My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-11-25_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
2014-11-25_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2015 2:11:55 PM
Creation date
1/28/2015 2:11:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/25/2014
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.
/
11
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
Mr. Schwartz questioned if the City was successful in applications on two sites <br /> that were on larger roofs, would it lose some opportunity or be allowed to swap <br /> roofs after selected. <br /> Mr. Kampmeyer advised that he was unsure of that result, and was also not sure <br /> how the process may work and whether or not the City may lose its place and the <br /> award drop to the next candidate. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted the need to consider how best to maximize the opportunity of <br /> available roof space to some extent. <br /> Further discussion ensued regarding roof and system capacity; cost of panels and <br /> available tax credits; structure of a capital lease since the municipality would be <br /> unable to qualify for tax credits;purchase of the system outright versus seeking <br /> investors able to take advantage of those tax credits and thereby reduce overall <br /> costs; and options for the City to lease the system from Sundial Solar and buy it <br /> back after expiration of the tax credits expire and end of the direct purchase <br /> agreement after 30 years; and how the City could achieve its best return on <br /> investment, with the representatives offering to provide a proforma on both <br /> options versus a loan. <br /> Additional discussion included indicating that the City had no money specifically <br /> targeted for solar, with some monies included in energy budgets that was already <br /> operationally budgeted and most likely used for this type of a buy back. <br /> Mr. Schwartz opined that a twenty-year agreement would provide the City with a <br /> significant payback period, anticipating it would supply 1/3 of the power used on <br /> some buildings. <br /> Member Cihacek moved, Member Felice seconded, recommending staff to <br /> recommend to the City Council that they initiate the process and associated <br /> analyses and solicit proposals and proformas for comparison purposes, for a <br /> three part solar system to investigate three programs: Made in Minnesota, a <br /> Power Purchase Agreement, and a 100 KW Direct Purchase Solar system; <br /> and to pursue those programs in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, <br /> Chapter 471, and related requirements; with the purpose of determining <br /> which option offers the best financial return to the City. <br /> Member Seigler suggested further refining the recommendation; with Member <br /> Cihacek clarifying that those details would be addressed in the process and <br /> analysis. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would most likely wait for the City Council's <br /> authorization before starting any of the processes, even though as noted by <br /> Member Cihacek, time is of the essence. <br /> Page 7 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.