Laserfiche WebLink
provided as an option in his calculations. At this time, Mr. Streier advised that <br /> community solar gardens didn't have a separate solar incentive, but were based on <br /> an applicable retail rate for now or the value of the solar system down the line. <br /> Mr. Strier noted that if the City was approved for the Made in Minnesota <br /> incentive, it could then attempt to transfer the system in to a community solar <br /> garden and solicit shares; however, he was not confident this was possible. <br /> At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Streier responded that he didn't think one <br /> option excluded the other, but suggested the City needed to make a decision for <br /> the Made in Minnesota project, then consider a separate community solar project; <br /> or perhaps indicate on their application that they intended to make it a community <br /> solar garden, which would be considered under a separate category for the <br /> Department of Commerce. Mr. Streier advised that he had not done any <br /> applications under the new Department of Commerce program yet, and was <br /> unsure how that program was locked in. <br /> Member Cihacek suggested that, after the initial ten year ownership change, the <br /> City would open it back up to a community solar system and offer it to <br /> subscribers at that time. <br /> Mr. Schwartz cautioned that such an option would need to be confirmed and <br /> verified with regulators first. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding the installation cost of$240,000, down payments by <br /> the City of$20,000 (approximately 5%), and other payments outlined in <br /> Attachment A, with remaining monies in rebates and tax credits; federal tax <br /> incentives of approximately 30% of the overall cost, and approximately 65% of <br /> project costs funded through incentives; trends for KWh production with panels <br /> compared to current panels on the market and the potential for improved <br /> technologies and prices, with prices having gone down dramatically from initial <br /> modules and systems; current and future legislation and credits; and future <br /> incentives reflected by decreased rates as well. <br /> Further discussion included the methodology stipulated for calculation in <br /> documents per IRS guidelines for Newport Partners and municipal applications; <br /> City decisions on purchasing the system at year 10 based on the fair market value <br /> of the system; rationale that Newport Partners would not exercise their put option <br /> at that time, with no economic incentive for their firm to stay in the program <br /> beyond year 10 since all tax credits would be claimed by investors; and purchase <br /> stipulations contained in the agreement addressing equity investment rates with <br /> the system no longer having any value to Newport at that time. <br /> Vice Chair Gjerdingen thanked Mr. Streier for his presentation and discussion. <br /> Next Steps <br /> Page 12 of 17 <br />