district’s buildings. The district is currently correcting thoseconditions.

F4.17 In the early 1990s, the district started to remove asbestos from its buildings. The district filedapplications with Johns Mansville Trust to be reimbursed for the cost of removal. To date,the district has received $1,719 and has been notified that they will receive an additional$521 for a total of $2,240. The district has deposited these funds into the general fund.Recently, the district was notified by the attorneys from the Asbestos School Litigation Fundthat it will receive $123,826 for prior asbestos abatement expenditures.


Facilities 4-23

F4.18 The district has trained the custodial and maintenance staff to handle asbestos material.Currently, 18 custodians and three maintenance employees are certified to remove up to athree-foot glove bag. Thirty-three custodians and 13 maintenance employees have received operations and materials training. All cleaners, substitute cleaners, custodians, assistant custodians and maintenance employees have had a two-hour asbestos awareness training provided by the custodial supervisor.

C4.1 Providing asbestos related training to the custodial and maintenance staff which is over and above the basic awareness training provides more assurance that the district’s staff and students will be protected from asbestos materials being released into the air. Trainingcontributes to an increase in quality and productivity, improved employee morale and adecrease in costs.

F4.19 Although the district has trained the custodial and maintenance staff to handle asbestos,PCSD does not have a written asbestos management plan that employees are required tofollow if they come in contact with asbestos material. Interviews with custodial andmaintenance employees reveal that they do not have an established procedure to follow whenthey come into contact with asbestos.

R4.5 PCSD should develop a written asbestos management plan to provide district employees withspecific instructions to follow in case of an asbestos emergency.

F4.20 House Bill 264 was passed in June 1985 and became effective October 1, 1985. Entitled the“School Energy Conservation Financing Bill,” it allows for indebtedness of up to nine-tenthsof 1 percent of the total assessed value of taxable property for energy conservation andcapital improvements, and limits such indebtedness to 15 years. School districts enter into contractual agreements for energy conserving capital improvement and the energy reductionsavings fund the cost of the improvements. The PCSD has completed three separate projectsunder the H.B. 264 program. Landis and Staefa served as the contractor on each project.

The energy conservation projects which have been funded by H.B. 264 include:

• Replacing boilers, roofs, steam traps and air compressors • Cleaning heating/cooling coils • Servicing flue dampers • Installing temperature controls • Retrofitting mechanical systems • Installing energy efficient T-8 fluorescent lighting and replacing ballasts • Installing room occupancy detectors.

According to the PCSD Business Office, the total amount spent on H.B. 264 improvements


Facilities 4-24

was $7.3 million. These expenditures are supported by district finance and businessrecords. The district contracted with Landis and Staefa to complete the energyimprovements. To monitor savings from these projects, PCSD tracks utility costs in everyfacility and uses Landis and Staefa, Inc. to perform the analysis. Landis and Staefa, Inc.calculated the total savings associated with phase one (April1991 to April 1992) to be$330,821. The total savings associated with the second phase (August 1993 to May 1994)was calculated to be $65,601. The savings from phase three (July 1994 to February 1995)were not available. Landis and Staefa calculated the amount the district saved by comparingthe annual cost of electricity and gas after the H.B. 264 improvements were made to the baseyear 1990, the year prior to the first phase improvements. The energy savings from H.B. 264improvements reported by the district totaled $396,422.

Although not part of the savings from conserving energy, the projects also resulted in adirect rebate from Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) in the amount of$92,236. The district now participates in a consortium to purchase electricity and deregulatedgas which has caused their utility bills to contain different information. According to arepresentative at Landis and Staefa, Inc., they have not been able to calculate the district’ssavings for 1998 because the utility bills do not specify the school buildings that areassociated with specific costs. Landis and Staefa, Inc. have requested additional informationbe included with the utility bills so that the energy savings can be tracked and recorded.

F4.21 Under current H.B. 264 law, the district is required to monitor the energy consumption andthe resulting operational and maintenance costs for buildings in which installations,modifications or remodeling has been done. It must maintain and annually update a reportdocumenting the reductions in energy consumption and resulting operational andmaintenance cost savings attributable to such installations, modifications or remodeling. Thereport is to be certified by an architect or engineer who is independent from persons whoprovided the goods or services to the district’s energy conservation project. The district isalso required to make the report available upon request to the Ohio School FacilitiesCommission as long as there is debt outstanding for the H.B. 264 projects.

The district has not complied with the reporting requirements of H.B.264. While the districthas hired Landis and Staefa, Inc. to monitor the energy savings resulting from the projectsthe district has funded under H.B. 264, the business office does not have the reports on fileand the extent of actual savings is unknown.


Facilities 4-25

R4.6 PCSD should require Landis and Staefa, Inc. to produce up-to-date data on savings resulting from H.B. 264 improvements. The district should have the report certified by an architector engineer independent of Landis and Staefa, Inc. so the district can be in compliance withthe law. The district must retain a copy of the report in its files until it is requested by theOhio School Facilities Commission.

F4.22 The Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey is a national sample survey thatcollects energy-related consumption and expenditure data for U.S. commercial buildings. It is conducted triennially and the latest data available is for 1995. Using the survey datathat most closely reflects PCSD building characteristics: building floor space (50,001 to200,000 square feet), principal building activity (education), year constructed (average age36 years), floors (one to two), and climate zone (5,500-7,000 heating degree days), PCSD’sschool buildings total energy costs should fall in the range of $.78 to $1.15 per square foot.

F4.23 Using energy costs for FY 1997-98, and comparing the data to the acceptable range of $.78to $1.15 per square foot cost, all of the district’s school buildings for which data wasavailable were at or below the range.

Table 4-12: PCSD Regular School Building Energy Costs

BuildingCategory

Number ofBuildings Above

the Range

Number ofBuildings Within

Range

Number ofBuildings Below the

RangeTotal Numberof Buildings

ElementarySchools

0 10 5 15

MiddleSchools

0 2 1 3

High Schools 0 3 0 3

Total Schools 0 15 6 21 Source: PCSD Business Office

F4.24 With the deregulation of the gas industry in 1984, school districts are allowed to purchasegas from any supplier and pay their local utility to transport the gas. Schools are requiredto pay a back up fee to the local utility in case the supplier fails to provide an adequatesupply of gas. Since 1994, the district has been participating in a consortium through theOhio Schools Council. Under this program, the consortium has purchased natural gas for thedistrict and paid a fee to Columbia Gas of Ohio to have the gas transported to its facilities.For the 1998-99 school year, the Parma City School Board again adopted a resolution toenter into an agreement with Columbia Gas and continue to purchase deregulated gasthrough the consortium.


Facilities 4-26

C4.2 The Ohio Schools Council estimates that the use of deregulated gas for FY 1996-97 and FY1997-98 has saved the district $320,554. The district can use the savings from deregulatedgas to invest in capital improvements.

F4.25 In January 1998, the district began to purchase electricity through the Cleveland ElectricIlluminating Company (“CEI”) Energy for Education consortium. The consortium allowsthe district to obtain a 10 percent base rate discount on electricity purchases. The districtestimates that $48,873 was saved during the first three months of the program. The districtestimates that between 1998 and 2006, $1,972,427 will be saved by purchasing electricitythrough the consortium.

C4.3 Through joining the consortium, the district has saved approximately $48,873 for the firstthree months of 1998.

F4.26 PCSD created a department of safety and security in June 1996. The department’s missionis to provide the safest possible learning environment for the students and staff whileprotecting the property and integrity of the PCSD. The district received $65,000 from theDepartment of Education School Security Equipment grant to fund the installation of heatand motion security sensors in all of the high schools, middle schools and three elementaryschools. In addition, 9 of the 15 elementary schools have a card swipe access system. Thecard access system has not been installed at the middle and high schools because the districthas decided that it is not feasible due to the large number of exterior doors on thosebuildings.

F4.27 PCSD has also established a safety committee, the District Action Response Team, whichis made up of 32 school personnel and private citizens who are trained to go to a site wherethere has been an incident and restore calm. PCSD received the 1997-98 BuckeyeAssociation of School Administrators Award for the development of the District ActionResponse Team.

Another initiative in the safety area is a 24-hour school SAFETYLINE which is a hotlineavailable for anyone who wishes to anonymously report any activity which may be harmfulto the students or staff. The SAFETYLINE is advertised in all of the district’s schools.

C4.4 The development of the Department of Safety and Security and the implementation of theheat and motion sensors provides added protection to the district’s facilities and equipment.The development of the District Action Response Team and the SAFETYLINE allows thedistrict to involve the community and staff in protecting the district’s schools and students.

F4.28 The following table presents a comparison of the operations and maintenance staffs at thepeer districts. Since each district’s operations and maintenance department is structured


Facilities 4-27

differently, this analysis attempts to include all staffs that perform the same functions thatare performed at PCSD.


Facilities 4-28

Table 4-13: Comparison of Facilities Divisions (Maintenance and Operations)Size Parma Canton Dayton South-Western

Number of Sites 25 31 59 39

1,863,778 1,971,890 5,602,896 2,032,385

Building Square Feet:

Maintained by Custodians

Maintained by Craftsmen 2,133,319 2,537,605 5,940,562 2,047,609

Position by FTE

Administration 5.4 4.3 22 4

Maintenance Tradesmen andSupervisors (Laborers) 25 14 51.7 20

Grounds workers 0 0 13 6

Custodians/Cleaners 103.95 89 214 97.18

Total 134.35 107.3 300.7 127.18Comparison

Sq.Ft. Per Custodial Staff 17,930 22,929 27,199 20,910

Sq.Ft. Per Tradesman 85,333 181,258 118,811 97,505

Backlogged Work Orders perTradesman 6 39 148 21.8

Average Custodial Salary $22,828 $25,259 $27,189 $22,728

Average Craftsmen Salary $28,559 $27,842 $42,207 $32,179 Characteristics

Preventive Maintenance Yes Limited Limited Limited

Use of Deregulated Gas Yes Yes No Yes

Automated WO System Partial No Partial Partial

Use of Temporary Employees orOutside Contractors Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mobile Grounds Crew No No Yes Yes

Weekend Inspections No No Yes No

Principals Supervise and EvaluateCustodial Staff Yes Yes No Yes

Source: PCSD Business Office


Facilities 4-29

Custodial Services F4.29 In PCSD, the custodial staff is divided into cleaner worker foreman, head custodians,

assistant custodians and cleaners. The cleaner working foreman is a bargaining unit positionwhich primarily involves administrative duties and is stationed in the maintenance shop atPleasant Valley Elementary school. The working foreman oversees the cleaners and acts asa liaison between the custodial staff and the cleaners. She also serves as an assistant to thecustodial supervisor and may occasionally substitute for an absent cleaner. Head custodiansare responsible for the overall cleanliness and safety of the buildings and grounds to whichthey are assigned. Head custodians oversee assistant custodians and cleaners. There are noassistant custodians at the elementary schools. Each head custodian and custodianclassification has its own job description. The following are brief descriptions of theresponsibilities of each member of the custodial staff. The duties of the head custodian andthe assistant custodian are identical with the exception that the head custodian is responsiblefor overseeing the cleaning personnel in the building. Disciplinary action for all cleaningpersonnel is the responsibility of the custodial supervisor.

• Cleaner Working Foreman - The cleaner working foreman is responsible for assistingin assigning schedules and maintaining work programs to insure the greatestefficiency from the cleaning staff. Typical tasks include inputting, monitoring,organizing and maintaining information for the custodial computer program used todevelop cleaning schedules for the cleaners; training members of the cleaning staffon new procedures, proper methods of usage and general cleaning concerns;monitoring and controlling quality within the buildings through a workingrelationship with cleaners; maintaining quality control inventory on a weekly basis;assuming responsibility for safe working conditions of the cleaning staff and providing input to the custodial supervisor on performance evaluations of cleaningpersonnel.

• Head Custodian - The head custodian is responsible for the overall cleanliness,upkeep and routine maintenance of the building. Typical tasks include schedulingwork and giving assignments to custodians under their supervision; making dailyinspections of the buildings to assure proper cleanliness; requisitioning cleaningsupplies and equipment; observing the operation of the heating system to ensure theproper building temperature is maintained; cleaning and lubricating heatingequipment and exhaust fans; making minor building and equipment repairs; cleaningand maintaining mowers, buffers and other machinery and tools used to performcustodial tasks; trimming shrubbery, cutting grass and performing other groundskeeping tasks; and overseeing assistant custodians, cleaning personnel andmaintenance workers assigned to the building. The head custodian must possess alow pressure steam stationary boiler operator’s license.


Facilities 4-30

• Assistant Custodian - The assistant custodian is responsible for performing a varietyof cleaning and minor maintenance tasks to maintain the order and cleanliness of thebuilding. Typical tasks include mopping, buffing and waxing classroom floors andhallways; vacuuming carpets and rugs; washing blackboards and cleaning erasers;washing walls and windows; sanitizing restroom fixtures, drinking fountains andwash basins; dusting; replacing broken glass and burnt out bulbs and tubes;operating, maintaining and repairing the heating and ventilating equipment; andsecuring the building and grounds as assigned. The position requires a low pressuresteam stationary boiler operator’s license.

• Cleaner - The cleaner is responsible for performing cleaning duties and housekeepingwork; maintaining an adequate supply of cleaning materials; maintaining cleaningequipment in good working condition; checking exterior doors in cleaning area to seethat they are secured; and aiding in emergency cleanups.

F4.30 Custodial Services is managed by one supervisor. The custodial supervisor position is anadministrative position. The following is a brief description of the custodial supervisor’sresponsibilities as contained in the job description.

• Custodial Supervisor - The custodial supervisor is responsible for directing allcustodial operations in the Parma City School District. Typical tasks includeinterviewing applicants for the position of school custodian and related positions;assigning custodians to various positions in the school system and making transfersas required for the good of the district; supervising the head custodians in theinspection and evaluation of the custodial care of the school buildings; establishingstandards of cleanliness for all buildings in the school system; initiating andparticipating in disciplinary conferences at both the building and administrative levelwhen appropriate; initiating the purchase of all custodial equipment; andrecommending custodial supplies and materials which should be purchased for theschool system. The custodial supervisor is also the district’s safety coordinator,serves as head of the safety committee and is responsible for complete districtcompliance with OSHA and asbestos control. In addition, the custodial supervisorconducts all in-service training sessions for new employees and update sessions fordistrict employees.

F4.31 The custodial supervisor has overall management responsibility for the custodial function.The head custodians are supervised by both the custodial supervisor and school principals. The day-to-day supervision of the head custodian is the responsibility of the principal. When a principal identifies a problem with a custodian, the problem is discussed with thecustodian. If the problem persists, the principal informs the custodial supervisor about thesituation, and they work together to resolve it.


Facilities 4-31

F4.32 The union contract requires performance evaluations to be completed annually for eachemployee. Interviews with custodians, principals and the custodial supervisor indicateperformance evaluations are routinely administered by principals and the custodialsupervisor annually. The principal prepares a performance evaluation for every custodianand cleaner assigned to his building. The cleaners are evaluated by the principal with inputfrom the head custodian, the cleaner working foreman and the custodial supervisor. Theprincipal and custodial supervisor evaluate the head custodian. The assistant custodian isevaluated by the principal with input from the head custodian and the custodial supervisor. The staff member receives a copy of the evaluation and signs it, as does the custodialsupervisor. The principal and custodial supervisor meet with the custodial employee todiscuss any problems raised in the evaluation.

A random check of the personnel files for 25 percent of the custodial staff indicated thatperformance evaluations are completed on an annual basis and are very well documented. In addition, probationary evaluations during the period are also being completed and documented as stipulated in the union contract.

C4.5 PCSD principals play a key role in evaluating the custodial staff. The principal’s input intothe appraisal process provides an assessment of the custodian’s daily work performance andhabits. This is a valuable source of first hand information that would be missing if theevaluation process was the responsibility of the custodial supervisor.

R4.7 PCSD should consider allowing the principal to continue to evaluate the head custodian, butshould delegate the evaluation of the other cleaning staff to another staff member(e.g.,assistant principal, etc.) While it is important that the principal contribute to theevaluation of all custodial staff, direct responsibility for the entire process could impact onthe principal’s attention to the educational mission of the school.

F4.33 Custodial services provides the cleaners and custodians with a handbook of duties. Thehandbook contains a detailed list of tasks the employees are responsible for performing. Thehandbook does not include information on starting and ending times, district policies ordistrict practices. The union is responsible for providing the custodial and cleaning staffwith a copy of union policies.

R4.8 The custodial handbook of district policies and procedures for custodians and cleaners shouldbe developed and distributed to staff. A copy should also be kept at each school. A custodialhandbook should promote the use of standardized procedures by the custodial staff whichshould lead to a uniform level of cleanliness in the district’s buildings. This informationshould also be useful in determining the appropriate level of custodial staffing for eachbuilding and should be a progressive step toward custodians being able to maintain moresquare footage.

Financial Implication: The cost of updating the current handbook of cleaning policies and


Facilities 4-32

procedures for the custodial department would be minimal.

F4.34 As reflected in the union contract, the district has adopted minimum staffing levels for eachbuilding. For each high school, the minimum staffing level is one head custodian, twoassistant custodians, one general maintenance worker and two laborers. For middle schools,the minimum staffing level is one head custodian and one assistant custodian. At theelementary schools, the minimum level is one head custodian.

In developing minimum staffing levels, cleaners were not included in the calculation.However, the union contract states that cleaners who work alone in a building due to theabsence of another cleaner will receive an additional two hours of pay for emptying thewaste baskets and cleaning the restrooms in the section that should have been cleaned by theabsent employee. A cleaner has to clean these areas in the absent cleaner’s section withinthe regular hours of their shift.

R4.9 Although the custodial supervisor stated that the cleaner substitute pool is very dependableand that it is rare when a cleaner works alone and receives the extra two hours of pay, thedistrict should consider renegotiating the union contract so that the district is not payingcleaners for time not worked. To more efficiently and effectively staff its schools, the districtshould also consider negotiating to remove any language referring to specific staffing levelsfrom the union contract. The custodial staff is currently cleaning fewer square feet thaneither the AS&U regional average or the peer district average (See R4.21 for financialimplications.)

F4.35 The hours of the custodial staff vary depending on the type of school and the position. Headcustodians at the elementary schools are scheduled to work from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,while head custodians at the middle and high schools work from 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.Unlike many districts, PCSD custodial staff do not have a paid lunch period.

Each middle school has one assistant custodian who works from 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.Each of the three high schools have two assistant custodians with one working from 6:00a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and the second assistant custodian who works from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

The cleaners at the elementary schools are scheduled to work various hours, usually startingat 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. and ending between 10:00 to 11:30 p.m. The hours of the head andassistant custodians overlap with the cleaners to allow for communication betweensupervisor and subordinate. PCSD employees must work 20 hours per week to be eligiblefor single coverage insurance benefits and 30 hours to be eligible for family coverage.

F4.36 The method of monitoring when the custodial staff begins and ends their shifts varies fromschool to school. At the elementary schools, cleaners and custodians are required to sign in


Facilities 4-33

and out on a log sheet in their school building. One of the three middle schools has a timeclock and requires the custodial staff to punch in and out. The custodial staffs at the tworemaining middle schools record their arrival and departure times on log sheets in thebuildings. The three high schools have time clocks that the custodial staffs use to recordarrival and departure times.

F4.37 PCSD has a security system in every building. Currently, the district is using two differentsystems: Sonitrol and heat and motion security sensors. The high schools, middle schoolsand 12 of the 15 elementary schools have the heat and motion security sensors. Theremaining three elementary schools have the Sonitrol security system. Both security systems require employees to enter a code when opening or closing a building. The securitycompanies provide monthly reports to the district which include the date, the time thebuilding was opened and closed and the employee’s code used to perform the twotransactions. These reports can be used to determine at what time each building is openedand closed. The district currently does not use these reports to check for early departures.

F4.38 Cleaners in the elementary schools are scheduled to work a variety of shift lengths endingbetween 8:15 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. Security reports from seven elementary schools for thefirst two weeks of September 1998 were analyzed to determine if the buildings were closedat the appropriate times. The reports revealed that at all seven schools, a member of thecleaning staff entered a closing code before the shift was scheduled to end. At all sevenschools, the buildings were closed early on four consecutive days during the two-weekperiod. A check of the district’s payroll records did not reveal an excused absence for theemployees whose code was used to close the buildings early. In addition, there were noexcused absences for the other cleaners who were also scheduled to work in the building.

The following table illustrates the number of times and how early the security systems wereset in the seven elementary schools that closed early. Of the 70 building closings that weretested, 38.6 percent of the buildings were closed early as reflected in Table 4-14.

Table 4-14: Frequency with which security systemswere set early in Elementary Schools

50 to 60 minutes early 15 to 40 minutes early Total Percentage of earlydeparture

14 13 27 38.6%

Source: PCSD Custodial Services Department

The district has subsequently reported revised starting and ending times for cleaners inseveral schools. However, the information reported in Table 4-14 reflects an analysis of


Facilities 4-34

data available at the time of the audit.

R4.10 The district should routinely spot check the security reports to determine if employees areleaving early. When an employee is found to be leaving before the shift is over and does nothave an excused absence, the employee should not be paid for the time not worked. Employees who leave early should be subject to the established disciplinary procedures. Thesecurity reports received by the district are difficult and time consuming to analyze. Whileit is possible to determine which employee is opening and closing a building, it requiressignificant time and effort to match the codes on the report to the schools and employees. The excused absence list must also be checked to see if the employee had permission toleave early. Currently, the security reports are the only method the district has to verify thehours actually worked by some employees. The district should determine if the securitysystem can be reprogrammed to produce a more usable report.

Financial Implication: The average hourly wage for cleaners is approximately $9.64 andthe typical elementary school has two cleaners assigned. Therefore, early departures cost thedistrict $19.28 per hour because both cleaners must leave in order to set the security system. During the two week period examined, early departures accounted for approximately 20.5hours. The cost to the district was approximately $395 for the two-week period or $10,000annually. The assumption of a comparable early departure rate at the remainder of theschools increases the potential cost to more than $30,000. The district could expect toeliminate this cost by implementing a time and attendance method or better monitoring bysupervisors.

R4.11 The district should consider using a standard time and attendance method in all buildings.An automated time and attendance system would allow the district to have immediate andaccurate information regarding the time that all employees begin and end their shifts.

F4.39 In FY 1997, PCSD custodians were paid a total of $281,434 in overtime compared to$340,205 in FY 1996. Prior to the LNOCA conversion in 1998, the district paid custodialand maintenance overtime from the same fund. The district was not able to separate thecustodial overtime from the maintenance overtime. The figures used in this report are estimates based upon data taken from W-2 figures. It was not possible to determine thespecific reason for the overtime (e.g., building check, security call). Custodial servicesmanagers do not receive reports that show overtime expenditures on a monthly or year-to-date basis.

The following table shows overtime usage by custodial services for FY 96 and 97.

Table 4-15: Custodial Overtime Usage


Facilities 4-35

Period Total Overtime Paid

FY 1996-1997 $281,434

FY 1995-1996 $340,205 Source: Parma City School District Treasurer’s Office

According to the custodial and maintenance supervisors, the district experienced a decreasein custodial overtime in FY 1996-97 because all assistant custodians assigned to the middleschools were laid off that year and maintenance department employees were used tosubstitute for the laid off employees.

R4.12 In order to effectively manage custodial operations, PCSD needs to monitor the overtimeusage by custodial employees. The district should generate reports that show overtimeexpenditures by department on a monthly basis. The overtime expenditure reports shouldalso identify the specific reason for the overtime.

Table 4-16: FY 1997-98 Custodial Overtime Expenditure by District

District

Number ofFull-Time

Custodians Salaries Overtime

Amount ofOvertime by

Full-TimeCustodian

Overtime as aPercentage of

Salaries

Parma 67 $2,883,393 $281,434 $4,201 10.2%

South-Western 89 $2,579,733 $70,805 $796 2.7%

Canton 89 $2,632,476 $98,463 $1,106 3.7%

Dayton 207 $5,656,551 $147,315 $712 2.6%Note: As discussed in F4.40 the FY 1997-98 overtime data for PCSD was not available and the figuresfor FY 1996-97 were used.

F4.40 The overtime for the district is significantly higher than the peer districts as shown in Table4-16. One reason for the large amount of custodial overtime is due to permits for threedifferent forms of child care in the district’s facilities: extended day care, pre-school and fullday care. Extended day care takes place in 13 of the 15 elementary schools and is the mostcommon form of child care offered in the district. Ten of the elementary schools offer botha.m. and p.m. day care and three schools offer only a.m. day care. Pre-school is offeredduring the school year, five days a week at Thoreau Park Elementary and Normandy HighSchool. The preschool program uses Normandy only in the morning.Normandy High School also rents space five days a week during the school year to a daycare group separate from the preschool.


Facilities 4-36

Table 4-17: PCSD 1997-98 Permits For Child CareReason For Permit Number of Permit Days Fee Paid

Extended Day Care 178 $77,830

Full Day Care Center 184 $1,840

Pre-School a.m and p.m. 166 $2,490

Total 528 $82,160Source: PCSD Business Office

Table 4-17 provides a summary of the child care programs that are housed in the district’sbuildings. In 1997-98, the district received a total of $82,160 in permit fees for the rentalof facilities.

F4.41 The union contracts states that if 10 or more people are in the building, a custodian has tobe present and cannot leave until the last person is out of the building. The union contractalso states that custodians may arrive one half hour earlier than the day care is scheduled tobegin. Custodians that work in buildings where there is a.m. and p.m. day care work from6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and custodians that have only a.m. day care work from 6:30 a.m. to4:00 p.m. The custodian is paid overtime at the rate of one and a half times the normal hourlyrate for working the extra day care hours.

Cleaners are often scheduled to be in the buildings when the day care is operating, but theycannot work in lieu of the overtime because the union contract stipulates that onlycustodians can cover the permit overtime. During interviews with custodians, most statedthat they always work the day care overtime and consider it part of their normal work week.The custodians at the buildings that have day care can earn 5 to 15 hours of overtime pay perweek.

R4.13 PCSD should consider renegotiating the union contract so that cleaners can cover the permit time, rather than requiring custodians to work overtime. A contractual change such as thiswould have a significant impact on reducing the high overtime payments made by thedistrict. In conjunction with this contractual change, PCSD should review its permit feestructure to ensure that all appropriate costs attributable to the external use of facilities arerecaptured.

Financial Implication: The average hourly custodial wage is $15.37 and the overtime rateis $23.07. Assuming a custodian works 12.5 hours of overtime a week for 38 weeks toaccommodate the extended day program, the district is paying each affected custodianapproximately $11,000 in overtime annually. Ten of the fifteen elementary schools offer


Facilities 4-37

permit overtime for a.m. and p.m. day care resulting in total overtime costs of approximately$110,000. By renegotiating the union provision so that cleaners can cover the permit timesas part of their regular shift, rather than custodians, the district could expect to saveapproximately $110,000 annually.

F4.42 PCSD custodial staff work large amounts of overtime as a result of the permits issued forByers Field. In 1997-98, Byers Field was rented approximately 29 times by outside groupsand the district received $26,741 in permit fees. In addition, the district’s three high schoolvarsity football teams and other sport teams use Byers Field and are not required to pay afee. The operation of the stadium for special events requires the field attendant and fourmaintenance or custodial employees to work overtime during the events. The average rentaltime for Byers Field events for 1997-98 was four hours.

F4.43 According to the business manager, the district allows community groups such as the PTAand YMCA to use the school facilities free of charge as a service to the community and topromote a good relationship between the school district and its constituents. The followingtable represents permits, other than child care and Byers Field, that were issued to outsidecommunity groups, showing the number of fee and non-fee hours and the amount of feespaid.

Table 4-18: PCSD Permits Issued to Outside Groups for 1997-98School Hours with Fee Fee Paid Hours without Fee

High Schools 725 $26,687 1,561.5

Middle Schools 139 $9,018 978.5

Elementary Schools 369 $19,711 1,143

Total 1,233 $55,416 3,683Source: PCSD Business Office

For the 1997-98 school year, the district issued a total of 4,916 permit hours to outsidecommunity groups. PCSD received $55,416 from the 1,233 paid permit hours. The districtissued 3,683 no-fee permit hours.

R4.14 PCSD is facing serious financial difficulties. While generating goodwill with the district’s

voters can be a benefit, PCSD officials should consider recovering all operating costs bycharging outside community groups to use district facilities.Financial Implication: For the 3,683 hours that outside groups are allowed to use PCSD’sfacilities without paying a fee, the district is foregoing about $165,000 in potential feerevenue.


Facilities 4-38

F4.44 The district also uses overtime to pay other custodians and maintenance staff to fill in for thehead and assistant custodians who are absent. According to the union contract, if a head orassistant custodian at a high school or middle school is absent, the custodial and maintenancestaff assigned to that building are offered the overtime first. If the custodial and maintenancestaff do not accept the overtime, it is offered to all other custodians first. If no custodianaccepts the overtime, it is offered to the maintenance department based on seniority. At thetime of the audit, the district did not use substitutes to fill in for absent head and assistantcustodians, but the custodial supervisor was developing a list for that purpose.

At the elementary level, if the head custodian is absent, the maintenance department will first be offered the position by seniority. If no maintenance employee accepts the assignment, then the position may be offered to the cleaners. If the cleaners do not accept the assignment, the supervisor has the right to assign a maintenance employee to fill in. Acleaner may not substitute for an elementary custodian for more than two consecutive daysat a time.

R4.15 PCSD should consider renegotiating the union contract provision which requires the districtto offer overtime to bargaining unit members for absent head and assistant custodians beforeit is offered to the substitute workers. The average annual sick, vacation and personal leavefor custodial employees for 1997-98 was 20 days. Based upon the average hourly wage at time and a half for custodial employees and the average days not worked, the district paidapproximately $180,000 in overtime to district employees to cover absences.

The use of the maintenance employees as substitutes for the custodial department results in the district paying overtime at a higher rate per hour because the maintenance employeesare generally earning a higher hourly wage. The maintenance department also averaged anannual leave of 20 days. The district paid approximately $84,000 in overtime to districtemployees to cover absences in the maintenance department.

Financial Implication: For FY 1997-98, the district paid a total of approximately $264,000 in overtime to cover for maintenance and custodial leave. If the district used substituteemployees to cover absences in the custodial and maintenance departments and paid thesubstitutes $6.00 per hour, the district could save approximately $87,000 annually.

F4.45 The district has a pool of 22 on-call substitutes cleaners to fill vacancies when the cleaningstaff is absent. The substitute cleaners are paid $6.00 per hour, receive no benefits and arenot members of the union. The custodial supervisor is currently developing a list ofsubstitute custodians, but at the time of this audit a substitute custodian list did not exist. Thecleaning substitutes are used before offering overtime to the PCSD cleaning staff.


Facilities 4-39

C4.6 The use of a pool of substitute cleaners is an excellent way to decrease overtime expenditureswhile continuing to ensure that the district’s buildings remain clean. The use of substitutesalso allows the district to have a group of trained applicants from which to hire if an openingbecomes available.

F4.46 When a head custodian or assistant custodian position becomes available, the vacancy isposted for five days during the school year and ten days during the summer. Custodianshave the option of bidding on the position. The union contract stipulates that the most seniorqualified employee is given preference. The custodial supervisor indicated that performanceis a factor in job promotion but seniority plays a bigger role in the decision. The supervisorstated that it is very difficult to promote a less senior employee based on performance. Thisprocess usually results in many job changes. If no current employees bid on the openposition, civil service provides the custodial supervisor with a list of eligible candidates whohave passed the civil service test. The custodial supervisor interviews these candidates andchooses one from the list.

R4.16 PCSD should consider negotiating limits in the union agreement with custodians to decrease

the number of position changes that can occur during a school year. F4.47 Each year, the district provides the head and assistant custodians with uniforms consisting

of three pairs of pants and three shirts at an annual cost of $2,771. The district also provideseach cleaner with uniforms consisting of three shirts or smocks at an annual cost of $3,488.

C4.7 Providing the custodial staff with uniforms promotes a positive professional image andallows the custodial staff to be easily identified by students and buildingstaff. The use of uniforms is an effective way to promote professionalismand improve morale at a small expense.

F4.48 The grounds keeping duties are shared by the custodial and maintenance staff. A custodianat each school is responsible for trimming the bushes and cutting the grass areas close to thebuildings and sidewalks with a push mower, while the maintenance staff generally cuts largefields with riding tractors. The high school custodians will usually plow the snow with apick-up truck that has an attached snow plow. A large snow plow is used by the maintenancedepartment to clear driveways and parking lots in the district.

F4.49 The custodial supervisor conducts an August walk through building check in each of thedistrict’s schools to ensure that the buildings are ready for the school year. The custodialsupervisor also states that she is in at least one building each day to talk with the school andcustodial staff. In addition, the supervisor indicated that she makes unannounced inspectionsof every facility once a month. These random inspections allow the supervisor to see thecondition of the building and grounds throughout the school year.


Facilities 4-40

Checks on 22 of the building files show that the custodial supervisor is conducting summerbuilding inspections and routine unannounced inspections. If a problem is noted in the file,the supervisor re-visits that school, unannounced, to see if the problem has been resolved.The follow-up visit is also detailed in the building report. The random building inspectionsappear to be completed on a regular basis several times a year throughout the district and arewell documented. The building files also include information on recent health and fireinspections, which also appear to be conducted on a regular basis. Health inspectors walkthrough the buildings with the custodians to conduct quarterly health inspections and fireinspections are conducted annually by the fire department.

C4.8 Conducting summer and unannounced building inspections in all schools is an excellentmethod to ensure that the buildings are properly cleaned and maintained. The buildinginspections are also an effective way to evaluate the custodial staff.

F4.50 The form used to evaluate buildings during an unannounced inspection includes the nameof the building and the date the inspection was completed. The form also lists the areas thatare examined during an inspection such as windows, painting, grounds and carpet. The formincludes an area for the supervisor’s comments, work that needs to be requested and an areafor requisitioning supplies that may be needed if a deficiency is found to exist.

R4.17 A more comprehensive inspection form should be designed and used during buildinginspections. The form should identify the type of room (classroom, hallway, restroom,library), contain a list of tasks that should be done in each specific area, and a scale to ratethe cleanliness of each room. The district should consider inviting members of the schoolboard and principals to participate in the August inspections. This would emphasize theimportance of having the schools ready for the beginning of the school year and increaseboard members’ knowledge of the condition of the district’s facilities. It would also preparethem to deal more effectively with issues concerning school conditions.

F4.51 The cleaner working foreman is responsible for evaluating the performance of the cleaningstaff and reporting back to the custodial supervisor. The cleaner working foreman randomlyselects a school and a cleaner’s schedule. The foreman visits the school and, using thecleaner’s list of daily job tasks, evaluates whether each task was completed. The foremanprovides the evaluation to the custodial supervisor and it is used as part of the cleaner’sannual performance evaluation.

F4.52 All of the district’s boilers are remotely controlled by a computer software package, Insight600, which the district purchased from Landis and Staefa, Inc. Each building has a computerin the custodian’s office with the Insight 600 software that allows the building custodian tomonitor the temperature of the boilers. The custodian has low-level priority access totemporarily change the temperature setting when the building is too hot or too cold.However, the temperature will automatically readjust itself to the programmed temperature


Facilities 4-41

after several hours. If the boiler temperature becomes too high or too low, an alarm on theboiler will sound. The maintenance supervisor has a computer with Insight 600 in his officewhich allows him to monitor the temperature of the boilers in all the buildings. Thecustodial supervisor has the software on a home computer and monitors the boilers on theweekends from her home.

The boilers at the high schools are programmed in such a way that if the boiler temperatureis too high or too low, the maintenance supervisor is paged. The maintenance supervisor isalso paged when a fire alarm is activated.

F4.53 In the winter months, the head custodian or an assistant custodian conducts weekend buildingchecks when the temperature outside is below 10 degrees and the custodial supervisorrequests that one be made. The custodial supervisor stated that it should take about one hourto complete a standard building check, but the union contract authorizes three hours for thesebuilding checks. The custodial supervisor is responsible for making the decision to approvethe overtime and she only approves the overtime if the building check was necessary and sheauthorized that it be conducted. Interviews with custodians revealed that the majority ofhead custodians did not conduct any weekend building checks last year, primarily becausethe winter was unusually warm.

C4.9 The custodial department limits weekend building checks which saved the district from paying unnecessary overtime. The use of remotely controlled boilers allows the district tomonitor the boilers without actually having a custodian go into the buildings.

F4.54 The alarms on the boilers will sound if the temperature becomes too high or too low. Thesealarms will activate the Sonitrol security system. Three elementary schools have the Sonitrolsecurity system, the remaining 12 schools have the heat and motion sensors which are notactivated by sound.

R4.18 PCSD should develop a standard method that alerts appropriate staff when boiler alarmssound in district facilities. If the temperature in a building becomes too low or high, damageto the building can occur.

F4.55 In-service training is given to the custodial staff to review standard safety practices and standard cleaning techniques throughout the year. The custodial staff also receives trainingin asbestos, lock-out tag-out, confined space and blood borne pathogens. All training is givenby the custodial supervisor during work hours. Vendors also put on annual training sessionsto demonstrate their cleaning supplies and proper labeling. Interviews with custodiansreveal that the district is providing frequent health and safety training and the staff reportedthat they are satisfied with the amount of training they receive. The district does not have aspecific training budget for the custodial or maintenance staff. The general fund had an


Facilities 4-42

expenditure of $3,892 for training of the entire classified staff in 1997-98.

F4.56 High school custodians and the custodial supervisor have pagers which they wear whileworking in the district. The high school custodians and custodial supervisor also have voicemail.

F4.57 Large custodial equipment, such as floor scrubbers and buffers, is allocated to the buildingson an as-needed basis. The custodial staff rotates the large equipment between the differentschools. Custodial supplies, such as cleaning products, mops, brooms and paper towels, arepurchased on an as needed basis because the district does not have storage space. Headcustodians determine what supplies they need in their building for the next few months andsubmit a request to the custodial supervisor. The custodial supervisor approves the supplyrequest and forwards it to purchasing. The custodial supervisor was not aware how much ofthe budget is allocated for custodial supplies.

R4.19 PCSD should establish custodial supply budgets for each building. The budget should bebased on the building size, number of classrooms and the number of students in the building.The head custodians should be trained and held responsible for establishing and monitoringthe budget.

F4.58 The following table shows the average salary for PCSD custodial employees for 1998. Theweighted average for the custodial staff is $22,828. The chart also shows the averagesalaries for the peer districts and the AS&U Region 5 average.

Table 4-19: Custodial SalariesPosition Average SalaryHead Custodian $33,842Elementary Custodian $32,089Assistant Custodian $28,193Cleaners $19,668

PCSD FTE Weighted Average $22,828Peer Districts:Canton $25,259Dayton 27,189South-Western 22,728Peer District Average $25,059Difference ($2,231)


Facilities 4-43

AS&U Region 5 Average $23,717Difference ($889)

Source: PCSD Business Manager Note: The salaries do not include overtime. The elementary custodians include the administration building custodian.

The average salary of the custodial staff is 8.9 percent lower than its peer districts and isabout 4 percent lower than the AS&U Region 5 average. The cleaners earn significantly lessthan the custodians. If cleaners are excluded from the weighted average, the averagecustodial salary is $31,375 which is $6,316 more then the peer district average and $7,658more then the AS&U Region 5 average.

F4.59 The custodial supervisor purchased the computer software package, Data Mate, which isused to create cleaning schedules for the cleaners. The square footage of a building’sclassrooms, hallways, the number of desks, chairs, waste paper baskets, counter space, chalkboards and number of bathrooms are entered into the software. The software producescleaning schedules for each cleaner in the district. Through this software package, thecustodial supervisor attempts to assign each cleaner an equal work load. The cleaningschedules are printed and given to each of the cleaners. This information has proven valuablewhen a substitute cleaner is filling in because it shows the tasks for which the substitute isresponsible. The custodial supervisor was in the process of expanding the use of Data Mateso it can be used to assess the workload and staffing of the head and assistant custodians.

F4.60 Table 4-20 shows the square footage per custodian in the regular elementary, middle andhigh school buildings. The table also shows the lowest, the highest and the average squarefootage per custodial worker for the regular elementary, middle and high schools.

Table 4-20: 1998-99 Average Square Feet Per Custodian

TypeNumber of

Sites

Number ofCustodial Staff

(FTEs) Low High Average

Elementary 15 45 8,720 16,844 12,714

Middle 3 18.7 15,724 16,675 15,999

High 3 35.6 24,356 27,885 26,185 Source: PCSD Business Office

This analysis indicates that at the high schools and middle schools, the custodial workassignments are comparable. However, the elementary schools have a wide range of squarefootage. The lowest square footage per custodian was 8,720 at Pearl Road Elementary andthe highest square footage, 16,844, was at Thoreau Park.


Facilities 4-44

R4.20 The Data Mate software package has the capability to determine equivalent staffing levelsas well as to generate cleaning schedules. The district purchased Data Mate after thecleaning staffing levels had been established so the software package was not used todetermine current staffing levels. The work assignments at the high school and middleschool appear comparable, however the assignments at the elementary schools should bereviewed using Data Mate to assure that they are appropriate.


Facilities 4-45

F4.61 Table 4-21 shows that PCSD custodial staff is responsible for an average of 17,930 sq. ft.This is substantially less than the average for the peer districts and for AS&U Region 5.

Table 4-21: Square Footage per Custodial EmployeeParma City School District 17,930

Peer Districts: Dayton 27,199 Canton 22,929South-Western 20,910

Average for Peer Districts 23,679

Difference (5,749)

AS&U Region 5 Average 23,875

Difference (5,945) Source: AS&U 27th Annual Maintenance and Operations Cost Study; Peer districts

F4.62 PCSD custodians are responsible for 5,749 fewer square feet (32 percent) than the custodialstaff at the peer districts and 5,945 fewer square feet (33 percent) than the AS&U average.


Facilities 4-46

F4.63 The following table compares PCSD and its peer districts’ regular school facilities andcleaning staffs. Overall, PCSD custodians are responsible for an average of 17,930 squarefeet compared to 23,679 for the peer districts. The difference in square footage is mostprevalent in the elementary and middle schools and the special education school.

Table 4-22: Comparison of School Facilities and Custodial Staffs

ParmaSouth-Western Canton Dayton

PeerAverage Cincinnati

DifferenceBetweenPCSD andCincinnati

Elementary BuildingsTotal Sq. FootageSq. Footage per BuildingNumber of CustodiansSq. Footage Per Custodian

15572,11938,141

4512,714

17724,04242,59143.58

16,614

18877,13148,730

3922,491

332,472,901

74,936102.5

24,126 21,077

634,492,21471,305213.521,041 (8,327)

Middle School BuildingsTotal Sq. FootageSq. Footage per BuildingNumber of CustodiansSq. Footage per Custodian

3299,18899,729

18.715,999

5505,002101,000

21.723,272

4384,94696,237

2019,247

71,082,108

154,58737

29,246 23,922

8802,670100,33434.523,266 (7,267)

High School BuildingsTotal Sq. FootageSq. Footage per BuildingNumber of CustodiansSq. Footage per Custodian

3932,202310,734

35.626,185

4612,812153,203

25.4524,079

5459,82091,964

2022,991

61,233,903

205,65140

30,848 25,973

82,533,510316,68991.527,689 (1,504)

Special Schools,Administrative Buildingsand OthersTotal Sq. FootageSq. Footage per BuildingNumber of CustodiansSq. Footage per Custodian

3

60,26920,090

4.6512,961

9

190,17121,130

6.4529,484

4

249,99362,498

735,713

9

813,98490,443

26.530,716 31,971

3

290,81296,9378.534,213 (21,252)

Total Sq. for All BuildingsTotal Custodial StaffSq. Footage per Custodian

1,863,778103.9517,930

2,032,02797.18

20,910

1,971,89086

22,929

5,602,896206

27,199 23,679

8,119,20634823,331 (5,401)

Source: Custodial services departments for the four districts.Note: The peer district average does not include PCSD.

Dayton Public Schools is included in peer average, however the inclusion of Dayton skewsthe peer average significantly upward. If Dayton is removed, the peer average for allbuildings is 21,920 square feet per custodian. PCSD custodial staff are maintaining 3,990square feet less then the peer average with Dayton excluded.

Of the eight urban school district performance audits completed and released to date,


Facilities 4-47

Cincinnati City School District’s (CCSD) custodial staff is effectively maintaining the mostsquare footage per custodian. Each Cincinnati custodian is responsible for 23,331 squarefeet, which is 5,401 square feet more than the PCSD custodians. Factors that appear tocontribute to the CCSD’s custodial staff’s ability to out perform other districts are the well-organized training program and the comprehensive policies and procedures manual thatmake it clear to CCSD’s custodial workers what they are responsible for and how their workis to be performed.

R4.21 PCSD should review its custodial staffing and consider reductions. Using the peer districtand AS&URegionaverages asguidelines,PCSD couldreduce itscustodialstaffing levelbyapproximately21 to 26custodialpositions. Thefollowing tabledepicts howPCSD couldreduce itscustodial staffby 22 positionsand still haveone custodianassigned toeveryelementaryschool asstipulated inthe unioncontract andone cleanerassigned toeveryelementaryschool. The


Facilities 4-48

union contractpermitscustodial staffreductions, aslong as theminimumstaffing levelsare maintained.The reductionof 22 staffmemberswould producean overallsquare footageper custodialstaff of 22,743.The followingtablerepresents thestaffing ifPCSD wouldmakereductions of 15 in theelementaryschools, 5 inthe middleschools, 1 atthe specialschool and 1 attheadministrationbuilding.

Table 4-23: Current Staffing Levels and Proposed Staffing Levels

Building Type

GrossSquareFootage

CurrentFTE

SquareFootage perCustodian Proposed

Staffing

New SquareFootage perCustodian

Elementary 572,119 45 12,714 30 19,071


Facilities 4-49

Middle 299,188 18.7 15,999 13.7 21,839

High 932,202 35.6 26,185 35.6 26,185

Special Schools 19,647 1.9 10,341 .9 19,647

Administrative 31,622 2.25 14,054 1.25 25,298

BusCompoundsand Other 9,000 .5 18,000 .5 18,000

Total 1,863,778 103.95 17,930 81.95 22,743Source: PCSD Business Manager’s Office

Financial Implication: The reduction of 22 custodial staff positions would produce anannual savings for the district of approximately $500,000 in salaries and $150,000 inbenefits.

Table 4-24 compares, by type of school, PCSD’s current staffing level and the proposedstaffing level of 81.95 FTE custodial staff positions to the peer district and the AS&URegion 5 averages. After the reduction, PCSD custodial staff would be responsible forcleaning an average of 22,743 sq. ft. which is 936 sq ft less than the peer district average of23,679.

Table 4-24: Comparison of Current Custodial Staffing Level with theProposed Reduction and Peer Districts

Type of Facility Current StaffingLevel

PCSD AfterStaff Reduction

Number ofPositionsReduced

Peer DistrictAverage

Elementary Schools:Total Square FeetNumber of CustodiansSquare Feet per Custodian

15572,119

4512,714

3019,071

1521,077

Middle Schools:Total Square FeetNumber of CustodiansSquare Feet per Custodian

3299,188

18.715,999

13.721,839

523,922

High Schools:Total Square FeetNumber of CustodiansSquare Feet per Custodian

3932,202

35.626,185

35.626,185

025,973

Special Schools, Administrative


Facilities 4-50

Buildings and OthersTotal Square FeetNumber of CustodiansSquare Feet per Custodian

360,269

4.6512,961

60,2692.65

22,7432

31,971

Total:Total Square FeetNumber of CustodiansSquare Feet per CustodianAS&U Region 5 Average

241,863,778

103.9517,93023,875

81.9522,74323,875

2223,679

Source: PCSD Business Manager’s Office

F4.64 The custodial department uses PCC3 software which is designed to hold all master copiesof material safety data sheets. In accordance with OSHA, the district uses PCC3 to keeptrack of every chemical which is brought into the district. Each chemical must have amaterial data sheet which lists the name of the chemical and where it is located within thedistrict. All chemicals within the vocational, home economics, warehouse, maintenance andmechanic’s shop are stored in this software package.

F4.65 In addition to Data Mate, the district uses other automated systems to help manage custodialand maintenance operations. The custodial supervisor uses PC compliance software whichstores all training information on the custodial and maintenance staff. The software providesthe federal, state and local requirements for safety and health training. The date, theemployee’s name, position and the date of the training are input into the system. Thesoftware tracks every employee and provides information on which employees needadditional training in these areas.

The district uses the Chemventory software package to keep track of all of the chemicals inthe science department and the program generates material safety data sheets for eachchemical. The district uses Chemcom software to keep track of the PH levels, the chlorinelevel and the temperature in all of the district’s pools.

The district uses Maintainit software to track the preventative maintenance for the district’scafeteria equipment. Formerly the district called outside contractors to service the cafeteriaequipment such as refrigerators, stoves, freezers and very often the equipment needed onlyroutine maintenance. The district now uses Maintainit to schedule the custodial staff toconduct routine preventative maintenance on the equipment.

C4.10 The use of software allows the custodial and maintenance departments to operate moreefficiently and safely. The software also allows the district to better maintain its equipmentand potentially avoid costly repairs. However, the purchasing department currently usesACT 1000 software in its operations. This software has modules for inventory, processing


Facilities 4-51

work orders, facility schedule tracking and preventive maintenance which the district is notusing in the custodial or maintenance departments.

R4.22 The district should conduct a central review of technology purchases so that unnecessaryduplicate software is not purchased. (See the Technology section) In addition, themaintenance supervisor should review the ACT 1000 software and assess its possible usein his department.


Facilities 4-52

Buildings and Grounds Operations

F4.66 PCSD has a partially automated work order system that enables the maintenance department to track requests for maintenance repair work. Custodians and principals usually originaterequests for work and send them through intra-district mail to the maintenance department. After receipt, the requests are time and date stamped, evaluated and prioritized by themaintenance supervisor. A clerk enters them into the work order system. In order for a workrequest to be processed, it must contain the date of the request, the location of the repair, adescription of the repairs needed and the signature of the building principal.

The district uses the software package, Service Call, to track work orders. The softwarepackage allows the supervisor to establish a priority for the work order, the estimated hoursto complete the job, a description of the job, the materials and tools needed, the type of tradethat needs to work on the repair, the date the work order was generated and the date the orderwas finished. Service Call also allows the maintenance department to track the status ofoutstanding work orders and monitor the backlog. The cost of the Service Call software wasapproximately $6,000. A maintenance department clerk prints out work orders once a day and gives them to themaintenance supervisor and the foreman. The foremen, and often the supervisor, meet dailywith the maintenance workers at the maintenance work shop to discuss current projects anddistribute work orders. The staff also picks up any necessary tools or equipment beforeleaving for their specific job sites.

The maintenance workers keep track of the time they spend on each work order on a dailywork order log sheet. The employees also document the cost of materials and the date ofcompletion, and provide receipts for any special items that had to be purchased. The dailylog sheets are returned to the business office every two to three days where the informationfrom the log sheets is entered into the Service Call software.

C4.11 Of the school districts for which performance audits have been conducted, PCSD is the firstin which the maintenance department estimates the time it should take to complete a workrequest and compares it to the actual time logged by the worker who completed the work.

F4.67 If the maintenance supervisor prioritizes a work order as an emergency, a staff member isassigned to work on it immediately. The maintenance staff has pagers so they can becontacted immediately to respond to emergency requests. The results of the customer surveyregarding the maintenance department show that the responses were neutral relative to workorders being responded to quickly.

F4.68 The custodial and maintenance departments use a second automated system, Maintainit, tomanage preventive maintenance work orders. The system generates work orders for


Facilities 4-53

preventive maintenance tasks which are sent to the building custodians who are responsiblefor maintaining the machinery and equipment in their buildings. The preventive workorders are sent out to the buildings and returned to the business office when the work iscompleted so that the information can be updated in Maintainit. The use of an automatedpreventive work order system has contributed to the low number of backlogged work orders.The cost of the Maintainit computer software was approximately $500.

C4.12 The goal of a maintenance department is to be proactive in maintaining buildings, equipmentand mechanical systems at regularly scheduled intervals rather than being a reactive system.The potential benefits from a preventive maintenance program include a reduction incustodial and trades overtime, improved worker productivity as a result of planned ratherthan reactive activities, decreased energy consumption from efficiently running equipmentand reduced maintenance and capital expenditures as equipment lasts longer.

F4.69 The maintenance department uses the Keystone 600 computer package to track all of thekeys and lock cores, and maintain a master list of employees to whom keys have been issued.This allows the district to have more control over the number of people that hold keys to thedistrict’s buildings.

C4.13 PCSD is using automation to help manage its maintenance department. These systems allowdistrict officials to better manage maintenance operations and have the potential ofimproving the productivity of the department.

F4.70 The union agreement stipulates that the district will provide the maintenance staff withuniforms. Each maintenance employee receives three uniforms, including shirts and pants. The district rents the uniforms from Cintas Corporation which also launders the uniformson a weekly basis and returns them to the district. The district expended $6,071 for therental and laundering of maintenance uniforms for FY 1997-1998.

F4.71 The maintenance staff has the ability to purchase materials in case of an emergency repair,but must receive approval from the maintenance supervisor before making a purchase. Thesupervisor and the foreman each have a credit card which they allow the maintenance staffto use for emergencies. Also, the district has open accounts with several vendors fromwhom the maintenance staff can purchase supplies in case of an emergency. Themaintenance staff must first receive approval from the supervisor before purchasing suppliesthrough an open account.

F4.72 About every three months, the maintenance department orders small hardware tools such asscrew drivers, pliers and hammers for its staff to replace old unusable tools. Themaintenance department has a tool inventory sheet which each maintenance worker fills out


Facilities 4-54

when receiving the tools. When employees retire or leave the district, they have to returnevery item on the list or pay for any missing items.

F4.73 The district contracts out approximately 10 percent of its work to private contractors. Most of the contracted work is for air conditioning and boiler repairs and large plumbing jobs.Emergency repairs are sometimes contracted out when the work needs to be completedquickly. The union contract states that the district will not contract out work if it can bereasonably done by the bargaining unit.

F4.74 The district recently created a field attendant position. This position is responsible formaintaining and servicing the Byers Field stadium. The field attendant position is under thesupervision of the maintenance department and is a nine-month position. For the remainingthree months of the year, the attendant is a floating substitute for the maintenance andcustodial staff. The district created this position, in part, because events at the stadium wereresulting in the maintenance staff frequently working overtime. The field attendant worksflex time during the week to avoid incurring unnecessary overtime. The attendant does,however, receive overtime pay for working on Saturdays and Sundays. The operation of thestadium still requires overtime from the general maintenance and custodial staff. Thesupervisor of maintenance estimated that it takes approximately four extra workers inaddition to the field attendant to clean up after an event.

F4.75 The maintenance clerk prints a list of backlogged work orders once a month from the workorder system. The listing shows the date the work order was originally requested by theschool, the date it was assigned to a tradesman, a description of the work order, the location,the estimated hours and the priority. A copy of the listing of backlogged work orders isgiven to the business office, the maintenance supervisor and to the working foreman. Table4-25 shows the number of backlogged work orders as of October 23, 1998.


Facilities 4-55

Table 4-25: Listing of Backlogged Work Orders

Type of Work Order

Number of BackloggedWork Orders

Glass/Windows/Doors 10

Electrical 17

Carpentry 9

Plumbing 9

Locksmith 3

Roofing 11

Insulation 1

Boiler, Radiator, Thermostat Maintenance 7

Grounds and Miscellaneous 15

Air conditioning 1

Concrete, Asphalt, Cement 13

Total 96 Source: PCSD Custodial and Maintenance Department

F4.76 The backlogged work consists mostly of requests for tasks such as securing floor tiles,

replacing ceiling tiles and making more serious repairs such as re-cementing concretewalkways, repairing boilers, repairing roofs and replacing doors or windows. Although themaintenance department has a staff of 25, only16 regularly work on work orders for anaverage backlog of six per tradesman. The other nine maintenance employees are assignedto specific buildings and work on routine maintenance tasks and the swimming pools in theirassigned buildings.

The maintenance supervisor stated that the main reason for backlogged work orders is thelarge amounts of vacation and sick time used by employees. The average sick leave formaintenance employees for 1997-98 was 13.4 days. The district offers five weeks ofvacation time after 15 years and most of the maintenance department have been with thedistrict long enough to earn significant amounts of vacation time. Also, the maintenancedepartment substitutes for the custodial department when there is an absence in thatdepartment, which takes time away from maintenance projects.


Facilities 4-56

C4.14 Compared with the peer districts, PCSD’s maintenance department has the lowest number of backlogged work orders as shown in Table 4-26. PCSD is also the only district thatestimates how long it should take staff to complete the work on a specific work order beforeit is assigned to a tradesman and that requires tradesmen to log completion time. This typeof accountability appears to be having a positive effect on the timeliness in which workorders are being completed. In addition, as shown in F4.82, PCSD maintenance staff areresponsible for less square footage than the workers in the peer districts, which shouldimprove their ability to respond promptly to work order requests.

Table 4-26: Comparison of Backlogged Work OrdersDistrict Number of

TradesmenNumber of Backlogged Work

OrdersBacklogged Work Orders per

Tradesman

Parma 16 96 6

Dayton 38 5,638 148

Canton 14 543 39

South-western 25 544 21.8Source: PCSD and peer district’s maintenance departments.

F4.77 The maintenance department hires 2 district bus drivers and 10 to 15 college students to paintbuildings during the summer. The painting crew completes an average of two to threebuildings per summer, so that each building is painted approximately once every sevenyears. The painters are paid $5.50 per hour during the first summer and $6.00 per hourthereafter. They receive no benefits.

C4.15 PCSD has implemented an economical and effective way to paint the district’s buildings. The rotation schedule ensures that each building is painted on a regular basis.

F4.78 The following table shows the average salaries for PCSD maintenance staff as well as thepeer district and AS&U Region 5 averages.


Facilities 4-57

Table 4-27: Trades Department SalariesPosition Average Regular Pay

Maintenance Skilled Worker 38,364Maintenance Worker 29,264Laborer 20,322

PCSD Weighted Average $28,559

Peer districts: Canton

South-Western

Dayton

27,842

32,179

42,207

Peer District Average $34,076

Difference (5,517)

AS&U Region 5 Average $31,221

Difference (2,662) Source: Parma Business Manager’s Office

The weighted average salary for PCSD’s maintenance staff is about 16 percent less than thepeer district average and 8.5 percent less then the AS&U Region 5 median salary formaintenance workers. Inclusion of the laborers in the weighted average skews the averagedownward. If the laborers are removed from the weighted average, the average salary for themaintenance employees is $33,814, which is $262 less than the peer district average and$2,593 more than the AS&U Region 5 average.

F4.79 The following table represents the amount of overtime used by the maintenance departmentfor FY 95-96 and FY 96-97.

Table 4-28: Maintenance Overtime UsagePeriod Total Overtime Paid

FY 1995-96 $23,295

FY 1996-97 $57,466 Source: PCSD Treasurer’s Office


Facilities 4-58

The overtime expenditures for FY 1997-98 were not available from the district. Therefore,the data included in Table 4-28 is an estimate of overtime calculated by subtracting eachmaintenance employee’s W-2 earnings from his base salary for the fiscal year. The datashows that the district experienced an increase in maintenance overtime in FY 1996-97. According to a district official, the maintenance department worked more permit overtimein 1996-97 because the district had laid off some middle school assistant custodians and themaintenance staff incurred overtime that would have been assigned to those assistantcustodians.

Table 4-29: FY 1997-98 Maintenance Overtime Expenditures by District

District

Number ofFull-Time

Tradesmen Salaries OvertimeAmount of Overtime per

Full-Time Tradesmen

Overtime as aPercentage of

Salaries

Parma 25 $813,775 $57,466¹ $2,299 7.1%

South-Western 22 $1,098,270 $37,368 $1,699 3.4%

Canton 13 $404,525 $20,152 $1,550 5.0%

Dayton 50 $1,747,556 $94,833 $1,897 5.4%Source: PCSD Business Office, peer districts1 Parma’s expenditure figures are from FY 1996-97. Overtime information was not available for FY 1997-98.

Table 4-29 shows that PCSD has the highest percentage of overtime paid to the maintenancestaff when compared with the peer districts as well as the highest amount per tradesman. The maintenance supervisor stated two factors that contribute to the high overtime; sportingevents at Byers Field and work on projects after school hours that would be disruptive duringthe school day.

F4.80 Maintenance staff is scheduled to work between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. five days a week. One of the lowest marks in the customer satisfaction survey was for the statement that workis scheduled so that it is not disruptive. Also, one of the most common remarks made byrespondents to the survey was that lawn mowing occurs during school hours and isdisrupting class.

R4.23 PCSD should consider scheduling maintenance employees to work a second shift. Scheduling maintenance employees to work in the evenings would reduce overtime andshould increase productivity since they will not have to work around classes and otheractivities scheduled during the school day. The union contract states that the regular workweek shall consist of five consecutive work days, the specific hours of work are not stated.

F4.81 The following table shows the average square footage for which a PCSD tradesman is


Facilities 4-59

responsible compared to the peer district and AS&U Region 5 averages. PCSD tradesmenaverage 85,000 square feet and the range usually found in school districts is from 80,000 to100,000 square feet. Based upon square footage, it appears that the district has anappropriate number of maintenance workers for the number of facilities maintained by thedistrict.

Table 4-30: Square Footage per Tradesman EmployeeParma City School District 85,333

Peer Districts:

Dayton 118,811

Canton 181,258

South-Western 97,505

Average for Peer Districts 132,525

Difference (47,192)

AS&U Region 5 Average 75,000

Difference 10,333 Source: AS&U 27th Annual Maintenance and Operations Cost Study

PCSD tradesmen are responsible for 10,333 (about 13 percent) more square feet then theAS&U average, and 47,192 (about 36 percent) less square feet then the peer district average.

F4.82 The district does not have a formal equipment replacement policy in place for maintenanceequipment. Equipment is replaced based on criteria such as useful expected life and cost torepair compared with the cost of replacement.

R4.24 PCSD should establish a formal equipment replacement policy which takes several factorsinto consideration such as the manufacturer’s projected life of the equipment, the useful lifeof the equipment the district has experienced and the history of repairs for the individualpiece of equipment.

F4.83 Interviews with maintenance staff and a review of a random sample of 30 percent of themaintenance department employees personnel files showed that maintenance employeesreceive well-documented performance evaluations on an annual basis, in accordance withthe time frame stated in the union agreement.

F4.84 The district has an agreement with the Cities of Parma and Seven Hills to use salt from thecity salt bins on the district’s parking lots and sidewalks. The district pays a fee at the end


Facilities 4-60

of the winter season for the salt. The district decided to use the City of Seven Hills salt binfor the first time this year because it is more efficient than traveling back to the City ofParma to pick up salt.

C4.16 The use of shared services allows the district to more efficiently and effectively salt thedistrict’s parking lots and walkways.

F4.85 The district does not have a formal training program for maintenance employees.Maintenance employees are usually hired in at the laborer level and trained on the job by theskilled and semi-skilled maintenance staff. Hiring relatively unskilled workers at a low leveland training them primarily on-the-job results in the average salary of PCSD’s maintenancestaff being lower than two of the three peer districts, but it also places a burden on thedistrict to ensure that the staff receives adequate training.

R4.25 Since PCSD hires maintenance staff with less experience, the district should establish astructured training program to ensure that they learn the skills required to produce qualitywork. PCSD should establish and document specific training requirements by position. These requirements should include new employee training, types and frequency of trainingand identification of new sources of internal and external training.

Financial Implication: The cost of implementing a training program will vary depending onthe type of training, the frequency, the length, and the quality. Using $200 as an estimateof the training cost per person, the annual cost to train the staff would be about $5,000.


Facilities 4-61

Privatization F4.86 A high level analysis of potential privatization opportunities within the custodial and

maintenance departments was performed. The major facility functions and activities were evaluated with respect to a number of criteria that are important considerations in assessingprivatization opportunities. The criteria used in assessing the privatization opportunities arelisted in Table 4-31.


Facilities 4-62

Table 4-31: Privatization Opportunities Assessment CriteriaAssessment Criteria Description and Key Issues

Sufficient volume? Is the volume of work associated with the function or activity sufficient to justifyinternal performance? Does the function or activity require a sufficient “criticalmass” of resources to enable efficient operations?

Prohibitive controlrequirements?

Are the management, oversight and control requirements associated with externalperformance of the functions excessive? - Would management time requirements increase as a result of external

performance of the function or activity? - Would standardization of work methods and service levels be difficult to

achieve?

Complexity? Is the function or activity too complex to be performed by external resources? - Are the technical skill requirements of the activity excessive? - Are the workload requirements associated with the function or activity

difficult to predict? - Does performance of the function or activity involve complex

coordination requirements among multiple PCSD departments?

Influenced byregulatory/complianceenvironment?

Is the performance of the function or activity regulated? - Are regulatory issues complex? - Are noncompliance liabilities significant? - Are documentation and reporting requirements significant?

Significant capitalinvestment?

Are significant capital investments required in association with the internalperformance of the function or activity?

Procurable services? Are high quality, external service providers available to perform the function oractivity? - Do several alternative service providers exist? - Is the performance of the function or activity unique? - Are high quality resources available?

Significant operating costs? Will the potential benefits of utilizing external resources be likely to offset orexceed the potential costs?

Quality? Is there a high probability that external performance of the function or activitywould reduce quality and service levels? - Would customer complaints likely increase? - Would responsiveness likely decline? - Would the quality of workmanship decrease?

After applying the assessment criteria to the custodial and maintenance functions at PCSD,it appears that they have a high potential for privatization, as shown in Table 4-32.


Facilities 4-63

Table 4-32: Initial Privatization Assessment

Assessment CriteriaCustodialServices Maintenance

Sufficient VolumeProhibitive Control RequirementsComplexityRegulatory InfluenceCapital InvestmentProcurable ServicesOperating CostsQuality

YesNoNoNoNoYesPotentiallyPotentially

YesNoNoNoPotentiallyYesPotentiallyNo

Potential Privatization Opportunity HighLow to

Moderate

F4.87 Between 1989 and 1994, the district contracted with Service Master to fill three supervisorypositions: Director of Buildings and Grounds, Maintenance Supervisor, CustodialSupervisor and two Housekeeping Supervisors. As part of the contract, Service Masterprovided all cleaning supplies and equipment. Service Master also provided an automatedsystem for managing preventive maintenance. From 1989 to 1994, the district paid ServiceMaster approximately $2.5 million for its services.

Although the district was satisfied with the performance of Service Master, it decided notto renew the contract in 1994. There were several reasons for discontinuing the contract. Thedistrict believed that it could provide the services more economically in-house; the districtbelieved that if the supervisory positions were filled with district staff rather than ServiceMaster staff, morale in the custodial and maintenance divisions would improve and thedistrict believed that the community viewed the contract with Service Master as anunnecessary “frill.”

According to the Business Manager, in 1994 the district bought all of the equipment fromService Master. That same year, the district also bought a computer package, Service Call,that produced preventative maintenance schedules similar to the system that Service Masterhad provided.

As discussed in this report, there are some weaknesses in the custodial department andmaintenance departments that are having a negative impact on operating efficiency. Therefore, the costs and service provided by current operations would probably not comparefavorably to those of external providers. However, if the recommended changes containedin this report were implemented, the potential benefits of privatization would not be as great.

While the opportunity for privatization exists, several important factors must be considered:• The district has already attempted to use an external provider of custodial and


Facilities 4-64

maintenance services and found it to be cost inefficient, to have a negative effect onthe morale of maintenance and custodial employees and to lack community support.

• Improvements can be made in current operations without privatization

• Assessing privatization opportunities from only a cost perspective may tend toovershadow important subjective “costs” associated with privatization, such as lossof control and lack of responsiveness.

Initially, privatization when compared to current operations may appear to offer an attractiveopportunity for significant cost savings. In reality, private vendors have a financial incentiveto achieve cost savings at a level somewhere below current operations or most efficientoperations.

R4.26 PCSD should implement the recommendations in this report before assessing whether thedistrict would benefit from privatization.

Financial Implications Summary

The following chart represents a summary of the annual cost savings and implementation costs forthe recommendations in this section of the report. For the purpose of this chart only


Facilities 4-65

recommendations with quantifiable financial impacts are listed.

Summary of Financial Implications for Facilities

RecommendationAnnual Cost

SavingsImplementation

Costs

R4.10 Monitoring time worked by allcustodial staff $30,000 0

R4.13 Renegotiate permit overtime $110,000 0

R4.14 Charging rental fees for use ofthe district’s facilities $165,000 0

R4.15 Utilizing substitutes in lieu ofpaying overtime tocover vacancies $87,000 0

R4.21 Establishing custodial staffinglevels comparable topeer districts $650,000 0

R4.25 Implementing a maintenancetraining program 0 $5,000 (annual)

Total $1,042,000 $5,000

Estimates by the Ohio Legislative Budget Office place the capital cost to repair and upgrade PCSD’sfacilities to the minimum standards and codes for health and safety at $ 119.9 million. Currently, thedistrict is experiencing financial difficulties and does not have the ability to fund the capitalimprovement needs. The district has the ability to use the recommendations listed above topotentially save over $1,000,000 annually. The savings presented in the table provide a means forthe district to address its current financial situation. This table does not include approximately$373,000 of potential savings related to the elementary school closing.


Facilities 4-66

Conclusion Statement

Funding for PCSD’s capital improvement needs, estimated at $119 million, has been limited. Thelast successful capital bond issue was more then 10 years ago and the district does not currently havea revenue stream dedicated to capital needs. In recent years, funding has come from the sale andlease of district buildings. Only $640,000 remains available for use. Due to the financial situation,the district in unable to allocate general fund revenues to fund necessary capital expenditures whichleads to greater future capital maintenance needs.

The district should expand its capital planning process. PCSD needs to develop a facilities masterplan to capture in one document how it plans to address its facility needs over the next 10 years. Aspart of that planning process, the district should prioritize its capital projects on a district-wide basis. In addition, the district should assess the capacity utilization on each of its schools. This type ofplanning is needed to allow the district to prioritize major renovations and to perform long-rangefinancial planning and budgeting for facility improvements. A fully developed facility master planwould also be useful in educating the board of education and the voters on the district’s capitalimprovement needs.

A basic component of capital planning is an accurate capacity analysis for the district’s facilities. The district last assessed its school capacity in 1994 and since that time it has added classrooms andmade renovations to its facilities. An accurate capacity analysis needs to be conducted to allow thedistrict to adequately plan for the future. Particularly important to this analysis are districtdemographics such as student head count, enrollment projections and predicted enrollment changes. PCSD is predicting a small enrollment decline which, if accurate, will reduce its capacity utilizationrate from 91 percent to 89.8 percent in school year 2002-03. At that time, the district may have theoption of closing one elementary school building.

PCSD has funded three energy conservation projects with costs totaling $7.3 million under H.B.264. This law requires participating districts to monitor energy consumption and the resultingoperational and maintenance costs for buildings in which installations, modifications or renovationshave been done. The district must also maintain and update a report documenting the reductions inenergy consumption and have it certified by an independent architect or engineer. PCSD does nothave a current report on file and the actual savings realized to date are unknown. As a result, thedistrict is not in compliance with the requirements of H.B. 264.

PCSD’s custodial and maintenance overtime expenditures are higher than any of its peer districts. This high cost is attributable in part to a district policy that frequently allows community groupsto use its facilities free of charge. When outside groups are not charged a fee, the district mustassume the overtime and operational expenses. In light of its current financial condition, the districtshould consider revising this policy to allow it to recoup costs associated with non-district use ofits facilities.


Facilities 4-67

The district does not generate reports that allow its maintenance and custodial services supervisorsto monitor overtime usage by its employees. Such reports would allow district officials to manageovertime costs more effectively.

The district’s maintenance department appears to be appropriately staffed when compared with peerdistricts and the results of the AS&U survey. Appropriate staffing levels appear to be a factor whichcontributes to the district having the lowest number of backlogged work orders among its peers. Inaddition, PCSD uses a partially automated system to monitor the status of work order requests andto track labor and material costs associated with each request. The district also uses other automatedsystems to track door key distribution, chemicals used in the district and to manage its preventivemaintenance program.

There is no consistent method for custodians to record their work time. Methods vary frompunching in and out on time clocks to writing arrival and departure times on log sheets. A spotcheck of the security reports in seven elementary schools where time clocks are not used showedthat cleaners are leaving before their shifts are over without excused absences. The district shouldconsider implementing an automated time and attendance system for all custodial employees.

Finally, PCSD custodians are responsible for 5,749 fewer square feet than their counterparts in thepeer districts. If the district were to align its custodial staffing level to that of its peers, PCSD couldreduce its custodial staff by about 22 FTEs positions and save approximately $650,000 per year insalaries and benefits. Contractual provisions such as staffing guidelines for custodial personnel andburdensome work rules such as requiring custodians to be paid overtime for permit use of buildingscontribute to inefficiencies in the facilities area. The district should attempt to eliminate or modifythese items in the next round of negotiations to afford greater flexibility in the management of itsresources. Also, the district spent only $3,800 for training which greatly underfunds the necessarytraining to achieve efficiencies in operations.

facilities · 2005-05-03 · parma city school district performance audit facilities 4-4 condition....

Documents