Perkiomen Valley considers next phase of GESA/ESCO work as district weighs priorities and long‑lead equipment

CM3 representatives briefed the Perkiomen Valley School District operations committee on the history and possible next phase of the district’s Guaranteed Energy Savings Act (GESA)/ESCO work, noting long‑running collaboration and a range of scope options for the high school.

“It's hard to imagine, but it's been 13 years we've been working together,” said Mark Fennel of CM3, who described a sequence of ESCO phases that delivered lighting, HVAC and roof work across schools. CM3 reported recent project costs just under $50 million for phases covered in the presentation and said the district’s 2018 AEM master plan identified roughly $61 million in needs (inflation would push that higher); district reinvestment since then is “just under $42 million,” leaving a remaining gap of less than $20 million, CM3 said.

CM3 explained the 2016 amendment to the Guaranteed Energy Savings Act expanded eligible public projects beyond strictly energy equipment, enabling the district to fold other capital work—such as a high‑school pool renovation or kitchen expansion—into GESA scopes. That flexibility, CM3 said, opens multiple delivery options: run the high‑school project as a standard capital project, pursue a separate ESCO phase, or create a hybrid that merges both approaches.

The presenters emphasized the need to coordinate maintenance work with any larger construction to avoid duplicative efforts. “If you add on, certainly that would be the time to get those things done so we can have the proper energy going,” CM3's Bob Tobin said, explaining why some items could be split across funding buckets.

Committee members pressed CM3 on near‑term risks and prioritization. CM3 flagged the main electrical switchgear at the high school—original equipment from 1974—as a high‑risk, long‑lead item that could take roughly 14 months to replace. The firm warned that an unexpected failure would be costly and disruptive and that early procurement would mitigate schedule and rental costs.

CM3 also showed preliminary “priority 1/2/3” groupings and an illustrative $5 million tranche to indicate what could be completed at different funding levels; those groupings were described as initial estimates to be refined through an RFP and firm contractor pricing. “At that point, we and others would put together actually firm fixed pricing,” Fennel said.

On savings and accountability, CM3 reiterated that GESA/ESCO contracts require measurement and verification after completion to substantiate claimed energy savings. “At the end of each GESA/ESCO, there must be a measurement and verification as part of that process,” Fennel said, adding that earlier ESCO phases 1–4 have been verified and that phase 5 and 5A are in the late stages of verification.

Board members asked whether renewables could be part of future GESA scopes. In response, CM3 confirmed solar generation can be included in GESA projects and noted state programs such as Pennsylvania Solar for Schools and SRECs (solar renewable energy credits) as potential funding or revenue sources; CM3 said past exploratory work for large solar arrays (including a prior proposal tied to unused prison grounds) stalled when credits changed but that opportunities reappear as incentives evolve.

Next steps outlined to the committee included issuing an RFP to secure firm pricing, developing refined priority and timeline documentation for the board (including a clear separation between maintenance items and improvement projects), and coordinating any high‑school work with long‑lead equipment procurement. CM3 and district staff said they would return more detailed cost breakdowns and a recommended path for moving scope items into the district’s budgeting process.

The committee did not take a final vote on any GESA project at the meeting; staff said an RFP and firm bids would inform any future approvals.