Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities And Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee flags Liberty Curtain’s high per-kilowatt utility charge, asks staff for ongoing reports and solar fact-finding
Summary
Brandy presented fiscal-year-to-date utility data showing Liberty Curtain’s kWh charge (~29¢/kWh) is more than double comparable sites; committee asked staff for monthly reports with kWh used and requested a three-month fact-finding report on a 50%-match solar grant and roof readiness.
At the April 28 facilities committee meeting, Brandy presented fiscal-year-to-date utility figures for each school and flagged that Liberty Curtain’s charge-per-kilowatt was noticeably higher than other buildings. Committee members asked for additional detail and follow-up research into solar grant opportunities.
Brandy walked the committee through the report and the fiscal-year timeframe. She and other members said Bucktail used 153 students and reported total electricity for the year, while Liberty Curtain—also a new account—showed a much higher unit charge. One committee member summarized the comparison: "their price per kilowatt is 29 cents rather than less than 13," and asked staff to add total kilowatt-hours used for every site so the committee can compare usage versus unit pricing.
Staff explained the reason for Liberty Curtain’s high per-kWh charge: because it was a brand-new account with no historical usage to set a baseline, the utility initially applied a general (and higher) charge; adjustments have been made since. Committee members said they want regular tracking to detect rate anomalies over time; staff committed to running the utility report monthly for facilities meetings and adding a column for kWh used and fiscal-year labeling.
The committee also discussed a potential solar grant opportunity that requires a 50% district match. Members identified several considerations: roof age (many providers decline roofs older than eight years), contract terms that can require shutting panels down for roof maintenance, and end-of-life disposal or replacement liability. Sam and others recommended administration conduct a fact-finding exercise and return within three months with examples of districts that have rooftop versus ground-mounted systems, vendor practices, and an estimate of upfront costs and likely payback scenarios.
No final commitment to a solar project was made; the committee instructed staff to research roofs that meet technical requirements, gather contacts for peer districts, and return with a fact-finding report to inform any future grant submission.
