Laserfiche WebLink
217 <br />218 <br />At the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz suggesting, from staffs <br />219 <br />perspective, to pursue an initial project that was not too large, but given the <br />220 <br />amount of available roof space, get several applications in for the Made in <br />221 <br />Minnesota program; and consider one larger system for the SPPA program, if that <br />222 <br />was what the PWETC would also support. <br />223 <br />process for a power purchase agreement for selected sites. <br />224 <br />Member Cihacek spoke in support of pursuing a solar power purchase agreement, <br />225 <br />based on the information provided, but also providing an opportunity for public <br />226 <br />comment and firm analysis on cost versus savings, and clarification for whether <br />227 <br />or not the City should purchase the solar system. Member Cihacek suggested a <br />228 <br />recommendation to the City Council from the WETC to initiate a solicitation <br />229 <br />process for a power purchase agreement for selected sites. <br />230 <br />231 Mr. Culver, in questioning the recommended size of the initial system from the <br />232 PWETC, noted that a system of 100 K could take up to 10,000 to 12,000 square <br />233 feet of rooftop; and expressed concern about finding a roof or c bination thereof <br />234 that would provide that space. Mr. Cult' also suggested then define <br />235 whether it was best to pur e financingI4 k a direct purchase by th City. <br />236 <br />237 Mr. Kampmeyer addressed capacity credits; noting that a 100 K system allowed <br />238 the City to collect almost up to 50% of the solar capacity credit through <br />239 distributive generation. <br />240 <br />241 Mr. Culver noted that, based on previous discussions specific to maintenance, if <br />242 the solar system was installed on a rooftop twice the size needed (e.g. 12,000 <br />243 square feet size for a 100 plus K system), that could be accomplished on the City <br />244 Hall roof or the side most recently refurbished; and then could be installed as <br />245 necessary on another portion or on a portion of the public works garage. Mr. <br />246 Culver opined that this should address concerns brought up about the power <br />247 purchase agreement and entering into a preset escalator or rate increase not <br />248 knowing what the market was going to do, and given the size of the proposed <br />249 large system on city facility rooftops. <br />250 <br />251 After numerous presentations and discussions, Member Cihacek opined that the <br />252 best long-term saving option seemed to be through a power purchase agreement <br />253 with escalating amounts, which would include some risks, but also provide some <br />254 guarantees for at least twenty years. While he had no preference in any options <br />255 presented, Member Cihacek opined that the PWETC recommend that the City <br />256 Council use its discretion to pursue an alternative measure to provide that best <br />257 long-term savings availability; and from a valuation standpoint opined that that <br />258 may prove the best option presented to -date, and allow initiation of the steps to <br />259 begin the process. <br />260 <br />261 Member Seigler suggested specifying the Made in Minnesota option, and proceed <br />262 with that on six different sites. <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />