Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kiski Area SD reviews $19 million guaranteed-energy retrofit proposal promising $1.1 million in annual savings
Summary
District staff presented a Constellation assessment under the Guaranteed Energy Savings Act that identifies about $19 million in building upgrades across 13 categories and estimates $1.1 million in guaranteed annual energy and maintenance savings; the board will solicit competing proposals and must complete a multi-step process before any contract vote.
KISKI AREA SD — District staff on June 11 briefed the school board on a proposal to modernize aging building systems under a Guaranteed Energy Savings Act (GESA) approach, presenting an estimated $19,000,000 scope of work and a projected $1,100,000 in annual guaranteed savings.
Rick, a district staff member who led the presentation, said the assessment — supplied by a company identified as Constellation — covers 13 categories across district buildings, including heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, window replacements, roof repairs and mechanical controls. "They put together a plan of about a $19,000,000 fix to the district," Rick said. "The savings is an annual savings of $1,100,000 annually over the life of the replacements." He added, "There is no cost to the district for any of this" during the assessment and planning phases.
The nut of the proposal: Constellation would perform an assessment and propose a scope of work; the company also prepares a repayment plan that it guarantees. The district would advertise for competing firms, compare proposals, and proceed through several internal review steps; staff said there are six steps before any contract returns to the full board for approval. If guaranteed savings fall short, the company would make up the difference, according to the presentation.
Board members requested technical and financial detail. Staff identified component estimates inside the $19 million: about $5.4 million for rooftop HVAC/RTU replacements, $4.2 million for window replacements in several buildings, $5.2 million for roof work in three buildings, roughly $300,000 for building-envelope improvements across six schools, and about $700,000 of what staff called "capital avoidance" (reduced repair costs and warranty benefits after replacement). Rick said the $1.1 million figure comes from a review of utility bills, maintenance records and replacement-cost assumptions and noted the company provides reports to substantiate projected savings.
On financing, staff said the district would issue bonds to fund the work and use the guaranteed savings stream to service that debt; there are borrowing mechanisms that allow a three‑year deferral of principal payments, though interest would accrue. Rick said the company that wins the competitive process typically manages the project, and the district would oversee contract performance and bring key approvals back to the board.
District staff cited local examples of the approach in other districts (Southmoreland, Deer Lakes, Penn Hills) and recommended moving forward with a public solicitation to invite competing proposals. No board vote was taken June 11; the board directed staff to continue the competitive solicitation and to bring firms to present before the full board later in the process.
The board will consider whether to add non‑energy items (parking lots, fields) to the scope; staff warned those items may not generate energy savings and would therefore require separate funding decisions. Next procedural steps are the public solicitation and comparative review of proposals, followed by administrative reviews and, if a vendor is selected, formal contract review and a board vote.
