My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2018-03-27_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
2018-03-27_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2018 11:43:02 AM
Creation date
4/26/2018 11:42:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/27/2018
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.
/
16
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. Weir responded if they are putting panels on the roof, they would be past the <br />development period and would have a financial partner by then. All of the solar <br />gardens in Minnesota are owned by utility companies and they get the tax credits. <br />Mr. Culver inquired what the typical life cycle of a solar panel was. <br />Mr. Weir responded they are under warranty for 25 years but will produce for 30 <br />to 40 years. NASA has panels that are over 40 years old. They degrade 0.25 percent <br />per year and that is why the kilowatt hours go down each year. <br />Mr. Culver stated at the end of 25 years, they might possibly have an option to <br />purchase them and produce energy for another 10 to 15 years. <br />Mr. Weir noted they could also negotiate a contract and get a payment from Neel. <br />Member Misra inquired if the projects done in 1991 are all original panels. <br />Mr. Weir stated they are all original panels and mostly residential, and they are still <br />producing. However, the efficiency and size of the panels have changed over time. <br />Chair Cihacek inquired about next steps. <br />Mr. Weir explained they could provide a subscription agreement with them which <br />can then be shared with the City Attorney for review. They are willing to do more <br />evaluation to help decide what makes the most sense. <br />Member Wozniak inquired if other rooftop locations had been considered, such as <br />the gas canopy, the salt storage structure or the property across Woodhill that was <br />recently purchased. He also inquired how rooftop solar costs compare with other <br />installations. <br />Mr. Culver responded the Fire Station is the only other location that has been talked <br />about. <br />Mr. Weir stated carports add about 25 or 30 percent to the cost because a structure <br />needs to be built to hold it. This is typically done in warm climates where energy <br />is expensive and there is a limitation on land. Ground and roof mounts are similar <br />in cost. <br />Member Misra inquired if modifications would be required on the existing <br />structures. <br />Mr. Weir stated modifications would not be needed, but they would want a <br />structural engineer to look at the Skating Center more in depth. Some additional <br />bracing may need to be added to the bracing inside. <br />Page 10 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.