Green Practices Commission proposes rooftop-solar cost-benefit analyses for new developments in University City

The University City Green Practices Commission on April 28 proposed an ordinance that would require new commercial and multifamily developments with a footprint of at least 5,000 square feet to produce a solar-panel cost-benefit analysis and report the findings to the commission and city council.

Commissioner Tim Schmaltz presented the proposal, saying the ordinance would not require installation but would “generate a solar panel cost benefit analysis” so developers, the commission and the council could see whether rooftop solar made sense for a given project. Schmaltz said rooftop systems reduce land use, decrease the need for new transmission infrastructure and can avoid some community opposition to large ground-mounted arrays.

Schmaltz described potential benefits and limitations in practical terms. He gave an example of a 10-kilowatt array and said, as an illustrative point, it costs about $15,000 on resale marketplaces; he warned that was only an example and not a procurement price. The presenter also said Grow Solar programs can perform basic analyses for free, and that a “detailed analysis” might cost about $1,750 in some cases.

He cited regional precedents: St. Louis City in 2020 adopted a more demanding “solar-ready” requirement for new construction, and Clayton has pursued administrative changes to facilitate solar. Schmaltz said the University City proposal is intended as a “baby step” to gather data and encourage developers without deterring projects.

Councilmembers asked for clarifications about the proposal’s scope and enforcement. Councilmember McMahon asked whether the proposal began with the commission or city staff and emphasized that the commission should help shape goals for any rebid. McMahon and others sought a clear definition of “footprint” (whether the term refers to individual buildings, lots or entire developments) and whether small accessory buildings inside a larger development would trigger the requirement.

Councilmember Fuller asked whether rooftop rules could extend to carport or canopy arrays over parking, and Schmaltz said the current proposal focused on roofs but he was open to other forms of distributed generation. Councilmembers also raised enforcement questions — whether the analysis would be part of building permits — and staff suggested a working group of department directors to resolve legal and administrative details before drafting an ordinance.

No ordinance was introduced or voted on during the study session. Councilmembers instructed staff to explore legal models and produce working-group recommendations so a draft ordinance could be developed with clearer definitions, an enforcement path and an understanding of potential costs to developers.