Scottsdale bond panel defers vote on changing El Dorado Pool solar project to photovoltaic canopies

The Citizens Bond Oversight Committee on June 30 deferred action on a staff proposal to change the scope of a 2019 bond project for El Dorado Pool from a ground‑mounted solar pool‑heating system to a photovoltaic (PV) parking‑shade canopy.

City engineer Lisonbee Timkew told the committee the original bond description called for “a ground mounted solar pool hot water heating system at El Dorado Pool to reduce energy costs for heating the pool during the shoulder seasons and winter months. The project is estimated to save approximately $70,000 per year in energy costs.” Timkew said staff could not replicate the $70,000 estimate and cited maintenance, space and seasonal‑mismatch concerns with a solar thermal system.

The proposed alternative would instead construct a roughly 71‑kilowatt PV system mounted on parking‑shade canopies and connected to Salt River Project (SRP). Timkew said the PV option fits within the existing $560,000 project budget, has lower maintenance requirements, allows remote monitoring and provides visible community benefits in the form of shade. Staff estimated annual generation that could be sold back to SRP at about $7,000–$10,000 per year.

Why it matters: Committee members raised fiscal and programmatic questions about the substitution. Committee members noted the apparent long payback of roughly five decades when comparing the $560,000 budget to the $7,000–$10,000 estimated annual credit and asked for clearer analysis, including firm SRP interconnection terms, the number of parking spaces shaded by the canopy, and alternative uses for the $560,000 within Question 1 projects.

Details of the debate and next steps: Several members pressed staff on whether boilers at El Dorado Pool will need replacement in the near term and whether future equipment choices (for example, electric heat pumps) would change the project's solar potential. Principal project manager Roger Burner said solar thermal systems are “high maintenance and problematic,” require substantial ground area and would need fencing to deter vandalism, while PV canopies avoid those drawbacks.

Committee member Jim Davis moved to recommend elimination of the project on the grounds of a poor payback; the motion was seconded but later withdrawn. Instead, the committee voted unanimously to defer action and asked staff to return at the next meeting with (1) proposed replacement scope language the committee could vote on, (2) estimated shaded parking spaces from the canopy option, (3) quantified SRP interconnection and buy‑back assumptions or documentation, (4) explicit payback calculations and (5) clarification about whether bond funding could be reallocated if the project were eliminated or delayed. Timkew said staff can prepare revised scope language and additional analysis for the next meeting and noted that any scope change recommended by the committee would still require city council approval.

Discussion versus decision: The committee distinguished discussion (questions about maintenance, site impacts, payback and SRP constraints) from formal action. The committee did not approve a scope change; it deferred the matter to request more information before making a recommendation to city council.

Ending: Staff will return with redrafted project language and the requested analyses at the next Citizens Bond Oversight Committee meeting for a formal recommendation to city council.