Trane representatives outlined a potential energy-efficiency project for West Oso ISD that would be financed with a Texas Energy Conservation Office (SECO) loan, which they described as a low-cost financing option at about 2.5% interest. Mike Alvarez, Trane project lead, told the board the loan would be repaid from measured reductions in electricity, water and gas bills and said the district’s UAR (utility assessment report) and application materials are nearly ready for submission to the state.

The Trane team described the likely scope as three main workstreams: LED lighting retrofit across multiple campuses, HVAC-control optimizations and water-conservation plumbing replacements (flush valves, aerators and new fixtures). “The SECO loan…they provide loans to school districts at 2 and a half percent,” Alvarez said, framing that rate as materially lower than typical market financing. Lucia Landry, who described herself as Trane’s SECO liaison, explained SECO’s review process: the district submits its UAR, SECO engineers verify the pre-retrofit baseline, and a separate measurement-and-verification step follows installation to confirm savings before the loan is finalized.

Trane gave modeled savings data and payback estimates. The presenters said their detailed UAR shows first-year modeled energy savings in the district and an aggregated annual savings figure used to estimate a 14–15 year payback on the loan payment schedule. Alvarez and his team projected cumulative savings over 15 years that would result in net dollars returning to the district’s fund balance once the loan is paid. They cautioned that final loan value and award amounts are determined by SECO’s review and site survey.

Trustees asked technical and fiscal questions about component warranties, replacement costs after warranty periods, contingency funding and how savings were modeled. Board member Arredondo pressed for life-span clarity on lighting fixtures and contingency for replacement parts; Trane said warranties and contingency line items are included in the project cost estimates and that SECO expects installed components to meet life‑cycle assumptions used in the application. Trustees also asked whether the district would be bound to specific fixture models post-installation; Trane said SECO’s measurement and verification work and the loan conditions aim to ensure the installed systems deliver the savings claimed.

On schedule, Trane said the SECO program runs on an annual cycle and typically reopens for applications in November; funds are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis and SECO’s availability varies through the following August. Trane urged timely submission but emphasized that any final contract or construction would return to the board for approval after SECO determines eligibility and loan amounts.

The board treated the presentation as informational; the superintendent’s office, Kimberly Moore, confirmed that an application would be submitted to the state only with board approval to enter a contract after any award is made. Trustees requested a short preliminary timeline for the application-to-installation phases and asked that maintenance and warranty obligations be clarified in future materials.

Next steps: district staff and Trane will finalize the UAR and apply when the SECO window opens; if SECO makes an offer, the district will present final loan terms and a contract for board approval before construction begins.