Trustees review $5.45 million energy‑savings proposal and financing plan; final approval set for May

Castleberry Independent School District trustees on April 6 considered a proposed energy‑savings performance contract intended to reduce long‑term utility and maintenance costs across district campuses.

Superintendent Renee Smith Faulkner introduced the plan and said the district engaged Centrix (branded in materials as SentriX/Centrix) to perform an energy audit and lay out priority upgrades, including LED lighting retrofits, standardized HVAC controls, selective roofing remediation and limited rooftop‑unit work. "We engaged an energy management company to take the risk of ensuring that we're going to get the savings back," the superintendent said (as introduced in the presentation).

Zach Christiansen of Centrix told the board the vendor’s proposal totals roughly $5.45 million across four scopes of work and includes a 15‑year performance guarantee with measurement and verification. "If it's a dollar, if it's a $100,000, whatever that is, we are contractually bound to make sure that you are whole," Christiansen said, describing the guarantee and the firm's contractual obligation should projected savings fall short.

Adrian Galvan of financial adviser Baker Tilly walked trustees through financing options and a conservative stress test. His model assumed a 15‑year borrowing at a worst‑case 5.25 percent and showed an initial year in which debt service slightly exceeded first‑year savings (about $67,000 more), with modeled net positive savings over the full term and a projected future‑value net benefit of roughly $37,000 under the conservative scenario. Galvan said the team will solicit competitive bids from lenders and aim to lock a market rate on May 1, then return to the board with final numbers at the May 4 meeting.

Trustees pressed for contract details and legal review. The superintendent said district counsel was reviewing the contract language and that the district had received a third‑party engineering letter that day verifying many of the vendor’s savings assumptions. Board members asked whether the district would pay the vendor directly or whether the vendor would be paid from a financing draw; Centrix indicated construction‑style progress payments would apply and that the district would not necessarily pay interest on unused funds during construction.

Board discussion also clarified recurring costs included in the proposal: an annual measurement/verification or third‑party review fee (discussed as roughly $6,200 in the capital planning documents) and ongoing preventative‑maintenance responsibilities the district would retain. Staff told trustees the proposal is structured to avoid large up‑front capital and instead use guaranteed operational savings and financing (maintenance tax notes) to cover the work.

The board did not take a final vote on the contract on April 6. Trustees were advised that, if they choose to move forward, the administration would return May 4 with locked‑in financing numbers and a copy of the final contract after counsel and bond counsel complete their review.