2018_04-24_PWETCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

172 Chair Cihacek inquired if vendors will provide proposals on sites submitted by the 173 City. 174 175 Mr. Culver confirmed this. He stated Solar Possible participants will be required 176 to provide the following site-specific data: 1) general information such as the site 177 location and orientation, square footage of the space, and solar resource data; 2) 178 ground mount versus roof top data; and, 3) utility data. 179 180 Chair Cihacek commented he has several concerns with this proposal. The two 181 vendors per area limitation is going to narrow the pool to only large providers. This 182 is outside the prequalification of vendors and it is not logistically possible. When 183 there are 31 cities submitting up to five or six sites, it is going to be hard to prepare 184 a proposal on all of them and the chances of success are predominantly low. The 185 City and State have two different contracting laws which do not supersede each 186 other. He also does not understand how they can cap the price without knowing 187 the site conditions and other variables. It is a good idea, but to be successful, they 188 need more than two vendors. Also, having one team for a seven -county site will be 189 very difficult. He would also be interested to know who serves on the selection 190 panel. It will be a great deal if it works out because it will not take a lot of staff 191 time and energy. 192 193 Mr. Culver commented the next step is to submit an informal communication of 194 interest to CERTS and by the end of April they would submit a non-binding letter 195 of intent. They will provide information on the actual roof sites and solar readiness, 196 which is information they already have. The developer can visit the sites and ask 197 questions of participants. He is unsure if there is a limit on the number of 198 participants. The proposals would then be evaluated, selected, and provided to the 199 participants. At that point, there is a no -consequence, exit opportunity. If they 200 decide to move forward, they will make an agreement with the developer and begin 201 installations. 202 203 Chair Cihacek inquired who would do the legal review. 204 205 Mr. Culver noted both parties would do this. The RFP will include some minimal 206 terms for legal and operational issues. The City of Roseville would not enter into 207 any agreement with having the City attorney review it. 208 209 Chair Cihacek noted he is still unsure how this benefits the City when they have to 210 review the legal terms and provide site specific information. 211 212 Mr. Culver responded there would be more options to the City if the system were 213 larger. There would most likely be an opportunity for savings in administration 214 and operational expenses. 215 216 Chair Cihacek stated he is skeptical but supports submitting a letter of intent 217 because it commits them to nothing. He does not want to be overly optimistic about Page 5 of 16