The Finance & Operations Committee reviewed two district energy projects Wednesday: a continuation of LED lighting retrofits funded through on‑bill financing and a proposal to lease school parking lots for solar canopies that would generate lease revenue for the city rather than direct electricity savings for schools.

Staff described the LED work as a continuation of an efficiency program and said on‑bill financing would integrate project repayments into the district’s electricity bills. "So it would be a loan that we get from the utility, and they would integrate it into the electricity bill," Hannah, the city sustainability policy analyst, said, adding staff expect the energy savings to offset payments so there would be "no net increase" over a three‑year financing period.

The committee also considered agreement 5.2, a lease arrangement with GreenSky to expand solar parking canopies at two additional schools. Staff and GreenSky representatives said a shift in incentives has made leasing more financially attractive than power‑purchase agreements. "The value that is pushed back to the city in the form of much higher lease rate ... is likely double the amount of income versus what you would have been saving through a power purchase," said Ryan, a GreenSky representative.

Hannah provided staff estimates of annual lease payments: about $48,663 for one site identified in the memo and roughly $25,276 for Clemente. Attorney Alexiadis noted the memo specifies revenue figures and emphasized the arrangement is a lease over a 20‑year life, meaning the city collects rent rather than the schools directly receiving bill reductions.

Committee members asked for a clearer cover memo explaining the financing tradeoffs, which agency (city or school district) receives the financial benefit, and who is responsible for maintenance. Ryan said GreenSky would retain ownership and be responsible for maintenance and insurance: "the canopies will be GreenSky's property and we're responsible for all the maintenance and upkeep of these solar panels." Dr. Yarborough asked about health risks; staff and GreenSky said electromagnetic‑field exposure from parking‑lot canopies is minimal and cited industry studies showing low exposures compared with typical classroom electrical equipment.

The committee did not adopt the agreements in full. The chair moved to forward the LED retrofit agreement to the full committee and to send a package of action items (including the data‑sharing agreement, the solar lease, purchase orders, contracts and change orders) to the full board for consideration. The LED motion was recorded with one recusal; the package motion carried. Staff said they will update the cover memos with clearer language on costs, revenue flows and health/maintenance provisions before the full board reviews the items.

The committee suggested the full board receive clearer comparisons of lease revenue versus power‑purchase savings and requested staff confirm the exact annual revenue numbers shown in the memo before a vote.