Measure F CBOC

Item 8.1

January 7, 2008

Item 8.1 Chair's Report by David Ginsborg

Through personal contacts I became acquainted with Michael Day, outgoing Chair of the Sacramento Unified School District's Bond Oversight Committee. Michael is very passionate about Bond Oversight and through the Committee pushed the District to make important reforms. Recently, he was the recipient of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's Tax Fighter Award for his efforts. Professionally he has nearly 20 years experience in the Commercial HVAC business.

In light of his unique interest in Bond Oversight, track record for critical analysis, and his professional understanding of an important component construction I invited him (during a work trip to Palo Alto) to join me in scrutinizing the blueprints for two of the district's completed schools (Empire and Booksin).

Overall, he was impressed with the content of the plans we reviewed. Specifically, he commented on the engineer's decision to provide multiple choices for different types of HVAC equipment, which increases the District's ability to competitively bid and seek additional savings. In addition, the Distric's decision to use different types of units, rather than the same equipment across the board showed judgment reflective of specific needs. He was also impressed that the District has begun the process to move from a closed, propriety architecture HVAC Energy Management System (think Microsoft) to an open architecture (known as backnet), which again allows the District to maximize options and have the potential to be cost efficient and maximize savings.

He suggested the District consider performing an energy efficiency study to help guide their selection of HVAC. He also said that as the District goes to backnet, they may benefit from hiring an independent control consultant to help them develop the specifications for future bids relating to energy management systems.

In addition, we discussed the lease-leaseback arrangement; which they have done in Sacramento. He indicated that they successfully encouraged the District to implement a savings sharing agreement which gave both parties bonuses/savings if they identify additional cost savings. He said he will provide a copy of that agreement as a sample for our review.

Other miscellaneous questions he asked, for which I do not know the answer and we may want to further pursue include:

1. Are the architects paid on a percentage vs. a flat fee?
2. What are specific examples of incentives for the District staff to find cost savings?
3. Is the Kitchell contract a percentage contract?
4. Does the District employ "NASA Style" contracting with incentives for projects that come in below estimated amount?

Finally, I want to thank Amy Ruffo, with School Construction, for her knowledge and candor in discussing the plans as well as Ty Williams for allowing us to quickly and easily review documents.