Top 5 Facility Deferred Maintenance Trends for K-12 Schools
By Tim Kittila (PE), Director of Facility Assessments
The unexpected bad news of failed equipment, pipes, boilers, HVAC systems, or roofs doesn’t have to be a budget crusher. There are steps you can take to ensure you have the most accurate data to help school leaders make more informed decisions about facility improvements and move from a reactive mindset to proactive planning. Kraus-Anderson assists K-12 school districts with Facility Condition Assessments (FCAs) and Facility Strategy Planning. These efforts include identifying deferred maintenance, upcoming facility expenditures, and educational adequacy improvements. Based on market information and research data, we identified some of the most consistent trends in upcoming facility maintenance across K-12 facilities in the upper Midwest region.
Our analysis reviewed recent FCA data from 70 facilities in over 12 different districts. We consolidated the data between districts and facilities. The facilities were K-12-type, with an even distribution of elementary, intermediate, middle, and high school facilities. We eliminated specialty buildings such as transportation facilities and administrative buildings. Based upon a review of the facilities focused on the 17 divisions of construction, the following categories were ranked based on the highest costs for expected deferred maintenance and facility expenditures.
Ranked #1: Interior Construction
Interior construction was most frequently the highest cost for facility needs, more than any other category. These items include classroom, security entrance, bathroom, and locker room renovations. This should be no surprise as some items (bathrooms and locker rooms) are higher in revenue, but the quantity of renovation needs was great. These improvements range from simple floor replacements to complete classroom/area-heavy renovation updates. For clarity, these estimates do not include improvements for educational adequacy needs (e.g., STEM classrooms, flexible learning spaces, career and technical education, arts, athletics, etc.).
Ranked #2: Roofs
Roof replacements and preventive maintenance fixes had more #2 cost or priority rankings but received fewer top five rankings than site work and HVAC needs. Roofs are typically large in square footage and consume a lot of district dollars when they are at or near the end of life. Some of those roofs are beyond the remaining useful life and leaking, leading to higher preventative maintenance costs as the district holds off on those renovations until capital is available.
Ranked #3: Site Work
Site work, including parking lots, parking lot lighting, landscaping, drainage, and athletic field improvements, ranks #3, with most of those dollars stemming from the parking lot and parking lot maintenance. Our spring freeze-thaw cycle can be thanked for those maintenance costs. Those same weather trends also impact our athletic fields. Our recent drought forced districts to reinvest in irrigation to maintain grass and fields. The site work category comprises a significant amount of square footage. Parking lots, fields, turf, etc., are expensive to replace when the time comes, largely due to the size of the facilities K-12 districts manage.
Ranked #4: HVAC
We found many end-of-life HVAC systems due to age and condition; therefore, districts were preparing for many projects to update HVAC standards and improve indoor air quality. Although ranked 4th in terms of high cost or priority, you can see by the chart above that HVAC systems had the most consistent cost needs in terms #1 through #4. HVAC improvements in end-of-life systems or indoor air quality are a high expenditure for school districts. One could argue that HVAC and its systems could be ranked #1 if you add the rankings together.
Ranked #5: Electrical and Exterior Envelopes
Closely matched, Electrical and Exterior Envelopes ranked #5. Electrical work was typically for lighting, switchgear replacement, and generator improvement projects. Exterior enclosures included waterproofing needs, caulking, tuck-pointing, window replacement, and the exterior entrance/door replacement— a typical upper Midwest issue with rusted-out frames and doors due to salt usage around doors to prevent slippage.
What did we learn?
While we identified the need for interior construction renovations as #1 ranked, those improvements typically will not impact the operation of a facility (unless it becomes a safety issue). The pandemic highlighted the importance of fresh air being brought into the facility, as well as conditioning and ventilation of interior spaces. Prevention of water migration into the facility is crucial to maintain the integrity of the building structure.
Every school district is different in terms of needs and opportunities. Larger districts often have more opportunities to tap into funding sources (like LTFM funding in MN), giving them the advantage to tackle these deferred maintenance needs. In turn, this improves or lessens the priority rankings, as a result improving the life expectancy of a building. We learned how important a detailed deferred maintenance study is for all school districts. A robust facility study will explain the importance of maintaining a facility and how to prioritize those needs for the community to understand.
Final Thoughts
Funds are limited for schools and must be directed to the most critical steps of operation and function. The best savings for any district is by maintaining your facilities and not being forced into a divest situation. While new schools are exciting and can solve immediate inadequacy issues, it’s not always the best use of community dollars. The main reasons for maintenance and/or preventative maintenance continue to be a function of age, use, and attention. While we do see specific products, materials, and systems with premature failure, for the most part, age and use are the top reasons for replacing various items. Districts with robust preventative maintenance programs are clearly allowing some school districts to get more prolonged use of their equipment and facilities.
Please scan the QR code below for more information and examples of a facility study.
Tim Kittila, Director of Facility Assessments, Kraus-Anderson
Kittila, as director of facility assessments, oversees the company’s growing consulting initiative, which helps building owners in all industries gather valuable insight and data on existing facilities and conditions. KA assessments are a comprehensive review that includes all aspected of a working/operating facility, such as substructure, envelop, interiors, MEP, building site work equipment, technology, and other systems.
Kittila, and the growing assessment team, will manage the delivery of comprehensive Facility Condition Assessments (FCA). The FCA identifies current deferred maintenance, upcoming facility expenditures, and system conditions and develops overall costs and timing for facility projects, which helps determine the status and condition of a facility.
View Comments