Providing more shade to a sun-drenched city, while utilizing our star to reduce electric costs – what could go wrong?

Plenty, according to Scottsdale Councilman Adam Kwasman.

“A shell game,” he called the plan.

Though Scottsdale City Council approved a City Hall parking lot solar shade project at just under $2 million, Mayor Lisa Borowsky joined Kwasman in hurling abuse at Scottsdale 2019 Bond Project 58.

Kwasman called it “a shell game” – not once, but twice.

Borowsky piled on with “this is a clear example of misplaced priorities and poor fiscal stewardship.” The mayor bashed the solar parking project at the Oct. 21 council meeting.

She doubled down at her town hall held the next week, piggy-backing criticism of this project with her year-long crusade against the planned multi-level parking garage at First and Brown, a half mile from City Hall.

“It doesn’t seem to make sense to spend $2 million … on solar panels, which don’t age well,” Borowsky said at her Oct. 29 town hall.

“I think it’s a better idea to spend money elsewhere,” the mayor continued. “For example, why wouldn’t we add … spaces to the City Hall parking lot instead of the garage across from the Mission?”

The packed hall at the Mustang Library applauded her on that one.

Six Novembers ago, Scottsdale voters were pitched on 58 projects totaling around $319 million.

Around $13 million were to go to a half-dozen projects involving solar-to-electricity projects.

The people spoke: “Yes, tap into the sun!”

It wasn’t a huge turnout, in a non-presidential “off election year.” Even so, 68% of the 55,000 who voted favored the monster bond-funded construction package.

A half-dozen years later, less than half the projects are complete.

One to cross the finish line: Project 57, the $4.8 million “Install Solar Systems North Corporation Campus.”

Two dozen projects patiently await selection in the “design” or “future year” status.

One of them is moving forward: Project 58, “Install Parasol Solar Shade Structure at City Hall Parking Lot,” which has an original price tag of $4.7 million.

But wait … unlike many of its fellow bond-funded projects, which rocketed over their original “estimates,” the City Hall solar parking project now costs less than half what voters were told.

On Oct. 21, Council approved a $1.9 million “design-build  manager construction phase services” contract for 2019 Bond Project 58.

This item was originally on the meeting’s “consent agenda,” meaning it would have been voted on with another dozen items without individual discussion.

But Borowsky – who ultimately joined Kwasman in voting against the project – asked for it to be “pulled” from the consent agenda.

That allowed for what City Manager Greg Caton called “an interesting discussion,” involving not only the city’s elected officials but also some concerned residents.

Steve Sutton said the city could use the money better: “filling potholes.”

Dan Ishac, another frequent “public comments” speaker, insisted the City Hall lot already has partial shading and the solar structures would be better used in other city parking lots.

Alison Tymkiw, senior director of the city’s Transportation and Infrastructure Department, followed with a presentation.

“This is a 2019 voter-approved project for this specific location,” she stressed.“The solar panels have been located on the northeastern portion and eastern side where we don’t have the benefit of natural shade.”

Tymkiw said the project would more than pay for itself over time, saving $46,000 per year in electricity costs – or $3 million over 25 years” by offsetting 75% of the utility usage of City Hall.

Councilwoman Maryann McAllen said all she heard was good things from neighbors who weighed in on the solar parking project.

Though she told Councilwoman Jan Dubauskas “I don’t have the full language” of how the project was pitched, Tymkiw confirmed “we will have project savings.”

There’s a catch, though: The City Hall solar parking project is cheaper because it is much smaller than originally planned.

Due to APS restrictions on solar photovoltaic projects, “we’re not able to put as (many) PV solar panels in the area,” Tymkiw said.

She added the city did not know about the restrictions until it started on the first voter-approved solar project, at the city’s North Corporation Yard near Via Linda and the Loop 101.

No savings info

Voters were told the $4.8 million “Install Solar Systems North Corporation Campus” project “would reduce the energy cost of the North Campus by approximately $240,380 per year.

The project was completed in January, coming in slightly under budget at a total project cost of $4,657,819.

The Progress asked Tymkiw  what electricity bill cost savings the city is seeing thus far from the North Corporation Campus solar panels.

“Unfortunately,” Erin Walsh, a city spokeswoman, responded, “I don’t think that’s something we can provide yet. 

“We have information on the total energy generated by the system at (the North Corporation Yard) … but need more information from APS to calculate the savings.”

The Progress also asked why the city did move forward on the much cheaper ($560,332) El Dorado Pool solar project.

Walsh’s reply: “The Eldorado Pool solar was originally proposed as a solar heating system. Due to the high maintenance cost for solar water heating and the need to construct a solar field within the park, city staff proposed changing scope to a solar photovoltaic system that could be mounted on canopies constructed over the existing parking spaces.”

The city proposed those changes to the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee in August – but committee members posed questions that staff could not answer. So this project will return to the volunteer oversight committee at its Nov. 18 meeting.

Regarding another 2019 bond project, “Double the Solar Power Generating Capacity at Appaloosa Library” – at just under $40,000 relative change-jar money, compared to many big-ticket items – Walsh said:

 “City staff determined that the funding was insufficient to complete this project, and components of the existing system would need to be upgraded as well.  This will be presented to the Citizen’s Bond Oversight Committee at one of their future meetings.”

Asked for further thoughts days after the vote, Borowsky sounded like she was simmering over the solar action.

“The city has far more pressing priorities where we should invest the nearly $2 million the majority of Council just approved for the ‘sustainability’ solar panel shade covers for 61 spaces at City Hall,” Borowsky said.

“It was entirely misleading that the solar panels for 61 spaces were specifically ‘voter approved.’ As was confirmed during the meeting, the citizens of Scottsdale approved a bond package which included this project as one of an extensive list of possibilities in the supporting materials which were not identified on the ballot.”

She circled back to one of her pet peeves: “The City Hall parking lot should be considered for a higher and better use such as expanding the number of spaces through improvements to the existing parking lot.

“Doing so would provide a solid alternative for the three-story parking garage which is set to start construction across from the Old Adobe Mission in our Historic District at 1st Street and Brown Avenue.”

No charge

The City Hall solar project, as pitched to voters, included “install two electric vehicle dual-charging stations.”

The $1.9 million version approved by City Council did not include this.

According to a city spokeswoman, “Vehicle charging stations were evaluated but put on hold until the city has a future contract in place to operate public charging stations.”