A new county health services building scheduled for construction this spring will have rooftop solar panels and a water reclamation system using captured rainwater for its toilets, the county commission decided last week.
Although they disagreed on the details of the two sustainability features being proposed, a majority of commissioners voted to add $3.07 million to the price tag of the structure soon to be built on the county’s Sunset Drive campus in Olathe. The addition brings the building’s total project cost to $116,524,000.
Solar panels will save $85K a year
The water reclamation part of the build, at $1.07 million, channels rainwater from the roof through filters and into an underground storage tank, where it is later piped into toilets in the facility. According to staff estimates, the system has a potential to reuse 2 million gallons a year over a 50-year lifespan with minimal operating and maintenance costs.
The rooftop would also provide space for 43,100 square feet of solar panels, which would save $85,000 per year in utility costs, according to staff estimates.
With interest, the additions would cost about $4.7 million.
The new health services building will be just south of the existing one at 119th Street and Ridgeview Road. When completed in late 2027, the building will bring mental health services, the health department and county aging and human services under one roof.
Critics were skeptical of sustainability elements
However, the new building has been controversial at times for its cost, with some criticizing the way the county has managed its existing facilities.
On March 6, two speakers voiced skepticism with the sustainability systems under discussion. Gene Senesac of Overland Park said the water reclamation was conceptually a good idea but “a little ahead of its time.” He suggested there were too many hypotheticals about the payback on the system.
Ben Hobert of Westwood Hills doubted that the 2 million gallon recapture estimate is correct, saying the area is too dry for more than four months of the year for the system to have that much impact.
Commissioners differ whether upgrades are worth cost
Commissioner Jeff Meyers was also hesitant about the water system, saying there isn’t enough information on such a system that he believes is a first in the area.
Since the commission took separate votes on the two systems, Meyers voted against funding the water system. Commissioner Julie Brewer voted in favor of the water system, but against the solar panels, suggesting they could be added later.
Commissioner Michael Ashcraft voted against both systems. The water system seems “experimental” he said, but he objected to the total cost as well.
Each system passed by a 5-2 vote, with Meyers and Ashcraft voting against the water system and Brewer and Ashcraft voting against the solar panels.
Commissioners Shirley Allenbrand, Becky Fast, Janeé Hanzlick and county chair Mike Kelly voted in favor of both.
If the county is willing to look at those long-term investments, it must be in a pretty good position, he said. “But I don’t believe that we are necessarily today in that good of a position. We should be more frugal with the use of these resources and more willing to look at economic impact.”
Commissioners in favor said the county needs to consider long-range impacts for a building they hope will last 75 years.
Commissioner Shirley Allenbrand said water availability is important especially in rural areas. “I think the cost savings in the long run is going to be tremendous and we need to start looking at the future for our kids and our grandchildren.”
Commissioner Becky Fast noted there’s already a water crisis in some rural areas. Putting in conservation measures is something the county can do to be a good steward, she said. “I see this as something that every community will be doing in the next five years.” She added that given the possible federal tariffs, the solar panels are likely to cost more if the county delays.
Commission Chair Mike Kelly, who is also chair of Climate Action KC, said Kansas City is leading the world in building healthier buildings. “ I appreciate my colleague’s sensitivity to the budget circumstances that we’re in in Johnson county,” he said. “We have an opportunity here to make an investment in Johnson County that provides a better building, that provides for the environment and that fiscally makes sense.”
Keep reading other environment and climate news: JoCo part of KC’s ‘bona fide’ EV economy, panelists say. Will federal uncertainty threaten that?
