My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-08-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
2014-08-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2014 1:53:16 PM
Creation date
9/24/2014 1:53:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/26/2014
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Member Seigler opined it may be more advantageous to be a subscriber. <br /> Member Cihacek opined a host partner and subscriber would also be an <br /> advantage, allowing the City to finance a system indirectly to receive a benefit. <br /> At the request of Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Ross confirmed that the community solar <br /> option has been in operation long enough that developers could come in and talk <br /> about known tariff rates, financing and payback terms based on their income <br /> streams or subscriber income streams, based on their performance. However, Mr. <br /> Ross cautioned that those developers each had their own confidential business <br /> model, and they were competitive in nature. Mr. Ross advised that those multiple <br /> developers and host firms could also be invited to bid. However, Mr. Ross opined <br /> that the challenge would be for the City to be able to develop a template or <br /> pathway to follow in the public realm for the best transparency. <br /> Member Cihacek suggested the next step should be for the PWETC to develop <br /> such a conceptual model, from three different perspectives or roles: as a host, a <br /> host subscriber, or financier and focus conversation on what was needed to <br /> accomplish any or all of those roles. <br /> Chair Stenlund suggested that analysis would allow review of code language or <br /> processes to determine if something or anything was missing that could be readily <br /> identified. <br /> Member Cihacek clarified that the three roles have a review of what framework <br /> was needed for the City Council or advisory commissions to work on, opining <br /> that this was a time sensitive issue and dynamic to move quickly to provide one or <br /> the other argument for the best role for the City to pursue. <br /> Member Seigler asked if the City was in favor of owning solar assets. <br /> Mr. Schwartz clarified that that is at the discretion of the City Council; but from <br /> staff s perspective, in-house staff did not have the expertise or ability to manage a <br /> power generation business model. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the City did <br /> have a significant number and volume of rooftops, and at this time, staff was <br /> supportive of the City providing that space, with others managing the solar <br /> systems or being responsible for them. If there are dollars available for leasing <br /> those spaces and creating a revenue stream, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff was <br /> supportive of that. <br /> Member Cihacek moved, Member Seigler seconded, for the purposes of <br /> discussion over the next three months, consideration be given for the City to <br /> consider serving as a host solar site; and for those discussions to explore what that <br /> means to be a host or host for a community solar system. <br /> Page 12 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.