2015_0126_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

217 218 At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz suggesting, from staff’s 219 perspective, to pursue an initial project that was not too large, but given the 220 amount of available roof space, get several applications in for the Made in 221 Minnesota program; and consider one larger system for the SPPA program, if that 222 was what the PWETC would also support. 223 224 Member Cihacek spoke in support of pursuing a solar power purchase agreement, 225 based on the information provided, but also providing an opportunity for public 226 comment and firm analysis on cost versus savings, and clarification for whether 227 or not the City should purchase the solar system. Member Cihacek suggested a 228 recommendation to the City Council from the PWETC to initiate a solicitation 229 process for a power purchase agreement for selected sites. 230 231 Mr. Culver, in questioning the recommended size of the initial system from the 232 PWETC, noted that a system of 100 K could take up to 10,000 to 12,000 square 233 feet of rooftop; and expressed concern about finding a roof or combination thereof 234 that would provide that space. Mr. Culver also suggested the need to define 235 whether it was best to pursue financing or seek a direct purchase by the City. 236 237 Mr. Kampmeyer addressed capacity credits; noting that a 100 K system allowed 238 the City to collect almost up to 50% of the solar capacity credit through 239 distributive generation. 240 241 Mr. Culver noted that, based on previous discussions specific to maintenance, if 242 the solar system was installed on a rooftop twice the size needed (e.g. 12,000 243 square feet size for a 100 plus K system), that could be accomplished on the City 244 Hall roof or the side most recently refurbished; and then could be installed as 245 necessary on another portion or on a portion of the public works garage. Mr. 246 Culver opined that this should address concerns brought up about the power 247 purchase agreement and entering into a preset escalator or rate increase not 248 knowing what the market was going to do, and given the size of the proposed 249 large system on city facility rooftops. 250 251 After numerous presentations and discussions, Member Cihacek opined that the 252 best long-term savings option seemed to be through a power purchase agreement 253 with escalating amounts, which would include some risks, but also provide some 254 guarantees for at least twenty years. While he had no preference in any options 255 presented, Member Cihacek opined that the PWETC recommend that the City 256 Council use its discretion to pursue an alternative measure to provide that best 257 long-term savings availability; and from a valuation standpoint opined that that 258 may prove the best option presented to-date, and allow initiation of the steps to 259 begin the process. 260 261 Member Seigler suggested specifying the Made in Minnesota option, and proceed 262 with that on six different sites. Page 6 of 11