Haysville board backs staff request to issue RFP to study solar panels for transportation center and natatorium

The Haysville Board of Education at its July regular meeting directed staff to move forward with a request for proposals to study installing rooftop solar at the district transportation facility and at the natatorium, saying the district wants a formal cost and return‑on‑investment estimate before any purchase decision.

Mister Hirsch, a district staff member who presented the consultant analysis, told the board that “the cost of solar has declined by 87% over the past decade” and that the consultant identified the transportation building and the natatorium as the two sites most likely to pay back within a reasonable period. He said the consultant’s early estimates put long‑term savings at about $260,000 for the transportation site and roughly $739,000 for the natatorium, and estimated a payback period of about six to seven years on the systems the consultant modeled.

The timing, Hirsch said, is a driver: “We can absorb 40% of the cost in money back from the federal government in [the investment] tax credit,” he said, adding that the credit is currently scheduled to expire Dec. 31. Board members raised the need to move quickly to preserve that federal incentive; staff said an RFP could be posted within days and that a vendor proposal could be brought back to the board in August for formal action if the board wants to proceed.

Why it matters: the district says the projects could reduce long‑term operating costs while also becoming instructional tools. Dr. Reed, the district superintendent, described a curriculum tie‑in: Campus High School already lists an energy pathway of classes that includes Introduction to Energy and Energy Industry Fundamentals; the district plans to use the systems’ data feeds as hands‑on learning for students. “These are kids we’re talking about going out into the world of business and being able to see how solar has affected their own school district,” Dr. Reed said.

Key details staff provided and board members asked about - Sites recommended: transportation building (rooftop) and natatorium (rooftop), plus a small student‑lab array to provide classroom data for students. - Consultant estimates (preliminary): savings of about $260,000 (transportation) and $739,000 (natatorium); estimated payback 6–7 years; system life ~25 years. - Federal investment tax credit: 40% credit cited by staff; staff said the credit is currently scheduled to expire Dec. 31 and that the district is seeking to preserve eligibility. - Timing and approvals: staff said some utility approvals (Evergy/Westar transition issues) typically have up to 90 days for review; installation times cited by the presenter were on the order of 2–4 weeks once a vendor is ready. - Funding sources: staff said solar work can be paid from the district bond proceeds or capital outlay; no contract or purchase will occur without a future formal board approval vote.

Board members asked technical and fiscal follow‑ups: whether Evergy would charge fees to customers with on‑site generation, whether systems would include battery storage, and whether installing panels would change the district’s existing municipal utility rate status. Staff answered that battery storage was not included in the current proposal (batteries would materially increase cost and require additional maintenance) and that the RFP would require proposers to document any utility interconnection fees or other recurring charges. The district also said it would confirm whether installing panels would change a building’s grandfathered Westar rate and how Evergy handles interconnections.

No contract was approved at the July meeting. Instead, the board chair took a show of support; a majority of board members indicated they wanted staff to proceed with an RFP and to return proposals with firm costs, warranties and projected savings for board review. If the board later approves a contract, staff said the district would seek to schedule work so systems would be in place before the tax credit deadline if feasible.

Board and staff said they will return to the board with the RFP results, vendor proposals and clarified utility information before any installation steps.

Ending: The board’s decision at the July meeting was procedural: staff will issue an RFP and return with vendor proposals and concrete costs. The district emphasized that issuing an RFP is not a purchase commitment; any purchase would require a future formal board vote.