My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-01-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-01-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2016 8:07:20 AM
Creation date
2/24/2016 8:05:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/26/2016
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.
/
20
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
Member Seigler opined he felt the need to better understand the projected <br />financials. <br />Chair Stenlund asked Member Seigler how those concerns could best be <br />addressed to provide a comfort level, such as what additional analysis staff could <br />provide confirming and clarifying that positive cash flow. <br />Member Cihacek noted the Finance Department provided a positive cash flow <br />analysis. <br />Member Seigler stated that as long as the system could be done without any <br />negatives or financial expenditure by the city, he would support recommending <br />going forward. However, Member Seigler stated that his concerns were based on <br />the risk that the city could lose money in any of the twenty years of the <br />agreement; and if proven that wouldn't happen, he would feel much better in <br />making the recommendation to proceed. <br />Member Cihacek noted that the agreement had a minimum production guarantee, <br />and if they didn't meet it, the city didn't pay, or if there was any circumstance <br />where the city couldn't sustain their power grid. Member Cihacek suggested thal <br />additional information could be provided by staff to the P WETC via email if that <br />would address Member Seigler's concerns. <br />Chair Stenlund questioned if there was any way the OVAL may not be there in <br />twenty years. <br />Mr. Culver expressed his doubt, noting the only thing he was aware of was within <br />the next 5 — 6 years, a significant investment projected at $1 million was planned <br />for the OVAL's cooling system and infrastructure improvements. Mr. Culver <br />noted that this was one of the concerns in the City's CIP going into a negative <br />balance more quickly related to that particular projected expense, and the overall <br />question of where that money may come from. Mr. Culver opined that he <br />anticipated every conceivable avenue will be pursued; and noted that, in the past, <br />outside funding based on the OVAL's regional draw had been pursued <br />legislatively. <br />Member Cihacek questioned if the building would ever be considered for <br />demolition, and suggested a more viable scenario may be repurposing it. <br />Motion <br />Cihacek moved, Member Seigler seconded, recommending to the City Council <br />that the City enter into a Master Solar Services Agreement (Attachment A) with <br />provider Sundial Energy or its affiliate, LLC, for a solar power facility site license <br />agreement; with that recommendation contingent upon staff s due diligence in <br />confirming the positive cash flow during the lifecycle of the system and <br />Page 11 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.