Unionville-Chadds Ford
School District
Custodial and Grounds
Operations Review Study
Visitation Conducted May 2 - 3, 2011
Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials
P. O. Box 6993
Harrisburg, PA 17112-0993
(717) 540-9551
Fax (717) 540-1796
www.pasbo.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................2
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................4
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ...........................................................................................................5
A. BENCHMARKING ..................................................................................................................11
B. CUSTODIAL STAFFING STANDARDS ...............................................................................20
C. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS - CUSTODIAL ......24
D. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS - GROUNDS .........28
E. BEST PRACTICES IN SCHOOL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ...........................................33
APPENDIX A – Custodial Staffing Time Studies
APPENDIX B – Outline of Agronomic Program
APPENDIX C – Playground Inspection Form
APPENDIX D – Monthly Custodial Cleaning Level Inspection Form
2
INTRODUCTION
A custodial and grounds operational review of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District was
conducted under the administration of the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials
(PASBO). This study was conducted at the request of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School
District. Members of the PASBO Study Team included:
William McGill, PRSBA, RSBA
William L. McGill, PRSBA, RSBA, Director of Technical Assistance for PASBO, has extensive
experience in school business and facilities management. Prior to his current position with
PASBO, Mr. McGill was the Director of Business Affairs at the East Stroudsburg Area School
District. During his tenure at East Stroudsburg Area School District, Mr. McGill also served in
the capacity of Support Services Administrator where Facilities Management was one of his
responsibilities.
Wayne McCullough, MBA, PRSBA
Wayne McCullough is the Director of Administrative Services and Board Secretary at the
Southern York County School District. Mr. McCullough is considered one of the true experts in
the field of school operations and facilities management. He is the author of the PASBO’s
“Elements of Facilities Management” and received PASBO’s 2003 Award of Achievement in
recognition of the outstanding practice: “A Guidance Document for Planning, Design, and
Construction of Major Projects Using the Design Team Concept.” Mr. McCullough began
serving his term as PASBO’s President on July 1, 2010. Mr. McCullough has served as a
Director on PASBO’s Board, Vice President, Chair of the Facilities Committee, and Chair of the
Materials Management (Purchasing) Committee. In addition, Mr. McCullough served as vicepresident of the Central Regional School Facility Managers from 1991-2006. Mr. McCullough
has chaired numerous PASBO consulting projects, including Pittsburgh City School District,
William Penn School District, New Kensington-Arnold School District, Downingtown School
District, Williamsport School District, Schuylkill Valley School District, and Dover Area School
District. Mr. McCullough also serves as an adjunct professor for Wilkes University, teaching
courses in facilities management, purchasing, and student transportation in their Master of
School Business Leadership program. Mr. McCullough co-authored PASBO’s “Elements of
Transportation” and has been a speaker at numerous workshops and seminars, including
PASBO’s School Operations Academy.
Craig Boltz, PRSBO
Craig Boltz is the Director of Buildings and Grounds at the Lebanon School District. Mr. Boltz
has thirty years experience as a facilities director having worked for three Pennsylvania public
school districts. His active membership in PASBO includes having been elected to the PASBO
Board of Directors in 2008, serving as chair of the Facilities Committee for five years, a member
of the PASBO Safety committee and serving the Lancaster/Lebanon Plant Managers Group as
president for two years and secretary for three years. Mr. Boltz received PASBO’s 1995 Award
of Achievement in recognition of the outstanding practice: “Your Maintenance Department as
3
Clerk of the Works.” In addition Mr. Boltz was named the 2007 recipient of PASBO’s
prestigious Gary Reeser Memorial Award, for the outstanding school business official of the
year. Mr. Boltz has been a speaker at numerous workshops and seminars, including PASBO’s
School Operations Academy.
Ed Poprik, PRSBO
Ed Poprik has over 20 years of experience in school business serving as the Director of Physical
Plant at State College Area School District for the past twelve years. Prior to this position, Mr.
Poprik was employed in a similar capacity with the Rose Tree Media School District. Mr.
Poprik is a graduate of the Pennsylvania State University. He was selected for the esteemed
Association of School Business Officials Facilities Masters Award in 2005-2006. Mr. Poprik
has recently been appointed Chair of PASBO’s Facilities Committee and was the principal
author of the criteria for the PASBO Award of Excellence in School Facilities. He also served on
the document review team for the “Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities,” published
by ASBO in 2003. He was founding member and the first President of the Mid Penn Facility
Managers Regional Chapter. Mr. Poprik has been a speaker at numerous workshops and
seminars including the PASBO School Operations Academy and the PASBO Elements of
Facilities Management Series.
4
BACKGROUND
Qualified consultants and team members (Study Team) under the direction of the Pennsylvania
Association of School Business Officials conducted a study of the Custodial and Grounds
Maintenance Operations of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District with an emphasis on the
organizational structure and general operations, including an examination of the daily routine as
the primary comparative focus. The Study Team visited the School District on May 2-3, 2011.
The results of this visit are included in this report.
5
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The Study Team spent two days at the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District meeting with
district staff, visiting schools and facilities, and reviewing district provided documents. The
primary charge of the Team was to study the Custodial and Grounds Maintenance Operations of
the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District with an emphasis on the organizational structure and
general operations, including an examination of the daily routine as the primary comparative
focus.
The Study Team and the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District leadership agreed to the
following objectives for this project:
A.
Refine the project goals and objectives with the Superintendent, Director of Business and
Operations, Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds, and other identified personnel for the
Unionville-Chadds Ford School District prior to starting this project.
B.
Review the overall organizational structure and budget of the District’s Custodial and
Grounds Maintenance Operations, including, but not necessarily limited to, staffing
levels for custodial and maintenance employees and an examination of overtime and
other costs of the operation, given the bargaining agreements in place, while still
maintaining appropriate standards.
C.
Review the decision-making process as it relates to performance/completion of the
custodial/grounds maintenance operations in an effort to insure that the District is making
the most cost effective use of resources.
D.
Analyze and review current job descriptions and the organizational structure including
job functions, job assignments and assessment of the level of job skills needed to perform
position responsibilities.
E.
Provide for in-depth interviews with the Superintendent, Director of Business and
Operations, Supervisor of Building & Grounds, District head custodians, District grounds
maintenance personnel, and other District staff as deemed appropriate.
F.
In addition, emphasis regarding custodial operations will specifically be placed on:
a. A review of the custodial program for quality, effectiveness and efficiency.
b. Offering an opinion as to the whether (1) the School District should continue their
custodial operations in-house without modification; (2) continue their custodial
operations in-house with suggested improvements; (3) consider outsourcing their
custodial operations; or (4) some hybrid of the above.
6
c. Identification of the advantages and disadvantages of each option including short
term and long term financial impact to labor, materials, and capital expenditures.
This data shall also include the experiences of other similar school districts.
d. Review the district operated custodial operations at each District facility consisting of
4 elementary schools, 1 middle school, 1 high school, 1 transportation facility, and 1
maintenance facility.
e. Review all aspects of the School District’s custodial program including, but not
limited to:
1. Cleaning methods, products and equipment
2. Level of cleaning based on AAPA guidelines or similar industry acceptable
publication
3. Square footage per custodian
4. Number of students per custodian
5. Comparison to similar school districts
6. Level of staffing by shift
7. Number and type of positions
8. Needs due to extracurricular activities
9. Non-custodial related tasks
10. Training
11. Cost per square foot
12. Cost per student
13. Work Schedules
G.
In addition, specific emphasis regarding grounds maintenance operations will be placed
on:
a.
Review of the Grounds program for quality, effectiveness and efficiency.
b. Offering an opinion as to whether (1) the School District should continue their
Grounds operations in-house without modification; (2) continue their operations inhouse with suggested improvements; (3) consider outsourcing their Grounds
operations; or (4) some hybrid of the above.
c. Identification of the advantages and disadvantages of each option including short
term and long term financial impact of labor, materials, and capital expenditures.
This data shall also include the experiences of other similar school districts.
d. Review all aspects of the district operated grounds operations at the District at its 4
elementary schools, 1 middle school, 1 high school, 1 transportation facility, and 1
maintenance facility. This review will also include the approximately 130 acres of
land, 30 athletic fields, and the maintenance of 3 Wastewater Treatment Plants.
e. Review all aspects of the School District’s Grounds program including, but not
limited to:
7
1. Mowing program
2. Equipment inventory and management
3. Lawn care program
4. Athletic field layout
5. Athletic field maintenance and care program
6. Landscape maintenance and care program
7. Herbicide and Pesticide program
8. Wastewater Treatment Plant program
9. Staffing levels
10. Cost
11. Needs due to extracurricular activities
12. Training
13. Staff certifications
14. Snow removal
15. Non grounds related tasks
H.
Collect and analyze School District statistical data:
a.
Organizational Charts for Custodial and Grounds Maintenance Operations
b.
Job Descriptions for Custodial and Grounds Maintenance Operations
c.
Visit and conduct cursory inspections of selected schools and major auxiliary
buildings to determine existing conditions and typical service demands.
d.
Review of the following reports, documents and information:
1. District and department budgets/expenditures data, including wages,
contracted services, supplies, utilities, equipment and capital long-range
plans
2. AFR documentation of the 2600 accounts
3. Department purchasing procedures and documentation with access to
purchase orders as needed
4. Materials and supplies specifications for the current year
5. Support Personnel bargaining agreements
6. Staff training documentation, including Right-to-Know and asbestos
awareness
7. Data for each school building to include number of students, number of
classrooms, total square feet, number of teachers and total acres
8. Bid documents for the current and previous fiscal years
9. Any Mandate Waivers received as they relate to this Study
10. Documentation relating to quotation process
11. Listing of recent construction projects and a listing of change orders (may
need access to project files) if applicable
8
I.
J.
Provide an exit conference prior to leaving the School District.
Prepare a comprehensive report identifying directors, clerical and other staff support for
District Custodial and Grounds Operations. The final Report will address the aspects as
described within the content of this Proposal.
K.
Upon completion of the review, a draft of the report will be delivered and reviewed with
the Superintendent and Supervisor of Building & Grounds of the Unionville-Chadds Ford
School District, and others that they determine appropriate.
L.
Fifteen (15) copies of the approved final written report will be provided.
M.
If requested, a presentation of the final report will be made to the organization
membership designated at a date and time mutually acceptable. The cost of the
presentation was not part of the initial proposal and will be presented for acceptance prior
to the presentation.
The following is the list of individuals interviewed by the Study Team during the visitation:
Sharon Parker, Superintendent
Robert Cochran, Director of Business and Operations
Rick Hostetler, Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds
Paula Massanari, Principal, Unionville High School
Mark Kline, Head Custodian, Unionville High School
Bruce Vosburgh, Principal, Charles F. Patton Middle School
James Fulginiti, Assistant Principal, Charles F. Patton Middle School
Dave Quaintance, Head Custodian, Charles F. Patton Middle School
Paul Heron, Head Mechanic (Grounds)
Mark Ransford, Principal, Chadds Ford Elementary School
Bonnie Eroh, Head Custodian, Chadds Ford Elementary School
Stan Jones, Custodian, Chadds Ford Elementary School
Dr. Andrew McLaughlin, Principal, Pocopson Elementary School
Sharon Towber, Head Custodian, Pocopson Elementary School
Anthony Massari, Head Custodian, Hillendale Elementary School
Brett Culberson, Head Custodian, Unionville Elementary School
The following is the list of individuals who attended the Study Team’s Exit Conference on
May 3, 2011:
Sharon Parker, Superintendent
Robert Cochran, Director of Business and Operations
Rick Hostetler, Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds
9
The list of documents viewed by the PASBO Study Team during the visitation to the
Unionville-Chadds Ford School District is as follows:
A. Notebook: Unionville-Chadds Ford School District Custodial/Grounds Review – May
2011
TABS:
1. Building Information
a. Student Population
b. Rooms/Square Footage
2. Building Statistics
a. Athletic Fields
b. Map of HS/MS Complex
c. Parking Lot Sizes
d. Building Floor Plans
i. Unionville High School (A Floor; B Floor; C Floor)
ii. Charles F. Patton Middle School (1st Floor; 2nd Floor)
iii. Chadds Ford Elementary School (Basement; 1st Floor; 2nd Floor)
iv. Hillendale Elementary School (Grounds Floor; 1st Floor)
v. Pocopson Elementary School (1st Floor; 2nd Floor)
vi. Unionville Elementary School (Basement; 1st Floor; 2nd Floor)
3. AFR/PASBO Study
a. 2010 PASBO Maintenance & Custodial Benchmarking Survey
4. Capital Improvement Plan
a. 2005-2006 through 2009-2010 Plan
b. Items to Include in the Long-Range Plan – February 2011 (by building)
5. Work Orders
a. Copy of Typical Work Order (eMaint Web – 2002 by eMaint Enterprises,
LLC)
6. Preventative Maintenance
7. Agronomic plan
a. Annual Turf Management Program
b. Grounds Tasks – off Season
8. Employee Handbook
a. Organizational Chart – Building & Grounds Department
b. Job Descriptions
i. Custodian – Day Shift
ii. Custodian – Night Shift
iii. Second Shift Supervisor Custodian
iv. Head/Assistant/Skilled Mechanic – Grounds
9. Cleaning Procedures
a. Daytime Custodial Tasks
b. Chemical Cleaning System – Unionville High School (Hillyard Chemicals
Arsenal II)
10
c. Chemical Cleaning System – Charles F. Patton Middle School (Twist-N-Fill
Dispensing Systems Trumixs System)
d. Chadds Ford Elementary School (3-M Twist-N-Fill Cleaning System)
e. Hillendale Elementary School
f. Pocopson Elementary School (Envirox)
g. Unionville Elementary School (Envirox/H2 Orange)
10. Staff Evaluation
a. Support Staff Evaluation
b. Custodial Inspection Sheet
c. Custodial Feedback Form
11. RTK Documentation
a. Right-to-know Training Signature Sheets
12. Asbestos
Environmental Control Systems, Inc.
Environmental Engineers and Consultants
950 Sussex Boulevard, Broomall, PA 19008
a. February 16, 2010 – Report on 02/02 non-destructive investigation &
collected bulk samples of suspect asbestos containing materials
b. AHERA 3-Year Re-inspection Report (December 2010)
13. IPM
a. Integrated Pest Management Staff Information Sheet (IPM Plan)
b. Letter to Parents/Guardians
c. Integrated Pest Management Pest Sighting Log
d. Notice of Pesticide Application
e. Intent to Apply Pesticides
14. Equipment
a. Custodial Equipment Inventory by Building
B. District-Wide Facilities Study, Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, Unionville,
Pennsylvania by KCBA Architects (2005)
C. Annual Financial Report (2009-2010)
11
A. BENCHMARKING
The following benchmarking data is designed to provide Unionville-Chadds Ford School District
with a valuable management tool. Facilities benchmarking is a process that analyzes base data
provided by the Unionville-Chadds School District and compares that data to standard
benchmarks of other Pennsylvania school districts, school districts in the same region of the
state, and school districts of similar size. The PASBO Team recommends that the benchmarks
should not be considered absolutes, but rather a means of comparison to other school districts. In
essence, benchmarking is a tool that brings an important objectivity to the analysis of
performance and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the facilities operation.
It is important to note that the benchmarking data representing other school districts is the
median for that category. The median represents the number that is midway in the range of
values – that point at which an equal number of school districts fall above and below. The data
represents 2009-2010 data from 252 Pennsylvania school districts, 33 school districts in region 6
(southeast corner of the state to include the Philadelphia suburban area – school districts serviced
by Intermediate Units 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26), and 85 school districts with a student population of
between 3,000 and 6,999 students.
It should be understood that the information contained in this section of the report is strictly
quantitative, and does not address the quality of buildings and ground maintenance.
Fourteen key measures were selected as being information most useful to the Unionville-Chadds
Ford School District. These 14 measures are:
1. Maintenance expenditures as a percent of total expenditures.
2. Maintenance expenditures per square foot of instructional building space.
3. Contracted Services per square foot of instructional space.
4. Total building and grounds salaries per square foot of instructional space.
5. Custodial salaries per square foot of instructional space.
6. Supervisory/Other salaries per square foot of instructional space.
7. Instructional square feet per total Buildings and Grounds FTE.
8. Instructional square feet per Custodial FTE.
9. Instructional square feet per Supervisory/Other FTE.
10. Acres, per Grounds FTE.
11. Total maintenance expenditures per student.
12. Average annual salary of all Building and Ground FTE.
13. Average annual salary of Custodial FTE.
14. Number of Custodial, Skilled and Grounds FTEs per Supervisory/Other FTE.
12
Definitions
Median: The midpoint in a range of values. That point at which an equal number of school
districts fall above and below.
Maintenance Expenditures: The total amount spent in Building Operations, less the cost of
utilities. This is the figure whenever the term “Maintenance Expenditures” is used.
Utilities: The combined cost of gas, electricity, other heating fuels, water and sewer.
Instructional Space: Includes classrooms, corridors, gymnasiums, and swimming pools, along
with associated spaces. Does not include maintenance buildings. The information related to
square feet was provided by the school district and includes post-renovation high school square
feet.
FTE: Full time equivalents. The number of individuals in a work category. Where “Total
Building and Grounds FTE” is used it includes personnel, even when the ratio is expressed in
square feet of building space.
Salaries: All payroll dollars, including overtime and paid time off. This category does not
include the cost of fringe benefits.
Custodial: Those individuals assigned the tasks in building cleanliness, although it is understood
that their duties sometimes involve other, non-cleaning tasks. Forty-three (43) custodians were
assigned to this category.
Grounds: Six (6) grounds staff were assigned to this category as an estimate to the amount of
time spent on grounds work.
Skilled Trades/Maintenance: Seven (7) maintenance staff were assigned to this category
representing the staff that handles the more technical aspects of building and equipment repair
and upkeep.
Supervisory/Other: Those individuals who provide supervision and support to the maintenance
and housekeeping effort, but do not perform those tasks directly. The Supervisor of Buildings &
Grounds and one Secretary were assigned to this category.
Right to Know Program: The PA “Right to Know” regulations are designed to provide
knowledge, warning, protection and training to employees who may be exposed to hazards of
chemicals and other materials.
13
1. Maintenance Expenditures as a Percent of Total Expenditures – Utility expenses were
subtracted from Total Buildings Operations, to arrive at “Maintenance Expenditures.”
Maintenance Expenditures were divided by Total General Fund Expenditures to arrive at a
percentage of the total budget that is devoted to Maintenance. This shows the emphasis put on
maintenance of facilities and helps identify the district’s commitment to its investment in the
physical plant. Unionville-Chadds Ford School District expends 6.40% of its budget on
maintenance expenditures, which is very similar to others in the state and region.
2.
Maintenance Expenditures per Square Foot of Instructional Space – This is the most
important first step in determining if you have opportunities to reduce expenses, and is often
used grouped with information found in Chart 1 to get a good view of the district’s maintenance
expenditures. To analyze this data, maintenance expenditures were divided by instructional
square footage.
14
3. Contracted Services Per Square Foot of Instructional Space – Contracted Services should
be looked at in conjunction with salaries, since outside contractors may be used instead of hiring
employees directly. Typically, districts that expend heavily in the contracted services are able to
reduce expenditures in maintenance salaries and vice versa. Unionville-Chadds Ford School
District is well below the state median in this category due to the amount of large amount of
quality work that is completed using in-house personnel.
4. Total Buildings and Grounds Salaries per Square Foot of Instructional Space –
Statewide, salaries account for about half of total maintenance costs, and if fringe benefits were
added, more than half of the total. The total salaries paid to buildings and grounds were divided
by instructional square footage. Overall, Unionville-Chadds Ford School District spends $0.24
less in total buildings and grounds salaries per square foot of instructional space than other
school districts in the same region of the state.
15
5. Custodial Salaries per Square Foot of Instructional Space – Statewide, custodial salaries
account for more that two-thirds of all salaries in maintenance and usually offers the biggest
opportunity for gains through staffing improvements. Unionville-Chadds Ford School District
spends $0.12 less per square foot for custodial salaries than other school districts in the same
region of the state.
6.
Supervisory/Other Salaries per Square Foot of Instructional Space – This category
includes those employees who are not directly engaged in cleaning and maintaining buildings,
grounds and equipment. The full costs for one supervisor (Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds)
and one Secretary. The cost in this area is $0.08 per square foot below school districts in the
same region of the state.
16
7. Instructional Square Feet per Total Buildings and Grounds FTE – Instructional square
feet per FTE is the most important measurement of staff productivity. This data chart considers
all staff (including supervisors, custodians, maintenance and grounds) and is therefore is a global
barometer. Unionville-Chadds Ford School District is below the medians in this area.
Instructional Square Feet per Custodial FTE – This is a measurement of productivity
in terms of square feet per custodian.
8.
17
Instructional Square Feet per Supervisory/Other FTE – This category includes those
employees who are not directly engaged in cleaning and maintaining buildings, grounds and
equipment. This would suggest that Unionville-Chadds Ford School District is not overstaffed in
supervisory employees for the operations & maintenance functions of the District.
9.
10. Acres, per Ground FTE – The FTE for Grounds staff is compared to the gross acreage
maintained is analyzed here as a very general evaluation. The amount of acres per Grounds FTE
is approximately 55% less than other school districts in the state. This number suggests that the
amount of staff assigned to grounds is high. The Study Team did note, however, the condition of
the grounds as excellent and has already noted that staff time from this category is used to
support the skilled maintenance staff during winter months. Also, this number is expected to be
lower than median due to the low amount spent on contracted services. Please note the
District’s waste water operator is included in the grounds staff, which causes this number
to be lower than actual.
18
11.
Total Maintenance Expenditures per Student – In addition to building square feet and
acres, the number of students has an impact on the cost of maintenance.
12. Average Annual Salary of All Buildings and Grounds FTE – Total salaries paid were
divided by total FTEs to arrive at the average annual salary for all categories, and for each
category, as shown in the graphs following this one. This figure does not include fringe benefits,
but is a direct comparison of wages. Again, the regional comparison is the most important.
19
13. Average Annual Salary of Custodial FTE – This figure does not include fringe benefits,
but is a direct comparison of wages. Again, the regional comparison is the most important.
14. Number of Custodial, Skilled and Grounds FTEs per Supervisory/Other FTE – This
ratio indicates the amount of supervision and support personnel used in the buildings and
grounds area. The FTEs in custodial, skilled trades/maintenance and grounds was divided by the
FTEs for one supervisors and one secretary.
20
B. CUSTODIAL STAFFING STANDARDS
The PASBO Facilities Management Committee recently updated a staffing formula used to
project the number of full time equivalent custodians required to clean school buildings. The
formula utilizes the following factors: (1) number of teachers divided by 9, (2) number of
students divided by 300 for elementary schools or 200 for secondary schools, (3) the number of
teaching stations divided by 12, (4) building square feet divided by 16,000, and (5) number of
washroom fixtures divided by 35. The average of all five factors determines the number of
cleaning custodians needed.
The staffing formula provides a benchmark for determining the number of custodians needed.
Other factors to consider include: (a) Level of expectation - the level of cleanliness expected by
the district and delivered by the staff. If marginal cleanliness is acceptable, fewer custodians will
be needed; (b) Automation - a custodial staff with adequate equipment can clean a building with
less manpower. The Study Team observed the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District provides
an adequate level of automation. More commentary about this will be found later in this report;
(c) Services rendered – it is the observation of the Study Team that the Unionville-Chadds Ford
School District buildings have a high level of cleanliness, are well maintained, and custodians
are called upon to provide services to staff above and beyond cleaning the buildings; (d)
Comparisons - benchmarking data found previously in this report provides supporting
documentation by comparing not just staffing levels to other districts but also the costs for that
staffing; and (e) Contract obligations – negotiated items in the labor agreement usually impacts
the number of custodians needed by a school district.
The PASBO staffing formula indicates there may be opportunities to reduce staff.
It should be noted that the summer workers utilized annually were not included in the staffing
formula due to the nature of their work.
5-Factor Staff Sizing Formula
A. Teacher Factor
1 custodian for each 9 teachers (instructional stations)
B. Students Factor
1 custodian for 300 students (elementary) or 1 custodian for 200 students
(secondary)
C. Room Factor
1 custodian for each 12 teaching stations to be cleaned
D. Square Foot Factor
1
E. Washroom Fixtures
Factor
1 custodian for every 35 washroom fixtures
F. Add All factors
Total of A + B + C + D + E
G. Divide by 5
Value determined in Step F Divided by 5
H. Result
Recommended custodial staff size
custodian for each 16,000 square feet
21
Building
Existing Custodial Staff
(includes head custodians)
Unionville High School
Patton Middle School
Chadds Ford Elementary School
Hillendale Elementary School
Pocopson Elementary School
Unionville Elementary School
TOTAL
12.0
9.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
43.0
PASBO Formula
Recommended Custodial
Staff
13.0
8.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
4.0
36.0
Unionville High School
Teacher Factor: 100 divided by 9
11.11
Student Factor: 1,394 divided by 200
6.97
Teaching Space Factor: 215 divided by 12
17.92
Building Size Factor: 343,789 divided by 16,000 21.49
Washroom Fixtures Factor: 286 divided by 35
8.17
STAFFING RECOMMENDATION
13.0
ACTUAL
12.0
Notes: Post renovation numbers were used in the calculations.
Charles F. Patton Middle School
Teacher Factor: 76.9 divided by 9
8.54
Student Factor: 982 divided by 200
4.91
Teaching Space Factor: 105 divided by 12
8.75
Building Size Factor: 166,960 divided by 16,000 10.44
Washroom Fixtures Factor: 169 divided by 35
4.83
STAFFING RECOMMENDATION
8.0
ACTUAL
9.0
22
Chadds Ford Elementary School
Teacher Factor: 26.2 divided by 9
Student Factor: 329 divided by 300
Teaching Space Factor: 48 divided by 12
Building Size Factor: 69,294divided by 16,000
Washroom Fixtures Factor: 85 divided by 35
STAFFING RECOMMENDATION
ACTUAL
2.91
1.10
4.00
4.33
2.43
3.0
5.0
Hillendale Elementary School
Teacher Factor: 27.5 divided by 9
Student Factor: 376 divided by 300
Teaching Space Factor: 47 divided by 12
Building Size Factor: 64,997 divided by 16,000
Washroom Fixtures Factor: 68 divided by 35
STAFFING RECOMMENDATION
ACTUAL
3.06
1.25
3.92
4.06
1.94
3.0
5.0
Pocopson Elementary School
Teacher Factor: 46.6 divided by 9
Student Factor: 592 divided by 300
Teaching Space Factor: 75 divided by 12
Building Size Factor: 98,135 divided by 16,000
Washroom Fixtures Factor: 156 divided by 35
STAFFING RECOMMENDATION
ACTUAL
5.18
1.97
6.25
6.13
4.46
5.0
6.0
23
Unionville Elementary School
Teacher Factor: 32.4 divided by 9
Student Factor: 429 divided by 300
Teaching Space Factor: 66 divided by 12
Building Size Factor: 94,307 divided by 16,000
Washroom Fixtures Factor: 111 divided by 35
STAFFING RECOMMENDATION
ACTUAL
3.60
1.43
5.50
5.89
3.17
4.0
6.0
24
C. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS –
CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the recommendation of the Study Team that the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District
keep custodial operations in-house with improvements. Data supports the conclusion that the
most cost-effective solution is in-house custodial operations with improvements. This
recommendation is also based on the Study Team’s observation of a custodial staff that is
meeting an overall outstanding level of cleanliness. We mention this, because it is our
overwhelming experience that this level of service is not achieved with outside contracted
custodial services.
Issues related to outsourcing include the need to consider matters of quality (cleanliness,
responsiveness, satisfaction), flexibility (special events, emergencies), management control, risk
(safety and security), knowledge of the facility, and human factors. The Study Team notes these
issues because the levels of cleanliness, responsiveness, satisfaction, and flexibility are currently
outstanding. School leaders frequently need to respond quickly to unanticipated situations.
When outsourcing restricts flexibility, it may not be serving the best interest of the students.
The ultimate restriction on flexibility occurs when school districts cannot get out of contracts
when they deem it necessary. If a district finds a service is unsatisfactory, whether from poor
quality or because it’s too costly, school officials may seek to terminate the contract. However
breaking a legal arrangement can be daunting and expensive. The Dayton School District,
according to the Dayton Daily News, wanted to get out of a custodial contract that was costing $1
million more than anticipated. Breaking the contract, unfortunately, cost the district $1.5 million.
Recommendation #1: The custodial staff should be reduced by 7 full-time equivalent positions.
This recommendation is supported by benchmarking data as well as the PASBO staff formula.
The potential savings in salary costs, including benefits, is approximately $340,600 per year.
Reducing staff by 7 custodians will also result in a savings of $340,622 (includes all benefits,
including PSERS) per year.
Please note that full-time custodial staff members are currently being used as crossing guards at
the High School campus. This could be accomplished in a more cost efficient manner by hiring
part-time crossing guards. This would also allow the reduction of the number of day custodians
needed, which is a recommendation made later in this report.
The Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA.org) noted that outsourcing custodial
labor is priced in the following ranges (2010) Note – these are nationwide costs – Eastern
Pennsylvania is likely slightly higher:
Level A: Pristine service…almost never any complaints: $2.00 range
Level B: Generally neat and orderly…few complaints: $1.55 range
Level C: Routine daily service… a few more complaints: $1.35 range
25
Level D: Reduced frequency of service… Complaints common: $1.15 range
Level E: Minimal cleaning, debris evident, frequent complaints: $.95 range
Note that the UCFSD will spend $2.09 per square foot (including all benefits) following the
recommended reduction of staff while achieving a Level A+ service. This is important to
note because it is the experience of the Study Team that a contracted service would not be
able to provide this level of service at the cost projected following reduction of staff.
Recommendation #2: The Study Team recommends a reorganization of staff so there is only
one day custodian working at each building. It would not, however, be uncommon for two day
custodians at the secondary level.
Recommendation #3: The Study Team recommends considering moving the head custodians at
each building to the 2nd shift. This would allow them to be in the building to provide proper
supervision when other district officials are not present. This move also supports the use of the
buildings after the regular school day.
Recommendation #4: The Study Team recommends detailed time studies be conducted for
each custodian. Examples are included in Appendix A of this report.
Recommendation #5: The Study Team recommends standardized custodial supplies and
procedures at each building.
Dispensing systems: Cleaning chemical dispensing systems are in use at every building, which
is a best practice that insures that cleaning solutions are being dispensed at the proper dilution
ratios and minimizes both wasted materials and labor.
Cleaning Chemical Standardization: The Study Team observed at least three chemical systems
being used throughout the District. It would be a best practice for the District to select one
cleaning / floor finishing system and make it a District-wide standard. Improved operations
would include an economy of scale by being able to purchase materials in larger quantities and
enhanced staff training by using the same materials district wide.
Cleaning Technique: Cleaning quality and technique varies across the district. We observed
cleanliness from outstanding to adequate. It was the general observation the middle school was
the only building that was not outstanding. The level of the cleanliness at the high school was
outstanding considering construction activities. Several schools exceed outstanding cleaning
levels.
Recommendation #6: The Study Team recommends an ongoing standardized training program
for all custodians. We believe that a large reason for the difference in cleanliness between
buildings is the result of differences in experience, job knowledge, and training. This was
evidenced when we observed a day shift custodian at Chadds Ford Elementary cleaning glass
exactly like a glass cleaning professional with an 18 inch window mop and squeegee. Later at
Pocopson Elementary we observed a custodian cleaning glass using a spray bottle and cleaning
cloths. Both custodians were working hard but one was twice as productive as the other. The
district should be adopting cleaning technique and frequencies district wide in order to make the
26
entire staff more efficient. This can be accomplished by holding staff training on a regular basis,
monthly if possible.
Recommendation #7: The Study Team recommends the development of a staff handbook for
custodians. Providing a handbook is a best practice. The handbook can be used as a handy
reference for custodial / maintenance staff on how to handle routine day to day issues and sets a
standard of expectation for the staff.
COMMENDATIONS
Commendation #1: The Study Team commends the Supervisor of Buildings & Grounds for his
superior job knowledge. The department is well run and many best practices were observed.
Commendation #2: The Study Team noticed a formal Right-to-Know program in place.
Commendation #3: The Study Team recognizes the District for developing an alternating
schedule so many weekend events are covered without the need for overtime.
Commendation #4: The Study Team observed exceptional cleanliness within all elementary
buildings.
Commendation #5: The Study Team observed best practices related to waste water treatment,
including knowledgeable staff.
Commendation #6: The Study Team discovered the overall quality of care in all buildings is
outstanding.
Commendation #7: The Study Team observed that a quality recycling program is in place.
Commendation #8: The Study Team was made aware that the District is beginning a Demand
Response Program. This is a best practice in utility management.
Commendation #9:
perform their jobs.
The Study Team found that custodians were adequately equipped to
Commendation #10: The Study Team noticed the used of 2-way radios for communication in
the buildings. This is a best practice in facilities management.
Commendation #11: The Study Team commends the entire staff for providing safe and healthy
buildings for children and staff. We mention this because this demonstrates a caring and
knowledgeable leadership and staff.
Commendation #12: The Study Team observed washers and dryers in each of the buildings
visited along with supplies of recently laundered cleaning cloths. This is a best practice in
custodial operations.
27
Commendation #13: It was reported that staff meetings with Head Custodians and Head
Mechanics were being held every six weeks or so. This communication tool is a best practice for
which the Buildings & Grounds leadership is to be commended.
28
D. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENDATIONS GROUNDS
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the recommendation of the Study Team that the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District
keep the grounds operations in-house with improvements.
The team completed a detailed visual inspection of the High School and Middle School athletic
fields along with a more general review of the grounds at Chadds Ford and Pocopson Elementary
Schools. The maintenance facility, agronomic program, equipment inventory, staffing levels and
budgetary data were also reviewed. Interviews with Paul Herron, the Heads Groundskeeper,
along with other staff and administrative employees were also factored into the review process.
Balancing the data collected with our observation of outdoor facilities, the team believes that
significant cost savings can be achieved through staff reductions. While savings could likely be
projected through contracting turf grass mowing services and snow removal, the sports field
preparations and other services performed by the grounds crews would either be lost or forced to
be achieved through additional expenditures. In order to maintain the quality of facilities and
services currently enjoyed, and to improve efficiencies, the following recommendations are
offered.
Recommendation #1: Benchmarking data suggests the overall staffing levels for the grounds
operation is high. The Study Team recommends the reduction of one full-time grounds staff.
The recommendation would result in an annual savings of approximately $60,000, including
benefits.
This recommendation is further discussed below under the heading “Staffing Levels.”
Recommendation #2: The Study Team recommends a detailed agronomic program. An outline
of an agronomic program and suggestions for improvement can be found in Appendix B of this
report.
Recommendation #3: The Study Team recommends a documented playground inspection
program. An example of a playground inspection form is found in Appendix C of this report.
Recommendation #4: Mowing: The District is currently mowing all of its turf grass at 2.5
inches, which is a good utility height if only one height of cut is feasible. It is reported that this
occurs twice a week on sports fields. It was also verbally expressed that fields are cut on “game
days,” which may be effective but opens some irregularity into the program. Considering the
district’s equipment inventory, certain fields could be customized in terms of height of cut and
frequency. For example, if on a baseball infield, the height of cut were lowered to 2 inches and
frequency of cut were increased, dramatic improvement to that field would likely be realized.
(Coupling this with increased fertilization would also be advised). Conversely, if the height of
cut at an Elementary building were raised to 3.5 inches, the frequency of cut could be reduced
and the health of the grass would improve. It was further reported that blades are sharpened “on
rainy days.” A regular blade-sharpening schedule should be implemented, with 2 sets of blades
29
for each mower being employed to maintain effective scheduling of the activity. Mowing is the
most frequent ground management activity and sharp blades are essential to healthy turf.
Recommendation #5: Integrated Pest Management (IPM): The District employs licensed
applicators and has an established policy, which would be considered worthy of commendation.
In practice, however, several areas of concern were observed. The District performs annual grub
control. This should occur only when the need is determined through careful monitoring.
Recommendation #7: Safety and Training: It was reported that the insurance carrier inspects
playgrounds every 3 years and that the staff does spot inspections. Daily inspections should be
done at first light, each day by custodians looking for vandalism, debris (like broken glass) and
other unsafe conditions. Additionally, monthly inspections should be completed by maintenance
staff looking for worn parts and other defects. A checklist or some other form of documentation
should be maintained.
Grounds crew were observed operating mowers with the discharge chute in the raised position.
Mowing equipment was stored in the shop with the guards in that position as well. Safety
training should be provided in order to insure sure staff is aware that all safety guards must
remain in place.
The field of agronomy is an evolving science and the staff should be given on-going training in
this area. It was apparent that much of the educational information received was from vendors.
While this can be an important tool, objective information from institutions like Penn State
should be the primary source for agronomic training.
COMMENDATIONS
Commendation #1: Unionville-Chadds Ford School District should be proud of its investment
in a quality grounds program. While our limited visit could not ascertain the year-long
continuum of field conditions, the general health, density, and vigor of the turf sward that we
observed were indicative of a thoughtful and well implemented program. General landscape
areas, such as playgrounds, and hard surface areas, such as tennis courts and parking lots, were
equally well maintained. The Study Team extends our commendation to the entire grounds
department.
Commendation #2: The District has a good maintenance facility and an adequate inventory of
grounds equipment. In order to continue managing an effective grounds program, care should be
exercised to maintain funds for equipment replacement as needed.
Staffing Levels
While the grounds are generally well maintained, the department is slightly over staffed. The
grounds staff of six currently maintains 130 acres, yielding an average of 21.7 acres per FTE.
Based on PASBO benchmarking data, the median acres maintained per FTE at the state level is
49. The District average of 21.7 acres per FTE places it in the lowest third of districts reporting
at the State Level, the Regional Level, and those of similar size. In addition to the benchmarking
30
data, the Study Team’s assessment of the size of the district vs. the staff in this department
yielded a consensus that staffing was high.
The position of head groundskeeper is an important role for any school district, but particularly
so for a district operating a scholastic sports program at the Quad A level. While the current
head groundskeeper is performing well in his duties, his responsibilities for wastewater
management at Hillendale, Pocopson, and Chadds Ford consume roughly half of his daily duties.
As the District considers the recommendations that follow, particularly those related to the
agronomic program, it should carefully review these responsibilities and possibly make changes
to allow the head groundskeeper more time for the core grounds activities.
A series of suggestions and strategies are offered below to help reduce grounds staffing. It may
not be feasible to implement every strategy, but the District should be able to utilize some
combination to develop its own plan for this area. The District should be commended for the
limited use of overtime and implementation of reductions should be carefully monitored to
insure that this is not compromised.
It was reported that some groundskeepers are spending portions of their day as crossing guards.
While on the surface, several staff members spending 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes
in the afternoon may not seem onerous, but when this is coupled with multiple demobilization
and remobilization efforts at each change of tasks, the impact can be significant. During the
hectic spring and fall seasons, this is certainly impacting staffing and work productivity. The
district should consider reallocating this task or hiring part time hourly staff, without benefits, for
these duties.
It was reported that grounds staff also fills in for custodians and paints classrooms. It is assumed
that these tasks occur during the winter season in which case, it is a great use of resources. If this
practice is occurring during the spring or fall seasons it should be ceased.
In other sections of this report, the allocation of dayshift custodians is discussed. In many
districts, the dayshift custodians aid with grounds maintenance, which generally does not happen
at UCFSD. Typically a dayshift custodian can accomplish a small amount of grounds work
within a portion of the day, while still being on-call for emergency and unexpected clean-ups.
This aids in managing the size of the grounds staff as well as offering increased ownership to the
building staff. By deploying a string trimmer, small push mower, and a few simple grounds
tools, the building staff could be responsible for the small lawns immediately adjacent to the
building. The use of this strategy will have to be balanced with any adjustments made to
dayshift custodial staffing.
Another suggestion for savings in the grounds management area would be to reduce cutting of
the large, unused grass banks in front of the Pocopson Elementary Building. As the general
public has come to embrace the concept of sustainability, the idea of reduced maintenance for
passive lawn areas has been implemented at many public and private institutions. While the look
is somewhat different from a mowed lawn, the savings in both labor and gas makes the change
very palatable. Additionally these areas can be used to promote study of varied environments
and ecosystem. Some facilities have engaged in specialized plantings in these areas, while others
31
have simply let the existing grass and weeds take a more natural progression of development.
Typically these areas are only mowed once or twice a year. One example facility that has used
this strategy very successfully is the Geisinger Medical Clinic in State College. In a medical
setting, that in the past would typically be expected to portray a more manicured landscape, this
sustainable practice has been embraced. Photos are shown below:
32
The concept of documentation and planning are echoed throughout the previous sections of this
report. This would also help guide the process of improving productivity and reducing staff
levels in the grounds department. By better defining a district wide field mowing schedule, and
assigning typical times to the each mowed area, the base work allocation for each week could be
established. During sports seasons, the field set-ups would be the next planned activity. Any
other known tasks for the week would then be subtracted from the base hours for the week. The
remaining man-hours would vary by week. These would then be planned for field improvement
activities and other functions as outlined in the agronomic plan. Obviously, weather and other
irregularities require changes and adjustment; however, by starting with a disciplined and
defined plan, the grounds staff can function in more productive manner.
A typical problem issue for many districts is the use of grounds staff for non-core related
activities such as deliveries. While this is unavoidable, better documentation can help improve in
this area. As the district works to reduce costs, frequent evaluation of hours spent on each
activity will be an invaluable tool.
By utilizing some combination of the above recommendations, the team believes that one
groundskeeper could be eliminated. This would leave a total of 5 FTE in that department.
Assuming that the wastewater component of the tasks assigned to this department are 0.5 FTE,
and another 0.5 to 1.5 FTE are assigned to building activities such as painting and custodial
substituting during the winter months, an FTE of 4 could be used fairly in comparing the
benchmarking statics. This would raise the acres per FTE to 32.5 (within the middle third for the
region).
33
E. BEST PRACTICES IN SCHOOL FACILITY MANAGEMENT
UTILITY MANAGEMENT
Unionville-Chadds Ford should continue its strong energy management practices. Below are a
few additional recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Comprehensive Energy Policy
The Study Team recommends Unionville-Chadds Ford School District administration and board
consider a comprehensive energy policy as noted below. Benefits of a comprehensive energy
policy include:






Reduces the energy consumed in schools
Saves money because energy is a major source of avoidable spending in schools
Shows responsibility to tax payers and redirects money towards educational needs
Supports the operations & maintenance staff in daily operational decisions and preventive
maintenance
Preserves the environment
Educates students and staff in wise energy habits
ASHRAE Standards
The foundation of the comprehensive energy study is temperature set points as recommended by
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).
ASHRAE recommended heating and cooling set points for schools as follows:
Heating
Classrooms, libraries, offices and staff lounges: 68° F – 70° F
Gyms, auditoriums, kitchens, restrooms, and cafeterias: 65° F
Hallways and storage areas: 62° F
Cooling
Air-conditioned spaces should not be cooled below 75° F
Recommended Comprehensive Policy
Goals
1. Conserve energy so that the instructional program and support services can be effectively
delivered while conserving energy dollars.
34
2. Educate every student and staff member to contribute to energy efficiency in the District.
Accountability
The building Principal and Operations & Maintenance staff shares the accountability for
ensuring that this policy is followed. All operations of District facilities shall be governed by the
following. Participation is mandatory for all staff and students of UCFSD.
.
Lighting
1. All lights will be turned off in any area, which will be unoccupied for a period in excess
of fifteen (15) minutes except in corridors, stairwells and at exits as required by code.
Lights in all gymnasiums, cafeterias and auditoriums will not be left on unless the area is
being utilized.
2. During design and re-lamping projects, consideration should be given to provide lighting
within the following range:
a. Classrooms and offices 62-65 foot-candles (fc) but not less than 50 fc.
b. Corridors: 20 fc but not less than 10 fc
c. Storage: Not less than 10 fc
d. Gyms: 55 – 95 fc but not less than 30 fc
3. Natural lighting shall be used were possible to attain lighting levels within the above
ranges.
4. For cleaning during off hours and in the morning when the building is being opened, the
custodial staff shall only turn on lighting where needed. All building should be fully
illuminated no more than ½ hour before the normally scheduled arrival time for teaching
and administrative staff.
Temperature Control
1. For the heating season, which generally runs from October 15 through May 15,
temperatures in classrooms and offices will be maintained at a 68° F – 70° F set point in
occupied mode and at 55° F in unoccupied mode. Set points will be 55°F at the close of
the school day or scheduled facility use.
2. Air conditioned spaces will be maintained at a 76º F occupied set point with a 82º F
unoccupied set point maintained during the cooling season, which generally runs from
May 15th to October 15th. The cooling systems in auditoriums shall maintain a 74º F
occupied set point.
35
3. For areas with humidity control, the targeted relative humidity should not average greater
than 60% for any 24-hour period.
4. Non-classroom warehouse and garage facilities will be maintained at 55º F during the
heating season when unoccupied by personnel.
5. School personnel will not obstruct ventilation ducts or return grilles with books, charts,
furniture or plants, or the like.
6. All windows and doors must be kept closed during the heating season or when air
conditioning units are in operation.
7. Entrances and exits to all buildings shall be limited in their use, when possible, to
minimize heat loss.
8. Broken windows, doors, non-functioning door closers, missing or damaged weather
stripping, and the like, shall be reported to the building custodian in a timely manner.
9. Unauthorized personnel or students found tampering (e.g., placing ice or wet towels on
thermostats) with temperature regulating devices, such as thermostats or valves, will be
subject to disciplinary action.
10. Portable space heaters or air conditioners of any kind are banned from use within district
facilities, except where provided by the Supervisor of Buildings & Grounds.
11. Employees and students are encouraged to wear sweaters, sweatshirts or similar clothing
during the heating season.
Scheduling
1. Small group activities will not be scheduled in large areas such as auditoriums and
gymnasiums. The use of such areas will be coordinated with the custodial staff to enable
the reduction of lighting and heating requirements during periods of non-use.
2. At the end of the school or office day: all windows shall be closed, the blinds or shades
drawn to approximately ¾ the distance from the top of the window to the windowsill, and
the lights turned off. Cleaning staff will turn lights on only for the period when a specific
area is being cleaned.
Other
1. The domestic hot water temperature set point will be 110° F. Food Services operations
requiring higher water temperature levels by code (kitchen: 140° F, dishwashers: 180° F)
shall use booster units or dedicated water heaters. All domestic hot water re-circulating
pumps will be turned-off during unoccupied times.
36
2. The swimming pool shall be kept at a temperature of no less than 78° F, but no warmer
than 82° F, consistent with the recommendation of the National Federation of State High
School Association for School Pools.
3. Office Equipment such as copiers, laminators, and the like, shall be shut down at the end
of the day. Computers should utilize energy savings options within the operating system.
All classroom PC monitors and local printers will be turned off during time periods when
the buildings are un-occupied.
4. The use of personal appliances such as electric coffee makers, microwaves, refrigerators,
toaster ovens, pizza makers and/or other cooking or refrigeration appliances will not be
allowed without the prior approval of the Superintendent. Refrigerators, microwaves and
coffeepots are permitted only in faculty/staff lunchrooms. Toaster ovens, toasters and hot
plates are not permitted in the buildings.
5. Request for exemptions and hot and cold complaints must be addressed in writing to the
Facilities Manager, at which time he/she will investigate the complaint or request for
exemption. If the issue cannot be resolved while adhering to the energy policy, the
Supervisor of Buildings & Grounds shall make the determination as to what action, if
any, will be taken. The Supervisor of Buildings & Grounds reserves the right to adjust
set points up or down in a given area to provide the best overall performance of the
HVAC system.
6. Only energy efficient vending machines will be allowed within the District.
WORK ORDERS
The District uses on-line work order system that can be very effective and should serve the
District’s needs well. The District is to be commended for this system.
The Study Team recommends that the District attempt to capture all non-cleaning work via work
order and also begin logging costs associated with each ticket. At a minimum, costs should
include hours worked and supplies purchased. With this data, the system could be used to
generate reports that would aid in evaluating departmental efforts.
The Study Team further recommends improving the work order system by providing feedback to
the service requester and also expanding the work order system as a tool to generate preventive
maintenance work orders for things like fire extinguisher maintenance and filter changes.
In general, work order systems provide the communication vehicle for school districts to request
work and to follow-up on work. The work order system may be basic or complex, but all
systems should provide the users with the following minimum capabilities:

Work order to request work
37

Approval process (typically from the requester to the building principal to the
Director of Facilities)

Scheduling process and setting of priorities

Assignment of the work

Track time and labor expenses

Acknowledge completion of work
Work orders are also used to create a work history for equipment. The work history identifies
trends that are used for budgeting and estimating upgrade and/or replacement costs.
The Concept of Work Order Flow
Work
Order
Approval
Assignment
Monitoring
and
Completion
EVALUATIONS
Performance reviews are conducted annually for all operations and maintenance employees. This
is a best practice. Included with this report is a copy of a monthly checklist for cleaning levels
that would improve the evaluation process (Appendix E).
STAFF TRAINING
Custodial and maintenance staff training is critical to the success of the short-term and long-term
Operations & Maintenance program for the Unionville-Chaddsford School District. Major
benefits of training include, (1) increased worker competency, (2) increased worker safety, (3)
improved cost control, (4) increased customer satisfaction, (5) increased employee motivation
and (6) improved facilities.
The observation of the Study Team is that regular and ongoing documented custodial training
should improve. In addition, there should be a formal training process for all new custodial
employees. This is not a reflection on the quality of care for the buildings and grounds. In fact,
the Study Team found the level of care to be outstanding. Documented training is a best practice
for Operations & Maintenance programs.
For assistance in identifying O & M staff training topics, here is list of training programs
provided to the custodians at the Southern York County School District over the last few years
38
(this training has been conducted on a monthly basis and two full days each summer for all
custodians):
1. What is School Custodianship?
2. Why is the Custodian so Important?
3. Doing the Job: Tasks, Responsibilities and Expectations
4. Custodial Evaluations
5. Working With Others
6. The Custodian and the Public
7. The Custodian and Other School Personnel
8. The Custodian and Administrators
9. The Custodian and the Teachers
10. The Custodian and Other Support Staff
11. The Custodian and Students
12. Why should the Custodian be Concerned with Safety?
13. How Can Custodians Work With Safety?
14. Safety Areas – Chemical
15. Safety Areas – Electrical
16. Safety Areas – Fire
17. Safety Areas – Physical
18. Physical Safety – Lifting - Illustration of Lifting Technique
19. Physical Safety – Falling
20. Physical Safety – Cuts and Wounds
21. Physical Safety – Access for the Disabled
22. Physical Safety – Hand Tools
23. Particular Hazard Areas in Schools
24. First Aid
25. Accident Reporting
26. Sample “Notice of Injury” Form
27. Material Safety Data Sheets
28. What are Sanitation and School Housekeeping?
29. Equipment
30. Cleaning Agents
31. Tools, Equipment and Supplies
32. General Surface Task Frequency
33. Ceiling Surface Cleaning
34. Wall Surface Cleaning
35. Windows and Window Fittings Surface Cleaning
36. Cleaning Special Surfaces
37. Cleaning Furniture
38. Cleaning General Use Areas
39. Hallways, Offices, Other
40. Stain Removal: Food Stains and Non-Food Stains
41. Sanitizing
42. Cleaning and Sanitizing
39
43. Sanitation Terms
44. Cleaning and Sanitizing Restrooms
45. Cleaning Restroom Fixtures
46. Cleaning and Sanitizing Food Areas
47. Cleaning Other Critical Areas
48. Special Cleaning Problems
49. Body Fluid Control
50. Blood borne Pathogens
51. Waste Disposal
52. Pest Control
53. Importance of Floor Care
54. Cleaning Different Types of Floors: Wood, Resilient, Masonry, Carpeting,
Synthetic/Epoxy
55. Manual Sweeping
56. Dust Mopping
57. Dry Vacuuming and Power Sweeping
58. Non-Carpeted Floors
59. Non-Carpeted Wet Mopping
60. Non-Carpeted Deep Scrubbing
61. Hard Surface Spray Buffing
62. Hard Surface Stripping
63. Carpet Cleaning
64. Dry Extraction
65. Hot Water Extraction
66. Bonnet Cleaning (Carpet Mopping)
67. Carpeting-Common Carpet Challenges
68. Carpeting-Repair
69. Odor and Bacteria Control
70. Carpet Cleaning Tips
71. Equipment (Micro-fiber Technology – Stick Brooms – Push Brooms – Wet Mops – Flat
Mop Technology – Mop Wringers – Mop Rack – Floor Squeegee – Vacuum Cleaners –
Back-pack Vacuums – Bagless Technology – Floor Machines)
72. Miscellaneous Tools (Spray bottles – Pump-up Sprayer – Cellulose Sponges – Scrub
Sponges – Garbage and Trash Cans – Measuring Cups – Door Wedge)
73. Cleaning Substances – Water – Other Cleaning Agents – Abrasives – Emulsifying
substances – Alkaline Soap – Neutral Soap – Oil or Soft Soaps)
74. What is Safety?
75. Safety Areas: Chemical, Electrical, Fire, Lifting, Falling, Cuts and Wounds
76. Understanding Electricity
77. Troubleshooting
78. Power Distribution
79. Fuses/Circuit Breakers Replacement of Damaged Plugs
80. Troubleshooting For Malfunctioning Appliances
81. To Replace A Female Plug
82. To Replace A Male Plug
83. Incandescent & Fluorescent Bulbs
40
84. Troubleshooting Chart For Fluorescent Tubes
85. Replacing Bulbs
86. To Remove A Broken Light Bulb or Tube From Its Socket
87. Simple Wiring
PURCHASING IN OPERTIONS
Dollar Limitations for Bidding and Quotes
The Public School Code establishes the legal requirements to be followed in the purchase of
materials, supplies, and equipment for use in public schools. Unionville-Chadds Ford School
District applied for a waiver applicable to purchasing limitations under 24 PS §7-751a in 2006
and was approved. The district should be commended for taking this action which resulted in
the purchasing thresholds below.

Purchases of $15,200 or more may be made only after public notice has been given by
advertisement once a week for three weeks in not less than two newspapers of general
circulation, with bid specifications, public opening, and award to the lowest responsible
bidder. The opening does not have to be at a school board meeting, but award must be made
by a majority vote of the Board. In a bid situation, approval of the Board is clearly required,
and the purchasing function (agent or business official) does not have the authority to bind
the District to a contract.

For purchases of supplies between $5,800 and $15,200 a quotation process may be used.
Written or telephonic quotations must be obtained and retained for three years. A
memorandum containing the date of the quote, the name of the vendor and vendor
representative, the supplies quoted, and the quoted price, must support the telephonic
communication. Presumably the District must accept the lowest responsible quote unless
there is legitimate reason to reject. The Board may authorize the Board Secretary or other
designee to make decisions about such awards, preferably in a board policy. It is not a
requirement for the Board to be involved in the quotation process.

For purchases under $5,800 it is not necessary to bid or quote. The purchasing decision can
be made outside of the formality of a bid, or the semi-formality of a quote. The purchasing
authority of the administration should be defined in a board policy.
A trend in purchasing involves the use of statewide, consortium, or catalog bidding. Such
vehicles are not exceptions to the bid law. Such bids are operated within the rules, but districts
may participate under provisions in the law that allow for cooperative buying.
Exceptions to the Bidding Rules
Most of the “things” purchased for operations and maintenance are subject to the bidding rules.
Certain classroom supplies are exempt from the bidding requirement: maps, music, globes,
charts, educational films, filmstrips, prepared transparencies and slides, pre-recorded magnetic
tapes and disc recordings, textbooks, games, toys, prepared kits, flannel board materials, flash
41
cards, models and projectuals, and teacher demonstration devices. This exemption applies
regardless of the size of the purchase
Generally speaking, the procurement of services is not subject to the bidding or quotation
requirements of the Public School Code. A Request for Proposal process is often used, but not
required. Examples of service procurements in which a facility manager would be involved are:
trash hauling; electricity and natural gas; architecture and engineering; maintenance contracts;
testing and calibration; computer software. These items do not require bidding, regardless of
size.
APPENDIX A – CUSTODIAL STAFFING TIME STUDIES
AREA
Classroom/carpet
Classroom/tile
Bathroom
Art room
Conference/seminar
Corridor
Library
Gymnasium
Stage
Cafeteria
Kitchen
Dish room
Elevator
Auditorium
Lobbies
Music classroom
Stairs
Dust library shelves
Locker room
Office
Dining area
Lab storage
Nurse/health room
Dark room
Shower Area
Storage
Lounge
Computer room
Shop
MINUTES
25
20
4/fixtures
30
21/1000 sq. ft.
20/1000 sq. ft.
22/1000 sq. ft
6/1000 sq. ft.
8/1000 sq. ft.
32/1000 sq. ft.
35/1000 sq. ft.
35/1000 sq. ft.
12
22/1000 sq. ft.
24/1000 sq. ft.
25/1000 sq. ft.
10/flight
15/1000 sq. ft.
30/1000 sq. ft.
15/1000 sq. ft.
31/1000 sq. ft.
5
25/1000 sq. ft.
16/1000 sq. ft.
50/1000 sq. ft.
7/1000 sq. ft.
21/1000 sq. ft.
19/1000 sq. ft.
10/1000 sq. ft.
APPENDIX B: OUTLINE OF AGRONOMIC PROGRAM
While the fields are generally in good repair, this valuable resource could be improved with a
detailed and well-executed agronomic program. The following excerpt is from PASBO’S
Elements of Facilities Management:
Maintaining quality grounds and athletic fields begins with the agronomic program. An
agronomic program contains at minimum:
1) Inventory of fields
2) Planned yearly fertilizer applications
3) Plan for preventative pesticides (if applicable)
4) Monitoring activities for pests (weeds, insects and diseases)
5) Plan for cultural practices such as aeration and soil amendments
6) Plan for seeding (if necessary)
7) Capital Improvement needs
The current district program is a non-specific 1.5 page document that only generally describes
the tasks that are completed throughout the year. The scope of this study is not to develop an
agronomic program for the district; however, comments and suggestions are offered to aid in this
endeavor. (The numbers below correspond to the above-mentioned categories.)
1) It appears the district has good inventory of fields. This data should be integrated into the
agronomic plan and referenced for specific data collection and planning purposes.
2) The district indicated that they completed soil tests and used this data to plan for spring
and fall applications. Little specific fertilizer application data was made available, other
than a fertilizer order that had recently been placed. While a good first step, soil testing
should be used to establish a long-term, field specific fertility management program.
This program should chronicle the historical applications, the previous soil test data, and
planned future applications for the upcoming growing season.
With 2 fertilizer applications occurring per year, it could be surmised that nitrogen levels
of 2 to 2.5 pounds per year were being maintained. While this is a good “general” rate,
certain fields could benefit from increased fertility. Typically, a baseball infield in
Southeastern Pennsylvania would thrive at 4 to 5 pounds of nitrogen per year.
3) Preventative pesticides would include pre-emergent weed control and pre-emptive
insecticide applications. The district is using pre-emergent weed control in the
flowerbeds, but not on the grass fields. This strategy appears to be working effectively
but should be evaluated annually. The team was told the Merit insecticide is applied
annually for grub control. This type of application should not be a routine task. Insect
activity should be monitored as part of the agronomic program and pesticide applied only
when necessary.
4) The grounds staff does monitor for pests but this activity should be formalized and
documented with some simple checklists.
5) The district aerates twice a year, and periodically applies mushroom soil as an
amendment, which appears to be working effectively.
6) The district seeds frequently. Based on the seeds mixtures in use, equipment being
employed, and turf conditions, this program is effective but could be better documented.
7) An outdated capital improvement program is detailed in a separate capital document.
This document should be updated and the relevant portions should be integrated into a
comprehensive agronomic plan.
APPENDIX C – PLAYGROUND INSPECTION FORM
Inspections should be conducted on a monthly scheduled basis.
Visible crack, bending, warping,
rusting or breakage of any
component.
Deformation of open hooks,
shackles, rings, links, etc.
Worn swing hangers and chains.
Missing, damaged, or loose swing
seats, heavy seats with sharp edges
or corners.
Broken supports/anchors.
Splintered, cracked or otherwise
deteriorated wood.
Footings exposed, cracked, loose
in ground.
Accessible sharp edges or points.
Exposed ends of tubing that should
be covered by plugs or caps.
Protruding bolt ends that do not
root, have smooth finished caps
and covers.
Check for bees and other intruders.
Surfacing material worn or
scattered (in landing pits, etc.).
Chipped or peeling paint.
Vandalism (broken glass, trash,
etc.).
Tripping hazards such as rocks
or other environmental obstacles.
Lack of lubrication on moving
parts.
Loose bolts, nuts, etc.
Broken or missing rails, steps,
rungs, seats.
Worn bearings.
SCHOOL: __________________________________________
DATE CHECKED: __________________________________
SIGNATURE: ______________________________________
Most fixtures are
clean, supplies are
not adequate
Empty, clean,
odor-free
No buildup
Gleam and
Gleam and are
are odorodor-free; supplies
free; supplies are adequate
are adequate
Empty, clean,
odor-free
Clean, bus dust,
and marks are
noticeable with
close observation
No Buildup
Empty,
clean, odorfree
Freshly cleaned
or polished
appearance and
no accumulation
of dirt
Corners &
Along Walls
Bathroom/Shower
Fixtures, floor &
Supplies
Trash Containers &
Pencil Sharpeners
Desks, Unit
Ventilators &
Other Surfaces
2
3
Obvious dirt, dust
& smudges
Old trash; trash
containers are
stained, marked &
smell
Fixtures are dingy,
supplies are not
adequate
Noticeable buildup
of dirt &/or dust
Swept clean, but
molding is dirty
MODERATE DINGINESS
LEVEL 4
SHIFT: 1
Major accumulation of
dirt, dust, & smudges;
it is evident that no
cleaning is done on
these surfaces
Overflowing; trash
containers are
stained & smell
Fixtures are dirty,
supplies are not
adequate
Obvious build-up
of dirt &/or dust
Floors & carpets
are dirty, molding
is dirty
UNKEPT NEGLECT
LEVEL 5
DATE: _____________
Evaluator’s Name : __________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
General Comments:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obvious dirt, dust
Buildup of dirt
&/or dust
Swept clean, but dust
& stains can be seen;
molding is dirty
Shine and/or are
bright & clean
Shine and/or
are bright &
clean
CASUAL INATTENTION
LEVEL 3
Floors &
Base Moldings
LEVEL 2
_____________________
ORDINARY TIDINESS
LEVEL 1
BUILDING:
SPOTLESSNESS
AREA
NAME: ____________________________________________
CLEANING LEVEL INSPECTION
APPENDIX D – MONTHLY CUSTODIAL CLEANING LEVEL INSPECTION FORM