Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott County council hears guaranteed‑savings energy proposal that includes solar, geothermal
Summary
A vendor representing Farajii presented a guaranteed‑savings energy project for Scott County buildings — solar arrays, geothermal heating, LED lighting and control upgrades — citing Indiana code and federal tax incentives; councilors asked for more financial analysis before proceeding.
Rick Anderson of Farajii presented a comprehensive energy‑conservation proposal to the Scott County Council on Dec. 9, outlining solar photovoltaic arrays, LED retrofits, geothermal heating, and building control upgrades intended to reduce utility costs for the courthouse, community corrections, EMS and the health department. Anderson said the proposal would be pursued under Indiana’s guaranteed‑savings procurement statute (IC 36‑1‑12.5) and that the company would guarantee a specified dollar amount of annual savings: “If we don’t save you the dollar amount that we say we’re gonna save you, we have to write you a check,” he told the council.
Anderson walked through projected first‑year operational savings and incentives, noting a year‑one savings example of $52,314 and describing an estimated federal investment tax credit available through the Inflation Reduction Act that could total in the hundreds of thousands on larger projects. He described potential capital measures—solar arrays sized for county rooftops, a geothermal system to replace older HVAC equipment, LED conversions with long warranties and a courthouse controls upgrade—and said the firm’s initial assessment and architectural measurements were provided at no charge to the county.
Council members said the plan was substantial and requested time to review details with financial advisers and county auditors. One council member asked staff to consult Baker Tilly and said they needed a clearer funding path before committing county dollars. Anderson acknowledged the proposal was “a lot to digest” and offered to answer follow‑up questions and take commissioners on a site visit to a completed local project.
Next steps raised at the meeting included additional financial modeling, verification of projected savings and clarification on procurement and payment options (cash, bonds or third‑party financing). The council did not take formal action on the proposal at the Dec. 9 meeting; members agreed to review the packet materials and return with questions for staff and the vendor.
