2016-08-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

172 Mr. Kroll noted that staff had an old contract for reference; and advised he would 173 provide an updated contract to the city for city review, updated as the new model 174 contract using the City of Farmington as the example. In that revised draft 175 contract and past presentations, Mr. Kroll noted cost differentials from 10.5 to 11 176 cents versus 7 cents; with more monthly yield on these two roofs versus previous 177 projections, essentially doubling savings for demand management based on Xcel 178 Energy billings and Sundial Solar management, while still allowing for some 179 flexibility. 180 181 At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Kroll advised that at this point the name of 182 the financial investor isn't public knowledge, but noted the PWETC had met the 183 investor in the past. Once the system is built, Mr. Kroll offered to share that 184 information with the PWETC; but noted Mr. Culver could do so offline until it 185 became generally known further into the contract negotiations. 186 187 Mr. Culver advised the PWETC that the next steps wouldthorization for 188 staff to negotiate a revised contract with review by the City orney; at which 189 time it would be presented to the City Council — ipated in August or 190 September — for their co eration and approval. 191 192 Mr. Kroll agreed with the city's next steps, a that Sundial Solar would 193 recommend the contract go to the City Attorney view before the City 194 Council's stamp of approval. For their part (Sundia Solar), Mr. Kroll advised 195 they would move toward the contract negotiation step, since their engineers had 196 already given the roofs a precursory look to ensure they could support the solar 197 arrays. 198 199 At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Kroll stated his preference would be 200 completion of the contract nego ' tions a attempt installation of the solar array 201 et this fall. With their engineers and installers finishing up the work in 202 Farmington, Mr. Kroll noted it would then be easier and more cost-effective to 203 mobilize their crew from there to Roseville the end of September or by mid - 204 October depending on the timing of City Council approval. If that schedule isn't 205 feasible, Mr. Kroll advised that he anticipated an early spring of 2017 installation, 206 with either option not problematic. 207 208 At the requestit Cihacek, Mr. Kroll advised that production will start as 209 soon as the sola stem is turned on. 210 211 As a Roseville resident, Member Seigler expressed his preference in receiving a 212 summary sheet that showed the installation costs, investor amount, and city 213 responsibilities; along with maximum out-of-pocket expenses for the city even if 214 projected at "zero;" and projected increases in annual revenue that would be 215 easier for citizens to understand the city's (e.g. taxpayer's) liability other than the 216 more complicated spreadsheet presented tonight. Member Seigler asked that the Page 5 of 19