Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Cihacek inquired if vendors will provide proposals on sites submitted by the <br />City. <br />Mr. Culver confirmed this. He stated Solar Possible participants will be required <br />to provide the following site-specific data: 1) general information such as the site <br />location and orientation, square footage of the space, and solar resource data; 2) <br />ground mount versus roof top data; and, 3) utility data. <br />Chair Cihacek commented he has several concerns with this proposal. The two <br />vendors per area limitation is going to narrow the pool to only large providers. This <br />is outside the prequalification of vendors and it is not logistically possible. When <br />there are 31 cities submitting up to five or six sites, it is going to be hard to prepare <br />a proposal on all of them and the chances of success are predominantly low. The <br />City and State have two different contracting laws which do not supersede each <br />other. He also does not understand how they can cap the price without knowing <br />the site conditions and other variables. It is a good idea, but to be successful, they <br />need more than two vendors. Also, having one team for a seven -county site will be <br />very difficult. He would also be interested to know who serves on the selection <br />panel. It will be a great deal if it works out because it will not take a lot of staff <br />time and energy. <br />Mr. Culver commented the next step is to submit an informal communication of <br />interest to CERTS and by the end of April they would submit a non-binding letter <br />of intent. They will provide information on the actual roof sites and solar readiness, <br />which is information they already have. The developer can visit the sites and ask <br />questions of participants. He is unsure if there is a limit on the number of <br />participants. The proposals would then be evaluated, selected, and provided to the <br />participants. At that point, there is a no -consequence, exit opportunity. If they <br />decide to move forward, they will make an agreement with the developer and begin <br />installations. <br />Chair Cihacek inquired who would do the legal review. <br />Mr. Culver noted both parties would do this. The RFP will include some minimal <br />terms for legal and operational issues. The City of Roseville would not enter into <br />any agreement with having the City attorney review it. <br />Chair Cihacek noted he is still unsure how this benefits the City when they have to <br />review the legal terms and provide site specific information. <br />Mr. Culver responded there would be more options to the City if the system were <br />larger. There would most likely be an opportunity for savings in administration <br />and operational expenses. <br />Chair Cihacek stated he is skeptical but supports submitting a letter of intent <br />because it commits them to nothing. He does not want to be overly optimistic about <br />Page 5 of 16 <br />