Leased Facilities Review and Assessment Energy Efficiency Review and Assessment Presented by: Dennis Dunston & Solveig Monson

Recommendation: Update Board Policy -Use of School Facilities Create Classification/Categories of use:  Official district activities  City of San Jose activities  Nonprofit youth or school-oriented activities (non-fee based and fee-based)  Other nonprofit or governmental agencies (non-fee based and fee-based)  Commercial, Political, Religious, Other

Consideration: Establish Facilities Use Fee Schedule  District activities – no facility charge  City of San Jose activities – made available at the lowest cost possible to promote reciprocal partnership with community, may include reimbursement of direct costs.  Nonprofit Youth/School-oriented activities (non-fee based) – no facility fee; reimbursement of direct costs only.

Consideration: Establish Facilities Use Fee Schedule - cont.  Nonprofit Youth/School-oriented (fee based)– minimal facility fee; reimbursement of direct costs.  Other nonprofit/Governmental (non-fee based) – minimal facility fee; reimbursement of direct costs.  Other nonprofit/Governmental (fee based) – full facility fee; reimbursement of direct costs.  Commercial, Political, Religious, Other – fair market facility feel reimbursement of direct costs.

Current lease agreements Consideration: Establish criteria for lease agreements:  Based on market rates.  Rate differential for School-based and/or District-aligned programs (e.g., preschool programs serving predominately future district students).  Standards for custodial and building services (i.e., district provided or tenant provided).  Reimbursement rates for utility usage.

Current Turf Agreements Consideration:  Engage in discussion with local youth sports programs regarding the costs to the district that are associated with their use.  Conduct amortization analysis of turf areas, that includes the installed systems (sprinklers) to ascertain the real cost of these school ground areas.  Educate community regarding the Civic Center Act and the districts interest in collecting reimbursement for direct costs associated with use by youth sports programs and others.  Establish long-term use agreement with youth sports programs that provides continued use.

Sale/Disposal of Property Considerations  Have a comprehensive Facility Master Plan completed to provide a full analysis of current school capacity, student enrollment projections and cohort movement, and future facility needs.  Evaluate the loss of on-going revenue stream vs. possible one-time revenue opportunities, if property is sold.

An example - Firehouse Site Given limited potential as school site or district facility, evaluate for possible sale or disposal. Pros  Location on a corner.  Positive traffic count.  Proximity to other commercial/retail.  Constantino’s recently purchased, new development opportunities may exist. Cons  Small; one-half sf.  Shaped like a triangle.  Not of interest for apartment/residential development.  Challenging location.

 Naylor Act – E.C. § Does not apply to Firehouse Site Intent to prevent loss of property used for “school playgrounds, playing fields, and recreational purposes Only applies to “school sites” Sale of Surplus Property - Other Considerations

Sale of Surplus Property, other Considerations cont.  Use of proceeds Cannot be used for general fund purposed – E.C. § Can be used for maintenance One time transfer to general fund - E.C. § ○ No need for State facilities funding for 10 years ○ No need for deferred maintenance for 10 years ○ For one time expenditure and not on-going expenses

Sale of Surplus Property, other Considerations cont.  Priorities for sale – E.C. § Recreational purposes (Naylor Act) UC, CSU, county, city, public housing authority, other governmental agency, non- profit organization – Fair Market Value Low or moderate income housing – E.C. § Any other manner

Sale of Surplus Property, other Considerations cont.  7-11 Committee - E.C. § Advisory committee on policies or uses of surplus property Mandate ○ Review enrollment ○ Advise on priority of uses ○ Circulate priorities throughout community ○ Hold hearings ○ Develop final list of uses ○ Report to School Board

Energy Efficiency Review District facilities are generally well- operated and energy efficient.  EPA Energy Star score of 55 is good considering the age and heavy use of the facilities, but does indicate room for improvement.  District spends approximately $350,000 annually for gas and electricity, which is considered modest.

Implementing an Energy Efficiency Program  Develop an energy “loading order” and a District Sustainability Program.  Participate in PG&E’s third-party programs, such as the School Energy Efficiency Program.  Evaluate possible participation in an Energy Savings Performance Contract.  Implement in-house energy efficiency measures using the incentives and rebates available through PG&E’s core energy efficiency programs.

Sustainability Policy  Must be aligned with core mission of the District.  Include goals for: Energy use reduction and Water use reduction Green building standards for new construction Utilization of renewable energy Waste diversion and management Greenhouse gas reduction

PG&E third-party programs School Energy Efficiency (SEE) Pros  Raise awareness among students and teachers.  Support for processing incentive applications, and managing programs.  Can be paid for over time.  Do not need staff expertise.  Savings estimated to be approximately 3% or $11,000 annually. Cons  Sign over a portion of savings to PG&E in exchange for assistance.  Savings may not be worth it given other options.

Performance Contracting with Energy Services Company (ESCO) Pros  ESCO provider guarantees cost savings.  Turnkey implementation; ESCO responsible for all infrastructure improvements.  Ongoing support and documentation.  No up-front costs; payments offset by energy savings over time.  Savings projected to be $31,000 annually. Cons  Need strong legal and contractual oversight.  Implementation needs to be monitored closely.  Energy cost savings are shared with ESCO and not fully realized by the District.

Implement in-house program using Core PG&E rebates and incentives Typically the most cost effective option for school districts when District facilities staff are technically capable and conscientious.  Bill Eagan and his staff appear able to manage an in-house implementation; need to ensure coordination with PG&E representative is ongoing and consistent.  Incentives outlined for District in Resource Solutions Group (RSG) report are available through Core PG&E program and do not require participation in SEE.