Board hears solar plan proposing roughly $415,000 net cost after federal and state incentives

Allied Facility Partners delivered a solar feasibility and rough-cost presentation to the Cary District 26 Committee of the Whole on July 21, 2025, outlining rooftop systems for five schools and an optional canopy for the planned transportation center, and identifying federal and state incentives that reduce the district’s net cost.

Why it matters: Solar installations affect capital planning, operating budgets and long-term utility costs. Available federal and state incentives — and the district’s referendum and roofing schedule — determine whether the project is financially practical and how quickly it must move.

Doug McMahon, CEO of Allied Facility Partners, and Kevin Korn reviewed rough-order-of-magnitude system sizes, estimated annual offsets and incentives. Korn said the district could be eligible for about "$1,900,000 in incentive in funding just from the IRA," referring to Inflation Reduction Act incentives available to projects that meet program criteria. The team showed site-by-site offset estimates they derived from a year of utility bills: Cary Junior High (approx. 51% electrical offset), Deer Path (about 69%), 3 Oaks (about 75%), Briargate (about 68%) and Oak Knoll (about 68%). Allied estimated an average districtwide offset near 61% and reported a district out‑of‑pocket cost after incentives of about $415,000 for the systems presented. They also reported a projected lifetime benefit to the district of about $5.3 million from reduced utility costs and related savings.

The firm stressed coordination with recent and planned roofing and lighting work, recommending installations on newer roofs to protect warranties. "That is best to do them with roofs," Korn said, adding that Allied will coordinate with roofing contractors so warranties are not affected. Allied described ballast-mounted rooftop systems (no roof membrane penetrations), inverters placed for service access, 25-year product warranties for panels and inverters and the use of U.S.-manufactured bifacial panels to qualify for IRA incentives.

Funding and timing questions dominated board discussion. Allied described other funding sources, including ComEd incentives and the state Illinois Shines program, and reviewed financing options: an outright purchase (largest long‑term financial benefit) versus a power purchase agreement or lease (which requires no up‑front district capital but reduces long‑term savings because a private financier takes tax credits and requires a return). Korn said the IRA-related incentives are time-limited; the firm noted 2026 as the key cutoff for completing required construction milestones to claim current credits, though some criteria remained under IRS clarification.

Board members asked about hail and storm damage, insurance, warranties and lifecycle issues. Allied said hail claims are generally handled by insurance and that routine annual checks and occasional cleaning are recommended; panels are warrantied for 25 years and typically degrade slowly (about 0.5% per year) and can produce for 25–30 years. On batteries and backup power, Allied confirmed panels and inverters will produce during outages if the grid is available but said battery storage and backup generators are separate options with additional costs; they noted battery storage is typically not cost-effective in their modeling unless the district chooses that resilience for other reasons.

Allied also suggested educational benefits: integrating solar dashboards and STEM curriculum connections and presenting real‑time production data to students and the public.

Next steps and board direction: Allied proposed continuing detailed design and coordination with roofing schedules; the firm asked for a board consensus to proceed with planning so project timing could capture IRA and other incentives. Superintendent staff said they hoped to return the item for further discussion the next week and recommended a decision by August so planning could proceed with summer roofing and fall procurement. No formal vote was taken at the July 21 meeting; board members requested additional detail and cost breakdowns and asked staff to plan next steps including potential procurement timing.

For readers: the firm’s numbers are estimates based on one year of utility bills and preliminary site review; final system sizing, incentives received and net cost will depend on detailed design, confirmed program rules, procurement results and coordination with roof replacements and other referendum work.