Upper Darby committee signals against immediate full rollout of Solar for Schools grant over roofing, timing and reserve concerns

Marvin Lee, the district’s director of operations, told the Finance & Operations Committee that Upper Darby School District won roughly $2.4 million in state Solar for Schools grant awards and has received nine proposals after issuing an RFP to 29 prequalified firms. Lee said updated estimates put the average total project cost at about $5.9 million, with roofing repair and replacement for the six awarded schools estimated at about $4,260,000 and a net solar cost of roughly $940,000 after subsidies — a simple payback the presentation estimated at 3.1 years.

The presentation and ensuing questions focused on two constraints: tight federal timing for the investment tax credit and the district’s other capital demands. Lee and other staff said the federal guidance indicates the district must spend at least 5% of the project cost by July 2026 to claim the full investment tax credit; staff said they are still awaiting clarification on what counts toward that 5% (design, purchase, or hard construction costs). “As long as the school district spends more than 5% of the project cost by July 2026, we will be able to receive the full credit,” Lee said.

Committee members cautioned that meeting that deadline could force roofing work while students are in class. “You don’t want to put solar panels on an old roof,” the presenter Rogers said, noting that roof work must be coordinated with solar installation to protect warranties and avoid removing panels to fix a roof.

Board members also highlighted competing demands on the district’s capital reserve, including a recent acquisition of the Delaware County Memorial Hospital property and other long‑deferred facilities work. Staff reported the capital reserve balance at about $30–$35 million and said roofing costs would be funded from that account while the net solar expense would likely be treated in the general fund. Staff warned that if the federal tax credit did not materialize, the district could face an additional roughly $2.3 million impact to the general fund.

Several board members urged caution about stretching district staff and dollars. One member summarized the trade‑off: winning unusual grant awards is commendable, but the district also faces a backlog of facility needs and the potential to significantly deplete reserves to combine roofs, the hospital project and other capital work in a short window. An assistant superintendent who spoke at length urged prudence, saying a district with many aging buildings must consider long‑term implications of tapping the reserve now.

On operations, Lee said anticipated annual maintenance for solar arrays would be modest — vendor proposals ranged from about $2,000 to $7,000 per building, or roughly $17,000 annually for the six‑school portfolio.

The committee did not take a binding vote. The chair conducted a nonbinding show‑of‑hands to gauge preferences among three staff options (no implementation, full implementation, partial implementation). The recorded advisory tally was 7 for no implementation, 2 for full implementation; additional members spoke in favor of pursuing the grant fully because it may be a rare opportunity. The chair clarified the show‑of‑hands was advisory and not a formal board decision.

What comes next: staff will return with additional procurement and accounting clarifications (including which costs count toward the federal 5% threshold) and, if directed, a recommendation for partial implementation that could limit roofing work to a subset of schools. The committee adjourned without a binding decision.