Providing more shade to a sun-drenched city, while utilizing our star to reduce electric costs \u2013 what could go wrong?<\/p>\n
Plenty, according to Scottsdale Councilman Adam Kwasman.<\/p>\n
\u201cA shell game,\u201d he called the plan.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Kwasman called it \u201ca shell game\u201d \u2013 not once, but twice.<\/p>\n
Borowsky piled on with \u201cthis is a clear example of misplaced priorities and poor fiscal stewardship.\u201d The mayor bashed the solar parking project at the Oct. 21 council meeting.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt doesn\u2019t seem to make sense to spend $2 million \u2026 on solar panels, which don\u2019t age well,\u201d Borowsky said at her Oct. 29 town hall.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think it\u2019s a better idea to spend money elsewhere,\u201d the mayor continued. \u201cFor example, why wouldn\u2019t we add … spaces to the City Hall parking lot instead of the garage across from the Mission?\u201d<\/p>\n
The packed hall at the Mustang Library applauded her on that one.<\/p>\n
Six Novembers ago, Scottsdale voters were pitched on 58 projects totaling around $319 million.<\/p>\n
Around $13 million were to go to a half-dozen projects involving solar-to-electricity projects.<\/p>\n
The people spoke: \u201cYes, tap into the sun!\u201d<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t a huge turnout, in a non-presidential \u201coff election year.\u201d Even so, 68% of the 55,000 who voted favored the monster bond-funded construction package.<\/p>\n
A half-dozen years later, less than half the projects are complete.<\/p>\n
One to cross the finish line: Project 57, the $4.8 million \u201cInstall Solar Systems North Corporation Campus.\u201d<\/p>\n
Two dozen projects patiently await selection in the \u201cdesign\u201d or \u201cfuture year\u201d status.<\/p>\n
One of them is moving forward: Project 58, \u201cInstall Parasol Solar Shade Structure at City Hall Parking Lot,\u201d which has an original price tag of $4.7 million.<\/p>\n
But wait \u2026 unlike many of its fellow bond-funded projects, which rocketed over their original \u201cestimates,\u201d the City Hall solar parking project now costs less than half what voters were told.<\/p>\n
On Oct. 21, Council approved a $1.9 million \u201cdesign-build\u00a0 manager construction phase services\u201d contract for 2019 Bond Project 58.<\/p>\n
This item was originally on the meeting\u2019s \u201cconsent agenda,\u201d meaning it would have been voted on with another dozen items without individual discussion.<\/p>\n
But Borowsky \u2013 who ultimately joined Kwasman in voting against the project \u2013 asked for it to be \u201cpulled\u201d from the consent agenda.<\/p>\n
That allowed for what City Manager Greg Caton called \u201can interesting discussion,\u201d involving not only the city\u2019s elected officials but also some concerned residents.<\/p>\n
Steve Sutton said the city could use the money better: \u201cfilling potholes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Dan Ishac, another frequent \u201cpublic comments\u201d speaker, insisted the City Hall lot already has partial shading and the solar structures would be better used in other city parking lots.<\/p>\n
Alison Tymkiw, senior director of the city\u2019s Transportation and Infrastructure Department, followed with a presentation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a 2019 voter-approved project for this specific location,\u201d she stressed.\u201cThe solar panels have been located on the northeastern portion and eastern side where we don\u2019t have the benefit of natural shade.\u201d<\/p>\n
Tymkiw said the project would more than pay for itself over time, saving $46,000 per year in electricity costs \u2013 or $3 million over 25 years\u201d by offsetting 75% of the utility usage of City Hall.<\/p>\n
Councilwoman Maryann McAllen said all she heard was good things from neighbors who weighed in on the solar parking project.<\/p>\n
Though she told Councilwoman Jan Dubauskas \u201cI don\u2019t have the full language\u201d of how the project was pitched, Tymkiw confirmed \u201cwe will have project savings.\u201d<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a catch, though: The City Hall solar parking project is cheaper because it is much smaller than originally planned.<\/p>\n
Due to APS restrictions on solar photovoltaic projects, \u201cwe\u2019re not able to put as (many) PV solar panels in the area,\u201d Tymkiw said.<\/p>\n
She added the city did not know about the restrictions until it started on the first voter-approved solar project, at the city\u2019s North Corporation Yard near Via Linda and the Loop 101.<\/p>\n
No savings info<\/strong><\/p>\n Voters were told the $4.8 million \u201cInstall Solar Systems North Corporation Campus\u201d project \u201cwould reduce the energy cost of the North Campus by approximately $240,380 per year.<\/p>\n The project was completed in January, coming in slightly under budget at a total project cost of $4,657,819.<\/p>\n The Progress asked Tymkiw\u00a0 what electricity bill cost savings the city is seeing thus far from the North Corporation Campus solar panels.<\/p>\n \u201cUnfortunately,\u201d Erin Walsh, a city spokeswoman, responded, \u201cI don\u2019t think that\u2019s something we can provide yet.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe have information on the total energy generated by the system at (the North Corporation Yard) \u2026 but need more information from APS to calculate the savings.\u201d<\/p>\n The Progress also asked why the city did move forward on the much cheaper ($560,332) El Dorado Pool solar project.<\/p>\n Walsh\u2019s reply: \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n The city proposed those changes to the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee in August \u2013 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.<\/p>\n Regarding another 2019 bond project, \u201cDouble the Solar Power Generating Capacity at Appaloosa Library\u201d \u2013 at just under $40,000 relative change-jar money, compared to many big-ticket items \u2013 Walsh said:<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cCity staff determined that the funding was insufficient to complete this project, and components of the existing system would need to be upgraded as well.\u00a0 This will be presented to the Citizen\u2019s Bond Oversight Committee at one of their future meetings.\u201d<\/p>\n Asked for further thoughts days after the vote, Borowsky sounded like she was simmering over the solar action.<\/p>\n \u201cThe city has far more pressing priorities where we should invest the nearly $2 million the majority of Council just approved for the \u2018sustainability\u2019 solar panel shade covers for 61 spaces at City Hall,\u201d Borowsky said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was entirely misleading that the solar panels for 61 spaces were specifically \u2018voter approved.\u2019 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.\u201d<\/p>\n She circled back to one of her pet peeves: \u201cThe 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.<\/p>\n \u201cDoing 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.\u201d<\/p>\n No charge<\/strong><\/p>\n The City Hall solar project, as pitched to voters, included \u201cinstall two electric vehicle dual-charging stations.\u201d<\/p>\n The $1.9 million version approved by City Council did not include this.<\/p>\n According to a city spokeswoman, \u201cVehicle charging stations were evaluated but put on hold until the city has a future contract in place to operate public charging stations.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Providing more shade to a sun-drenched city, while utilizing our star to reduce electric costs \u2013 what could…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":373415,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5131],"tags":[179695,5229,5643,1587,5310,13239,138901,1589,23912,1763,179694,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-373414","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-phoenix","8":"tag-adam-kwasman","9":"tag-america","10":"tag-arizona","11":"tag-az","12":"tag-city-council","13":"tag-city-hall","14":"tag-lisa-borowsky","15":"tag-phoenix","16":"tag-solar-power","17":"tag-sustainability","18":"tag-sustainable-urban-planning","19":"tag-united-states","20":"tag-united-states-of-america","21":"tag-unitedstates","22":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","23":"tag-us","24":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115535669240972281","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373414","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=373414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/373414\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/373415"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=373414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=373414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=373414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}