Cambrian School District Board Meeting April 26, 2012

1. Leased Facilities Review and Assessment Energy Efficiency Review and Assessment Cambrian School DistrictBoard MeetingApril 26, 2012 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 SiteGiven 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. Sale of Surplus Property - Other Considerations • 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”

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 programsSchool 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.