|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, August 26, 2014 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Stenlund called the meeting
to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.; and Public Works Director Schwartz
called the roll.
Members
Present: Chair Stenlund; and Members Duane Seigler, Brian Cihacek, Sarah
Lenz, and Joan Felice
Members Excused: Members
Steve Gjerdingen and Joe Wozniak
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; Assistant
Public Works Director/City Engineer Marcus Culver; and Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of July 22, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the July 22, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 17 (Recording Secretary
Correct date to
July 23, 2014
·
Page 3, Line 79 (Felice)
Strike
“…disappointment and…”
·
Page 5, Line 180 (Cihacek)
Change
“density” to “development”
·
Page 6, Line 244 (Lenz)
Typographical
error: correct “who’s” to “whose”
·
Page 8, Line 329 (Cihacek)
Correct to read: “…his personal
concern with wildlife [and water quality] in that park…”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Staff provided project updates
and maintenance activities as detailed in the staff report dated August 26,
2014.
City Engineer Marc Culver
reported on City Council actions taken since the last staff report to the
PWETC, including restricting parking on County Road B between Fairways Avenue
and Fulham Street based on preferences received by resident survey and additional
pathway pavement in that area; resolved to declare County Road B as an urban
section roadway, thereafter designating and posting it at a 30 mph speed
limit, with some neighborhood opposition but the general consensus of
neighbors to lower it to keep in character of that roadway.
Discussion included sidewalk on
the east side of Lexington Avenue under the Highway 36 bridge area stubbed up
to the ramps and providing a safe haven for bicyclers and currently striped
to the ADA curb area on that segment; re-use by the City of aluminum panels
for traffic control signs as sheeting materials can be overlaid, with some
done in-house by staff and others done by a traffic control subcontractor; a
status update of the recently installed infiltration vaults in the northwest
corner (Sandcastle Park area) and central area (Dellwood/Sherren area) of
Roseville with operational observations pending in these historic drainage
problem areas for containing 10-year rain events and cost sharing by
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for the central system.
Further discussion included
staff’s monitoring of infiltration systems and raingardens, with
Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson recently having completed an inventory
of best management practices (BMP’s) in Roseville and periodically
inspections and review of applicable maintenance agreements to ensure
continuing compliance, and developing a maintenance plan for the City, and
participation by and from the public in their monitoring of those working or
not working from their perspectives.
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz noted the inclusion in the agenda packet primer materials on tax
increment financing (TIF) from the City’s website (Attachment C) as
previously requested by members; and offered to ask Finance Director Miller
to attend a future meeting, or invited members to contact Mr. Miller
personally at City Hall if they had additional questions or wanted more
in-depth information.
Member Cihacek expressed interest
in criteria used in developing TIF Districts, their renewal, their specific
purpose, and terms, particularly those in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
As an information request for the next PWETC meeting, Member Cihacek
requested a clarification on the remaining duration of those TIF Districts, how
they can be used, and the remaining excess amount available. At the request
of Chair Stenlund, Member Cihacek confirmed that his intent was to determine
if there was any funding available to address the financing gap for upcoming
infrastructure improvements in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Schwartz advised that some soil remediation had been completed in the
Twin Lakes area as part of past infrastructure projects, but there was some
remaining to be completed as developments came forward.
Recess
Chair Stenlund recessed the meeting at approximately 6:54
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 6:56 p.m.
5.
Community Solar Discussion
Mr. Schwartz introduced Brian
Ross from CR Planning, an expert in the solar field and expected to be under
contract within the next month to provide technical assistance to cities on
solar projects.
Mr. Ross, who had also attended
the PWETC meeting in April of 2014, provided a brief biography of his work as
an Urban Planner and Solar Energy Consultant, before his presentation
entitled “Solar Ready Roseville.” Mr. Ross advised that his firm was
currently working on the Minnesota Solar Challenge, a program of the Minnesota
Department of Energy. Mr. Ross referenced a U of MN graduate program
research project that may be of interest to the PWETC, and available free
online consisting of a GIS mapping of the entire state of MN’s solar
potential, with Chair Stenlund noting that sample image was included in
commissioner packet materials.
Mr. Ross’s presentation included
four main points:
·
“Why solar for local governments?
·
What are solar resources?
·
What are solar-ready communities?
·
Public sector opportunities.
Mr. Ross noted the steps needed
for a community to become solar ready, including the policy aspect
(Comprehensive Plan – development); regulatory, permitting processes, and
financing. Along that line, Mr. Ross addressed the many roles government
agencies could assume as a solar developer. Those roles included: as a regulator
addressing policy, zoning, and permitting; as a financier or
assembler in an economic development authority type rule providing
financing tools, development preparation, or assembly of resources for
private sector investment; as a developer such as an HRA or public
housing authority type role, owning and managing development for use by
residents; or as a consumer developing solar for public sector use.
Mr. Ross reviewed the three
typical public sector opportunities or options: installations on public
property (either self-financed, installation only, lease/buyback, or with a
purchase power agreement); by enabling the private sector to develop
community solar systems by removing regulatory barriers and/or creating
regulatory incentives, participation in PACE or other financing options; or
by sponsoring a community solar installation, which is an available option,
but not yet done in MN even though there are several projects in their
initial states of analysis.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Ross advised that if using a financial option, such as PACE, it would be
beneficial to have a project in mind for an idea of total dollars needed,
with several of the projects currently under joint powers agreements (JPA’s)
with the St. Paul Port Authority.
Mr. Ross reviewed some of the
considerations for solar installations on buildings, including solar
resources, roof age, roof structure, and interconnection with substation or
distribution line depending on size. For ground “solar farm” installations,
Mr. Ross reviewed some of those considerations, including solar resources
(e.g. trees, topography), surrounding land uses (important for larger
systems), potential future uses for adjacent land (aesthetics impacts to
adjacent neighborhood), and again interconnection needs.
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Mr. Ross addressed the feasibility of community solar systems over parking
lots, noting that while it may look like a huge opportunity and potential asset,
only a few have been done to-date on a small scale. Mr. Ross advised that
part of the problem was that when done over a parking lot, the design of the
structure had to be engineered to ensure if a car hit them, it wouldn’t
impact the solar array or that the supporting structure itself wouldn’t
create a problem with traffic flow – all requiring more expensive design and
engineering specifications and construction.
Discussion ensued regarding
benefits and considerations under tariff rates, of which there are nine
different rates, for community solar systems within the residential,
commercial, and industrial rate structure; along with renewable energy
credits versus standard electricity rates. Mr. Ross noted that utility
companies would soon be mandated to provide a certain percentage of solar
power by 2020 under the tariff and renewal energy credit. Mr. Ross further
noted that the minimum a utility company must achieve is 1.5%, with Xcel
Energy already having added two large projects to their system, so they would
be half way to the mandated goal once they were installed. However, if more
than that comes to fruition, and the market supports the additional solar
project development, Mr. Ross opined that the utility companies have to
accept them into their system.
Mr. Ross noted there were
benefits of community solar system models for businesses who want to invest
in solar, if the system is installed on the roof, they pay energy and demand
charges, but solar systems interact differently and don’t have much impact on
demand charges as community solar systems are not measuring demand against
production, and if impugning demand in an applicable retail rate, the
business gets credit on a per KW basis, which was much more attractive for
commercial versus residential customers, and gave them an advantage.
Public Comment
Sara Barsel (and Randy
Neprash), 1276 Eldridge Avenue
Ms. Barsel asked if a municipal
facility installed solar on their roof, would it be considered commercial or
a different category.
Mr. Ross responded that it would
depend on which of the different roles came into play for developing a
community solar system, just like other types of developer as previously
referenced: whether the City serves as the developer, builder, financier,
customer, or host; but clarified that the role was defined by subscriber not
by the location of the system.
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Mr. Ross confirmed that, under the tariff, different rates applied depending
on the type of subscriber on the same system, with a minimum purchase
required under State law per subscriber, theoretically equivalent to one
solar panel per customer, and treated as if on your roof whether you were a
commercial or residential subscriber.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Ross clarified that the City could serve in a regulatory role if private
individuals or companies (e.g. developers) in the community chose to install
solar systems without City involvement, or the City could be more involved to
make things more streamlined, or any other role as previously identified. As
noted by Member Seigler, if the City did not become involved and allowed
solar installations, they could essentially be giving away an asset if a
system was installed on their roof. However, as noted by Mr. Schwartz, under
that scenario, there would also be no cost to the City except for installing
the system, with Mr. Ross pointing out that the onus of anything on the solar
system would require a subscription manager or an agreement put in place for
roof maintenance or replacement (e.g. depreciation and tax credits going
directly to the developer), but providing a revenue stream for the City as
host.
Member Seigler questioned if it
would be prudent for the City to give a public building roof away, as a
potential asset, if the private developer would make a profit from it versus
the City.
With the entire solar energy
field forging new ground, Mr. Ross noted the many options available, but the
need for a process and established standards for community solar systems, as
not only local vendors and in-state developers, but vendors from other states
and/or countries, tapping into this opportunity. While many of those
companies have experience installing the solar systems, Mr. Ross opined that
the other trick was to establish how well the solar systems would be managed
over time, with the benefit for the subscription manager to own the system
and subscriptions, so if an original subscriber moved out of the system, it
could be sold back to the subscription manager for resale, but the entity had
to know how to manage the system for twenty five year or more.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Ross advised that he didn’t see financing for community solar systems to
be a problem at this time, especially with 30% tax credits available until
2016; with the City considering financing options for facilities on City buildings,
as confirmed by Mr. Schwartz.
Ms. Barsel asked for comparisons
on a private community solar versus one hosted by the City on the City Hall
campus, or versus the City owning its own system.
Mr. Ross noted there was
uncertainty in how those different options played out, with the City of
Falcon Heights entering into a PPA and not owning their system, with charges
based on the system’s production; while the City of Minneapolis bought the
system and installed it on their fire station using grant monies, and
capturing all the benefits of it, and since it is a fire station, it pays a
demand charge making it difficult at this point to determine how much of a
benefit they’ll receive from that arrangement.
Ms. Barsel noted that the City of
Minneapolis still had liability, whereas with an external developer, they had
the risk for liability and maintenance.
Mr. Ross concurred, but noted the
average lifespan for a solar system was twenty-five years or more, with the
typical problem being failure of some solar panels, but typically those
panels lasted for a long time and usually outlasted their projected life cycle.
Mr. Ross advised that the failure usually was in the wiring or inverters
(e.g. electronics) requiring some maintenance, and periodic cleaning of
panels to keep their production at maximum.
Mr. Schwartz noted, confirmed by
Mr. Ross, that the expected life for the inverter was 15 years, with some
replacement needed during the lifetime of the system.
Mr. Schwartz questioned if it was
safe to say that buying your own system, unless getting grant monies, the
payback was long-term compared to the role of a private financial partner
able to take advantage of tax credits.
For a public entity unable to
take advantage of tax credits, Mr. Ross advised that there was a big
difference. However, Mr. Ross advised that his firm was working on the
potential GESP (government energy savings program) to assist local
governments in capturing credits, with the state overseeing the program to
meet their goal for energy savings. However, at this time, Mr. Ross advised
that contracts were private versus public so any public systems were at the
mercy of the performance contractor. Therefore, Mr. Ross opined a
municipality would almost always do better on their own, but if they didn’t
have experienced staff to do the work, they were taking on risk. If it comes
to fruition, Mr. Ross noted that the State GESP program would provide a
standard contract that was transparent with approved vendors and endorsed by
the State, lumping programs together to maximize efficiencies, not just those
prime and best payback projects. Mr. Ross advised that this Department of
Commerce Project, only in place for a few months or a three year development
timeframe, would hopefully allow for sufficient analysis and comparison of
which programs and ownership roles were the most viable for municipalities.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Ross reviewed the solar subscription reduction, with total energy and use
per panel calculated monthly, and utility bills credited as applicable by
utility providers (e.g. Xcel Energy). In order to avoid running in the
negative with those credits, Mr. Ross advised that there was a limit as to
the size system you could purchase (e.g. 120% of your usage); with no
incentive to over-purchase beyond that 120% as the rate was not that
attractive, as pointed out by Mr. Schwartz.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Ross clarified that the subscription manager had to cover their
administrative costs, and could do so in a number of ways: charge a higher
rate for subscriptions to bank money to invest in the system and any work
required to keep the system managed; retain a portion of the system (10% for
example) rather than selling 100% of the subscriptions, and use that portion
to administer the system with that revenue; or charge subscribers a monthly
fee of the maximum allowable amount of .05% of their costs.
Mr. Schwartz questioned what
protection subscribers had if they provided upfront money before the system
was built or after the system became operational.
Mr. Ross responded that by law,
the subscription manager could not start charging the customer for the system
until a certain time after operations began, a protection built into the
law. However, protection over time was more difficult, as outlined by Mr.
Ross, for subscribers to a poorly-managed company that eventually went out of
business; with the roof asset (solar system) on a twenty-five year lease with
a proposed guaranteed income stream, and unless someone else purchased the
system and took over the subscriptions, it would be problematic. Mr. Ross stated
that there were many “nightmare” stories out there, but there was a risk that
subscribers could be out of luck in such a scenario. In his consulting role,
Mr. Ross opined that it would not be his recommendation for a neighborhood or
community group to be the developer or manager, but he would rather suggest
that they hire someone with experience and more longevity.
Ms. Barsel noted a previous
presentation by Mr. Kim Havey of the Department of Commerce. His description
of a program put in place some kind of solar system and worked with different
sized communities; with the City of Roseville sending a letter of interest to
be considered as one of their pilot medium-sized communities for the
program. Ms. Barsel asked if that was still a viable option.
Mr. Ross advised that the program
had submitted their grant application, and interviews were held last week.
Mr. Ross clarified that this particular program referenced by Ms. Barsel was
an $800,000 grant that the State wanted to create a program called “Solar
Energy Ready Communities” and certify cities as they took certain steps. If
the grant is received and becomes operational, Mr. Ross advised that it
worked with Solar Challenge to provide assistance to communities to become
solar ready, working hand in hand with them. Mr. Ross advised that other
programs would handle the financial aspects and certification process for the
Phase II portion of the program. At the request of Ms. Barsel, Mr. Ross
anticipated knowing the status of the grant application by October of 2014.
If the City wanted to be part of
that, Ms. Barsel asked what steps it needed to take, and what should it be
doing in the interim to be in place or phased in for when the grant comes
through or not.
Chair Stenlund further asked for
clarification of which of the five steps or items in the list of priorities
were found by Mr. Ross to be the biggest bottleneck or most difficult to
rectify.
Mr. Ross stated his original
thought had been that the comprehensive plan and zoning step would prove most
difficult, since they required City Council signoff; however, he advised that
step had turned out to be easier. Mr. Ross advised that he was finding the
most difficult step at this time was the permitting issue, as there was not
formalized process, and because of not process in place, projects had a
tendency not to happen, creating a bit of a bottleneck. Mr. Ross noted that
the other concern was in financing for local governments who were finding
their roles uncertain, how to define their risk, and how to proceed, since
the solar ready community program was not yet funded, the first step in any
program would be to program the design of the process, and determine what
exactly was needed. Mr. Ross noted that the City of Roseville was already
anticipating some of that planning, and reacting to the process, and
therefore fairly engaged in the process already, with certification probably
nine months from the start of a program.
As to Ms. Barsel’s question, Mr.
Schwartz reiterated what the City should be doing while waiting, in terms of
determining their role in community solar or using public buildings to become
part of that solar development.
Mr. Ross responded that if the
City made a determination whether to have a community solar system on public
land or a public building that would be a check in favor of Roseville
becoming a solar ready community, with credit given as that element is looked
at. Mr. Ross reviewed the base materials needed and suggested an analysis of
existing policies with the comprehensive plan and zoning, whether a
permitting process was available that was transparent and if that formal
permit process was open for solar development that outlined the exact steps
and thresholds (e.g. a structural study of a roof intended for solar installation,
what permit fee should be charged for different types of solar systems, and
best practices advocacy available).
Ms. Barsel asked if this should
include the code addressing the entire range of options and applicable
processes and fees for residential and commercial installations.
Mr. Ross responded affirmatively,
anticipating few changes in best practices required in zoning for roof
installations, and fortunately noted that the comprehensive plan portion
would be wrapped up in the updates of those plans with the Metropolitan
Council. Mr. Ross noted that the Metropolitan Council was participating in
Phase II and Solar Ready Community components at this time, and his firm and
the industry was trying to get them to formally recognize communities having
met statutory standard requirements for solar in the Council’s comprehensive
plan review and approval process.
Mr. Schwartz questioned if there
was anything prohibiting a community from moving forward while these
longer-term processes are pending; and asked Mr. Ross what he would recommend
for the PWETC’s next steps in making a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Schwartz also asked Mr. Ross to speak briefly about particular
opportunities for credits and timeframes coming up and current solar rewards
programs.
Specific to the solar rewards
program, Mr. Ross reported that Xcel Energy’s program had just opened up
applications for the next round of funding, which was of course creating a
land rush to submit applications; however, it was not yet completely
subscribed. Mr. Ross clarified that their process was not a lottery process,
but they evaluated each project according to their award criteria. If the
City of Roseville was thinking of taking advantage of this round, Mr. Ross
suggested that they do so quickly, as there was a limitation on those solar
rewards, with one for 20 KW and the other for 40 KW between two different
programs, the Solar Rewards program and the Minnesota Made program, both with
different application windows and varying criteria, with both programs
opening applications on an annual basis.
Mr. Ross suggested a good first
step for the PWETC to consider would be to move ahead with the site
assessment process and what made the most sense, especially for considering a
community solar system and its size, noting that the larger the system, the
bigger bang for the buck, but then needing more land, more interconnection
review, and reviewing adjacent land uses and roof structures, etc. Mr. Ross
noted that such a preliminary assessment was necessary in any regard; and
with the solar mapping data available, and some already done by the City of
Roseville, they could overlay their other criteria onto that, and suggested
that analysis get started quickly as a preliminary step to put the City in a
good place moving forward.
Mr. Schwartz questioned what
technical assistance could be provided by a consultant, such as Mr. Ross’s
firm, and what they would help with, or assistance in finding a financial
partner or developer to assess those criteria.
Under the Phase II program, Mr.
Ross advised that CERTs was currently working with a Wisconsin entity running
the financial piece of the program, although each state was different. If he
was to proceed, Mr. Ross advised that he would begin the planning, zoning,
and permit pieces, and also help with other analyses related to land use, his
area of expertise. Mr. Ross advised that he was involved with the overall
program design, and therefore would be recruiting communities to participate
in that discussion.
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Felice seconded, to move the proposed agenda item entitled “GreenStep
Inventory” to the September meeting agenda to allow sufficient discussion
time tonight on the community solar item to determine next steps and
responsibilities with this new information.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
At the request of Ms. Barsel, Mr.
Ross clarified that the programs are applicable equally to either a community
solar or public city system, with the thresholds the same and either qualifying.
Chair Stenlund focused remaining
discussion on steps needed to accomplish by the PWETC to prepare a
recommendation for the City Council as Member Cihacek was requesting to
establish that framework moving forward. Member Stenlund suggested steps as
follows:
1) Assess
potential solar sites/locations using the GIS map data;
2) Analyze the
current permit system to determine how a solar application process would get
through code requirements.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that the
overall solar ready community could move on an entirely different track than
if the City provided an opportunity for residents on a community solar
installation.
Member Cihacek suggested a step
looking at the permit process itself and what needed to be revised, what fees
are in place or needed to be enacted, and what a developer would need to
know; then moving onto the comprehensive plan. Member Cihacek suggested that
the PWETC’s first step was to delegate those aspects to the Planning
Commission and other commissions as applicable for their review within the
realm of their expertise; and how to structure a solar initiative to
incentivize private, public or quasi-private applications for developers
using a regulatory framework.
Member Seigler opined that the
permit process should be transparent for any application, whether residential
or commercial.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that the
whole permitting side would flow through the City’s Community Development
Department, noting that the PWETC was charged by the City Council in making a
determination as to how Roseville wants to participate and their role, if on
public properties, where and how. Mr. Schwartz advised that the Community
Development Department was already analyzing their areas, and were slated for
a City Council discussion at a September 15, 2014 work session on solar
issues. Mr. Schwartz noted that one Roseville church was currently looking
into taking advantage of available St. Paul Port Authority monies; and that
part is already in process. Mr. Schwartz clarified that the PWETC is charged
with determining how the City of Roseville should participate, and provide
options for public infrastructure space for a community solar system, and
whether to own part of it or use if exclusively for its own energy usage
needs.
Member Cihacek agreed on the need
to determine the City’s role, opining that the contractor option was out, but
whether or not to serve in the developer role was a decision that needed to
be made quickly to take advantage of the referenced programs available. Mr.
Cihacek opined that he was supportive of the City serving in the role as a
host entity, with the possibility of serving in the role of financier once
more discussion was held on using TIF funds; with the role as regulator
obvious for the City.
Member Seigler noted the need to
determine which public assets were applicable and their value, how many
parties were interested, and how to determine which party gets it or what
criteria to use in making that determination, as well as associated costs and
how to fund those costs.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Member Seigler confirmed he would be amenable to the City serving as a host,
but that needed to be a decision made before the City gave away its public
roof to another party and their system, and then in a few years could install
their own system as a way to save money for the City, but had already given
that ability away to someone else to receive the profit versus the City’s own
energy savings.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Member Seigler opined it wouldn’t make sense for the City to consider small
scale solar installations to displace its energy costs without the
availability of tax credits. However, if funding was available, Member
Seigler opined that the City could buy its own system or fund a small portion
of different ones to take funding to create a specialist to build lots of
systems.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Ross confirmed that the City could sell community solar shares, with the
City as an entity owning the system and receiving the same tariff rate.
Member Seigler opined it may be
more advantageous to be a subscriber.
Member Cihacek opined a host
partner and subscriber would also be an advantage, allowing the City to
finance a system indirectly to receive a benefit.
At the request of Mr. Schwartz,
Mr. Ross confirmed that the community solar option has been in operation long
enough that developers could come in and talk about known tariff rates,
financing and payback terms based on their income streams or subscriber
income streams, based on their performance. However, Mr. Ross cautioned that
those developers each had their own confidential business model, and they
were competitive in nature. Mr. Ross advised that those multiple developers
and host firms could also be invited to bid. However, Mr. Ross opined that
the challenge would be for the City to be able to develop a template or
pathway to follow in the public realm for the best transparency.
Member Cihacek suggested the next
step should be for the PWETC to develop such a conceptual model, from three
different perspectives or roles: as a host, a host subscriber, or financier
and focus conversation on what was needed to accomplish any or all of those
roles.
Chair Stenlund suggested that
analysis would allow review of code language or processes to determine if
something or anything was missing that could be readily identified.
Member Cihacek clarified that the
three roles have a review of what framework was needed for the City Council
or advisory commissions to work on, opining that this was a time sensitive
issue and dynamic to move quickly to provide one or the other argument for
the best role for the City to pursue.
Member Seigler asked if the City
was in favor of owning solar assets.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that that
is at the discretion of the City Council; but from staff’s perspective,
in-house staff did not have the expertise or ability to manage a power
generation business model. However, Mr. Schwartz noted that the City did
have a significant number and volume of rooftops, and at this time, staff was
supportive of the City providing that space, with others managing the solar
systems or being responsible for them. If there are dollars available for
leasing those spaces and creating a revenue stream, Mr. Schwartz advised that
staff was supportive of that.
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Seigler seconded, for the purposes of discussion over the next three months,
consideration be given for the City to consider serving as a host solar site;
and for those discussions to explore what that means to be a host or host for
a community solar system.
Member Cihacek asked that each of
those monthly agendas provide a standing agenda item to explore the City’s
role as a host solar site, including determining applicable public buildings,
and financial models; and whether or not to move forward with a
recommendation to the City Council.
At first, Member Seigler offered
a friendly amendment to the motion that financials also be part of that
discussion as public information and due diligence transparent in the
discussions, in order for the PWETC and public to fully understand current
energy costs and potential savings available.
Member Cihacek clarified that
this financial information would include current utilities spread sheets for
usage and costs across the City Hall campus.
Mr. Schwartz advised that to
provide that information, it would require a financial partner, which
shouldn’t be problematic, but clarified that staff did not have the expertise
to calculate that data, but Metro CERTs could help steer staff in the right
direction and where to find resources.
Mr. Ross concurred with Mr.
Schwartz’ observations.
Under those circumstances, Chair
Stenlund suggested this be handled as a request for information to staff from
the PWETC versus being made part of the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Ms. Barsel noted some individual
Councilmembers were very interested in this prospect and community solar on
public buildings, so suggested the PWETC already had some support and should
capitalize on that support. Ms. Barsel suggested, moving forward, that it
would be informative to have an assessment on what size project the PWETC was
considering to determine which municipal building would serve best, or which
other site may be appropriate, as well as analyzing roof structures as part
of that consideration. If that information, including the number of KW was
available, Ms. Barsel opined it would help the financing information make
more sense, rather than being overwhelming, and help determine which program
to go after if inside or outside those parameters.
Chair Stenlund opined he would
prefer to stay within the range of 20 KW as a minimum.
Mr. Schwartz advised that Mr.
Johnson looked up the City Hall building, and the consumption for just this
building was approximately 77 KW.
Chair Stenlund suggested a system
such as that installed on the Minneapolis fire station as a minimum to
consider comparable numbers.
From an engineering standpoint
and the PWETC’s role, Chair Stenlund expressed information from Mr. Ross on
anything he was aware of in the market place that would indicate improving
technologies that would reduce the payback period, and how that could be
incorporated into the discussion tree (e.g. solar shingles, roads, walls,
etc.).
Mr. Ross admitted there had been
a large social media front for the potential of solar roads; however, he
opined that technology was very questionable from an engineering standpoint
as a road surface, and may have a better application for a parking area surface.
Mr. Ross advised that there had been dissention on whether or not those doing
the study had focused on southern versus northern states in performing their
research. Mr. Ross did note that technology is always changing, which may
significantly change financials in the next few years; however, his response
was that it was unlikely that those technological advances would change the
efficiency level for panels, which were the main component in solar systems.
While the efficiency of panels are low, Mr. Ross opined that obviously the
more efficient the panel, the more expensive they were, but how that played
out in manufacturing remained an unknown at this time. In considering how
those future increased efficiencies of panels or technology versus a set of
incentives, Mr. Ross opined was another dynamic. Mr. Ross noted there were
some new products (e.g. solar installations in walls and windows) that were
forthcoming; however, with that additional capability, the cost increased
while their functionality decreased. Mr. Ross opined that the most reliable
system remained silicone panels.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Ross opined that the ordinance he found most appropriate at this time,
even though he had authored some of them, were those for the City of
Rosemount as it applied to a specific set of circumstances with aggregate
resources they wanted to protect through using the interim solar use, which
had been very creative in that situation. Mr. Ross also recognized the
Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul as they competed to see who could be the
most welcoming to solar, making some choices that allowed for great
flexibility in how the systems, mainly residential, are permitted. Mr. Ross
noted that those cities decided not to apply design standards by exempting
them from those requirements. Mr. Ross noted that the ordinance also had an
incentive built in to not allow installation of hideously ugly panels as had
been installed in the past.
Mr. Ross noted that those cities
continuing to hedge on developing an ordinance were not seeing much
development accordingly. Mr. Ross advised that one issue of concern he found
was in the more restrictive design standards of homeowner associations
compared to other residential properties.
6.
GreenStep Inventory
7.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – September 23, 2014
·
Ramsey County Recycling Presentation
·
GreenStep Inventory
·
Community Solar Discussion
·
TIF questions (Communications item)
·
Parking examination as requested from a previous meeting
(Cihacek)
Mr. Schwartz advised that Eureka
Recycling was ready to host a tour of their new recycling facility in NE
Minneapolis (Kennedy Street west of Highway 280; approximately 7 minutes from
Roseville City Hall), sometime after September 9, and limited to groups of
five between the hours of 9:00 am and 4:00 p.m. Mr. Schwartz noted that some
Councilmembers were also interested in participating in the tour; and sought
interest from the PWETC, asking that they get back to him with their
preferred time and date.
Since the majority of the PWETC
seemed interested in a tour, Mr. Schwartz suggested setting up two groups;
however, Chair Stenlund asked that staff seek a variance for the PWETC to all
tour as a group, and waive their exemption. Mr. Schwartz advised that he
would check with Eureka as to their regulations with the number of occupants
at the facility and keeping the operation running during the tour or having
to close it down.
Some members expressed their
preference as to the best date to tour, but Mr. Schwartz advised that he
would talk to Eureka and communicate via e-mail on the results of that
conversation, and would try immediately before or after lunch.
Preferences: Stenlund (not
Wednesday); Seigler (Friday best for him); Felice (Not Monday or Wednesday);
and Lenz (not Tuesday).
8.
Adjourn
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:45 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|