Leawood council hears $9.4 million energy-efficiency package; state FCIP covers $3.02 million

Leawood city staff and energy consultant Navitas on March 17 outlined a combined set of facility and street-lighting upgrades estimated at about $9.4 million that city officials say will produce operational savings to offset project costs over time.

The package includes a $3.02 million suite of projects that meet the Kansas Facility Conservation Improvement Program (FCIP) payback threshold (15 years), and additional non-FCIP items that together bring the total Navitas scope to roughly $9.4 million. Navitas projected an annual energy savings of about $205,000 and annual operations and maintenance savings of about $262,000; over 20 years the firm presented a 20-year net savings estimate of about $9.36 million versus an approximate $9.4 million project cost.

Diane Stoddard, city administrator, told the council the state-run FCIP program allows municipalities to finance energy- and maintenance-related upgrades that produce savings which then repay the work over time. “A number of these projects were on our CIP list already,” Stoddard said, and the FCIP process can pull forward items that otherwise might not compete for capital dollars.

Ryan Terry, Navitas project lead, described the top-tier FCIP items as interior and exterior LED retrofits, major roadway (Cobra-head) lighting replacements and a solar array eligible for the federal energy investment tax credit (EITC). “That project has a 13.5-year simple payback,” Terry said of the FCIP-eligible bundle. He also described non-FCIP work including decorative street lighting, a consolidated building automation/energy management system, several HVAC replacements and retro-commissioning work.

Council members pressed Navitas and staff on warranties, expected equipment life, timing and financing. Terry said LED fixtures commonly carry a 10-year warranty and manufacturers estimate typical LED lifespans of 75,000 hours; “if you were burning it all the time, that’s at least 12 years,” he said, adding many fixtures are expected to last longer.

Don Cobby (finance) presented preliminary debt modeling and said rebates and early savings could reduce the expected amount to be financed. “Instead of issuing the $9.4 million in debt, I’m hoping it’s around $8 million,” he said, adding the city may split work between calendar years depending on timing and contingency costs. Cobby also said the city could receive the federal EITC directly under current law, though third-party tax-administration costs would apply.

Questions from council included who does the installation (Navitas answered that the program is turnkey and Navitas will engage contractors under a guaranteed maximum price), whether the city’s public-works staff would be overburdened (Public Works staff said Navitas handled most coordination in other cities), and whether payback calculations assume rising energy prices. Terry said the “simple payback” figures shown do not project future energy-price escalation; adding escalation would shorten payback.

Navitas and staff stressed timing concerns: tariffs and potential changes to the EITC could affect final project costs or benefits. “The timing of us moving forward with these projects is pretty important,” Stoddard said, noting the city may prioritize work that secures tax credits and avoids potential tariff windows.

The council received the Navitas presentation and staff recommendations for the record; staff said no formal council action was requested that night and that a formal agreement with Navitas would return for approval at a later meeting once final scope, pricing and financing details were available.

Council members who asked technical or policy questions included Dr. Castor, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Villa, Councilmember Gaines and Councilmember Sippel. Staff and consultants identified next steps as finalizing scope and pricing, confirming rebates and tax-credit expectations, and returning with a financing package for council consideration.