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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 acre; @4000 sf.  Shaped like a triangle.  Not of interest for apartment/residential development.  Challenging location.

9.  Naylor Act – E.C. § 17485 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

10. Sale of Surplus Property, other Considerations cont.  Use of proceeds Cannot be used for general fund purposed – E.C. § 17457 Can be used for maintenance One time transfer to general fund - E.C. § 17462 ○ 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

11. Sale of Surplus Property, other Considerations cont.  Priorities for sale – E.C. § 17464 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. § 17459 Any other manner

12. Sale of Surplus Property, other Considerations cont.  7-11 Committee - E.C. § 17388 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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.