Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Efficiency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board pauses downtown energy‑savings pilot after questions about building lifespan and funding
Summary
After a lengthy staff presentation and sustained questioning about site selection and funding, the Board of Supervisors voted 4–0 to continue the energy‑savings pilot for further vetting. Staff had proposed energy upgrades at 799 and 711 G Street through an energy‑savings performance contract with Willdan Energy Solutions.
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on July 28 agreed to continue—and asked staff to revisit—an energy‑savings pilot that would install efficiency and electrification measures at two county buildings under Government Code 4217. The pilot, proposed by the Department of General Services and Willdan Energy Solutions, estimated first‑year energy savings of about 1,000,000 kilowatt‑hours and 1,500 therms of natural gas—roughly $155,000 in utility savings the first year—and cumulative savings of about $6 million over a 25‑year equipment life. After extended questioning on building selection, expected useful life and funding sources, the board voted 4–0 to continue the item for further analysis and possible revision of candidate buildings (motion passed with Supervisor Kennedy absent).
Board members pressed staff on whether the older of the two buildings—711 G Street—was an appropriate pilot site given its age and potential future redevelopment. "If 711 G Street is still standing in 25 years, I'd be surprised," said Supervisor Serna, questioning the assumptions behind the long‑range savings calculation. Staff and the county deputy executive said a space‑utilization study and facility condition assessments are underway and that the pilot was deliberately sized to test a package of measures before scaling up.
Staff described funding options for the work: the county has approximately $1.2 million in an energy revolving fund and an estimated $4 million in a sustainability fund, both of which come from allocations on building rent rather than direct general‑fund appropriations; staff also said SMUD incentives of roughly $40,000–$45,000 were included for applicable electrification measures. Willdan representatives said they performed investment‑grade audits and engineering due diligence on the chosen buildings but were open to revising the project scope if the board wanted to focus on the larger energy user (799 G Street) alone or consider other candidate properties.
Several supervisors proposed pausing or bifurcating the two‑building package so staff could produce a cost/savings breakout for each building or evaluate alternative county assets. "I support the intent," Vice Chair Hume said, "but I want more specific cost and savings numbers if we are to bifurcate these buildings." The board asked staff to reconvene with Willdan and return with alternatives and additional vetting, and the motion to continue passed 4–0.
The action does not commit the county to the contract; it asks staff to return with refined analysis, alternative candidate buildings and, if needed, revised procurement approaches. The item was continued with direction to include engaged offices—DGS, the county sustainability manager and the deputy county executive—in the follow‑up work.
