At Wednesday night’s Emporia public schools board of education meeting, manager of engineering Bob Ades and services manager Don Flower from ConEdison Solutions in Overland Park, Kan., presented what savings upgrades to district buildings have given Emporia public schools.
Emporia public schools replaced its boiler systems at Emporia High School, Logan Avenue Elementary School, added more efficient light bulbs and ballasts and added low flow toilets and sinks throughout the school district buildings with a project through the Kansas Energy’s Office Facility Conservation Improvement Program that was started by former assistant superintendent of business Susan Hernandez.
Also included in the upgrades was the installation of a solar screen at the operation service center, adding bus engine block heater controls and adding artificial field turf to the Emporia District Stadium located behind the high school where the junior varsity and freshmen football teams, varsity and junior varsity soccer teams, and sometimes Emporia Middle School teams play. The Emporia High School Marching Band also practices there and physical education classes use the field when weather permits.
Buildings included in the project are Emporia High School, Emporia Middle School, Kansas Avenue School, Logan Elementary School, Mary Herbert Education Center, Maynard Early Childhood Center, Riverside Elementary School, Timmerman Elementary School, the operation service center, Village Elementary School, William Allen White Elementary School, Walnut Elementary School and the transportation service center.
Since the improvements to the district buildings, ConEdison Solutions reported that Emporia Public Schools has exceeded the projected savings of $179,918 from August 2010 to August 2011. The total savings to Emporia Public Schools was over $190,000.
The savings came from a reduction in electric, water and gas use.
ConEdison began preliminary work on the project during the spring semester of 2009 with a detailed energy audit of all the Emporia public schools’ buildings. The project was proposed and approved by the board of education in August 2009. By August 2010, Phase One of the project was complete.
The upgrades are part of the Kansas Energy Office’s Facility Conservation Improvement Program, which only certifies vendor companies that guarantee savings for energy efficiency clients if the loan amount for the efficiency upgrades combined with the energy costs exceed the costs of the old system. If the costs are more, the vendor will write a check to Emporia Public Schools for the difference.
“The whole concept behind the energy is to upgrade facilities and infrastructure and pay for it through savings of money that we were already budgeting,” said Scheib.
Phase Two of the energy savings project was to close the Lowther buildings, which will be complete when the new addition to Emporia Middle School opens in January. The closing of the two buildings is projected to save Emporia public schools $175,000 annually in maintenance and utilities. Lowther North was built in 1911 and Lowther South was built in 1925 and used the original heating and cooling systems.
The Emporia public schools board of education approved the content of the of the 2012-13 enrollment bulletin. It will proceed to printing and distribution to students, staff, and parents.
Discussion of the teaching and learning items for the 2012 summer school program was tabled in order for the board of education to submit questions about the program. Discussions will resume at a later date.
A presentation of the 2011 Kansas Communities that Care program were given. Statistics about the use of drugs and alcohol, gang involvement and violence for Emporia were shared.
A report of the preliminary district improvement plan was given Wednesday night. The district improvement plans deals with Emporia public school’s ability to become compliant with No Child Left Behind. The presentation was to get feedback from the board to move forward. The agenda item will continue to be discussed at a later date.
trainrech (anonymous) says...
I read this article several times, but nowhere did I find how much we spent to realize these savings.
December 16, 2011 at 6:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
Exactly what I was thinking. Plus, how much of these savings were negated due to the rising price of diesel fuel for the buses? Maybe the district should think about initiating a walk/bike to school program. It could be as simple as if you walked or biked to school, then you could leave 5-10 mins early, or something along those lines. That could be a huge savings in fuel costs alone.
April 6, 2012 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, to " Reap " a savings of approx. $190,000 the school board, district spent, let me see, a millon or several million dollars for the " Carpet " at the Emporia District Stadium, another several million dollars for the purpose of " aleviating over crowding, transitions and energy savings" by adding on to the Middle School and as I understand that is not " working out " too well .
And all in all spending millions of dollars, to eliminate/close two perfectly good school buildings for a savings of approx. $ 190,000 is not a very good return on the initial investment of millions of dollars, especially when apparently there is still an overcrowding and transition problem that exists in the Middle School and elsewhere .
I will put my neck out and predict that in the very near future the school board/school district will again be demanding more taxpayer funding and again raising the tax mil levy !
And so the " Good Life of the Emporia taxpayer " continues, like a Soap Opera, called " Days Of Our Overtaxed , Emporia, Ks./Lyon County LIves " or maybe " As the World Of The Emporia/Lyon County, Kansas Taxpayer Turns " !
I say the above out of frustration, as life in Emporia, Kansas, Lyon County has gotten or rather, been like a T.V. Soap Opera . The same old " I want, Lets Spend, Then raise Taxes, to pay for the Wants or Whims " of some " . And this is what everyone has to look forward to each and every day, day in and day out in Emporia, Kansas, the " Land/City of AHHH DAMN, here we go Again " !
JMO
April 6, 2012 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I too read it again in search of how much we spent. However, the article does state that somebody named Schieb said, “The whole concept behind the energy is to upgrade facilities and infrastructure and pay for it through savings of money that we were already budgeting,” said Scheib.
Perhaps whoever Scheib is could explain further, or we could be provided with an ongoing accounting of how that is working as time goes by.
I can only guess that all of this was obtained with a project loan through Con Edison and will be paid back with savings like Scheib says.
The reading public shouldn't have to guess.
Also, I'm surprised that Timmerman and Riverside had to have work done. My gosh, those are brand new schools. However, having been at Olpe when they did quite a lot of renovation with the new gym and commons area addition, I remember some of the work had to be redone more than once. This is what happens when projects are awarded to the low bidder. Those contractors are going to cut every corner they can.
April 7, 2012 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, the one thing that bothers me is who is " Monitering " the energy savings to the schoold district ?
I certainly hope that the school administrators, school maintenance, school district, school board are " Monitering " the savings and not solely taking ConEd's word or the word of the Kansas Energy Office’s Facility Conservation Improvement Program on the amount of savings .
As I can't see either ConEd or the Kansas Energy Office’s Facility Conservation Improvement Program/State writing a check to the School Board/School District or the taxpayers for the difference, as stated in the following statement, The upgrades are part of the Kansas Energy Office’s Facility Conservation Improvement Program, which only certifies vendor companies that guarantee savings for energy efficiency clients if the loan amount for the efficiency upgrades combined with the energy costs exceed the costs of the old system. If the costs are more, the vendor will write a check to Emporia Public Schools for the difference. "
What is the length of time that must pass to compair energy cost savings to initial costs of improvements, 1year, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years and does the cost of improvements include amount of interest paid on cost of improvements loans ? After all, interest on loans should also be considered as a " Total Cost of Improvements ", shouldn't it ?
JMO
April 7, 2012 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Also, is the rate increase by Westar, to compensate Westar for their so called maintenance costs, being taken into account in these, " so called " energy cost savings to the millions spent to save energy by the school boad/district ?
You see, no one, absolutely no one can guarantee anything, when there are outside variables that can " influence, throw the perverbial Monkey Wrench into the best laid plans of Mice and Men " !!
Kinda Funny how things work in the Real World isn' t it ?
April 7, 2012 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmakinDo (anonymous) says...
Man! You guys are so skeptical...tsk-tsk.
Seriously though, there are so many missing pieces of information in this story that it invites skepticism.
I am not an expert on energy savings, but i've had some experience with some "HE" or high efficiency products and i have to say, have seen real savings in every case.
Our business uses a lot of hot water daily and went from a boiler system to HE water heaters that are phenomenal. We've got two units stacked that take up less than a quarter of the space of the old boiler unit. The ease of working on and maintaining them is almost enough to justify the switch; but the savings in our fuel costs are about 30%. At the risk of sounding like a salesman, they really have paid for themselves.
"...More efficient light bulbs and ballasts and added low flow toilets and sinks..."
There have been major advances in those technologies over the years so except for the low flow sinks (because they suck to use, not because they are inefficient) no doubt that was money well spent.
"...installation of a solar screen at the operation service center..."
probably good.
"...adding bus engine block heater controls..."
simple, cheap, should have been done years ago.
And then there's "the turf" behind the high school.
Well the jury is still out on that one; is it not? Man that thing was expensive.
Still, overall these should prove to be good investments.
April 7, 2012 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
I also wonder how much of the savings came from gas. My guess is a great deal. It's a LOT easier to heat a building when it's 50 outside compared to when it's 15. I think the biggest chunk of savings was due to record breaking high temperatures.
Matt
April 7, 2012 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmakinDo (anonymous) says...
No doubt that is why they saved more than they expected this year Matt.
April 7, 2012 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )