Laserfiche WebLink
487 <br />provided as an option in his calculations. At this time, Mr. Streier advised that <br />488 <br />community solar gardens didn't have a separate solar incentive, but were based on <br />489 <br />an applicable retail rate for now or the value of the solar system down the line. <br />490 <br />Mr. Strier noted that if the City was approved for the Made in Minnesota <br />491 <br />incentive, it could then attempt to transfer the system in to a community solar <br />492 <br />garden and solicit shares; however, he was not confident this was possible. <br />493 <br />stipulations contained in the agreement addressing equity investment rates with <br />494 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Streier responded that he didn't think one <br />495 option excluded the other, but suggested the City needed to make a decision for <br />496 the Made in Minnesota project, then consider a separate community solar project; <br />497 or perhaps indicate on their application that they.,' tended to make it a community <br />498 solar garden, which would be considered under a separate category for the <br />499 Department of Commerce. Mr. Streier advised that he had not done any <br />500 applications under the new Department of Commerce program yet, and was <br />501 unsure how that program was locked in. <br />502 <br />503 Member Cihacek suggested that, akeinitial <br />ten year ownership change, the <br />504 City would open it back up to a comoar em and offer it to <br />505 subscribers at that time. <br />506 <br />507 Mr. Schwartz cautioned that such an option would need to be confirmed and <br />508 verified with regulators first ML "qft <br />509 <br />510 Discussion ensued regarding the installation cost of $240,000, down payments by <br />511 the City of $20,000 (approximately 5%), and other payments outlined in <br />512 Attachment A, with remaining monies in rebates and tax credits; federal tax <br />513 incentives of approximately 30% of the overall cost, and approximately 65% of <br />514 project costs funded through incentives; trends for KWh production with panels <br />515 compareurrent panels on the market and the potential for improved <br />516 technologi s and prices, with prices having gone down dramatically from initial <br />517 modules and systems; current and future legislation and credits; and future <br />518 incentives reflected by decreased rates as well. <br />519 <br />520 <br />Further discussion included the methodology stipulated for calculation in <br />521 <br />documents per IRS guidelines for Newport Partners and municipal applications; <br />522 <br />City decisions on purchasing the system at year 10 based on the fair market value <br />523 <br />of the system; rationale that Newport Partners would not exercise their put option <br />524 <br />at that time, with no economic incentive for their firm to stay in the program <br />525 <br />beyond year 10 since all tax credits would be claimed by investors; and purchase <br />526 <br />stipulations contained in the agreement addressing equity investment rates with <br />527 <br />the system no longer having any value to Newport at that time. <br />528 <br />529 <br />Vice Chair Gjerdingen thanked Mr. Streier for his presentation and discussion. <br />530 <br />531 <br />Next Steps <br />Page 12 of 17 <br />