Energy Advisory Committee

Montpelier Energy Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes October 26th, 2010 Committee: Alan Weiss, Chair and City Council representative, Tim Heney, Barry McPhee, Ken Jones, Edith Pike-Biegunska, Carl Etnier, Karl Bissex, Johanna Miller, Dan Jones and Bill Neuberger. Staff: Gwen Hallsmith, Lawrence & Taylor Newton, VISTAs, Harold Garabedian, Dick Saudek. 1. Bids / Process of Review Gwen – provided an overview of the bids. Asked the committee to decide upon a process to review the bids. The concept of value engineering was also introduced. This would mean that a third party would review each proposal and report to the city on what proposal is most efficient, etc. The value engineering firm would see what the best or most cost effective alternative would be, and could lead to combining of concepts from different proposals. Garth – The practice to value engineering frequently occurs and is common practice when doing a design/build project. He believes their expertise is needed. Barry - we could pick best pieces of each and resubmit to the companies? Is that common practice? Gwen- probably not common practice around here, it might be one of the outcomes of a value engineering. We asked for a design/build and asked for alternatives within each proposal. Explains the varying nature of the proposals in terms of technology, partners, location, etc. Bill - says that his company has experience what Gwen was proposing Gwen – Reiterates the necessity for level of technical and financial review – RFP could be issued immediately if approved by City Council meeting tomorrow Proposes to schedule meeting to have bidders come in to present on their proposals to either the whole MEAC or just a selected few members of committee. Would be different than the interview process which would happen later. could then have a few options as how to proceed (ex. city only, city-state cooperation) and can then ask bidders for more defined costs, etc. Or could just ask a preferred partner for changes. We can’t ignore the parallel decisions that need to be made. Such as a bond vote in March (more than 90 days need warning). Also, working with state and their capital budget which we won’t know till much later. Garth - suggests that we should have consultants during presentations or official interview Harold - thinks that bidders would welcome the chance to come and explain proposals Dan - wants the committee to step back and really have the committee look at what they were expecting Gwen - thinks generally that visioning had been done already. Asks about presentations. How long? When? etc? Karl- thinks that value engineering is worth the l cost Carl- agrees Garth - agrees Alan - again focus on presentation Gwen - do wait for value engineers? or just go have initial presentations without them? Tim - thinks we should wait for engineers Harold - things people like DPW, or BERC, or others should be there for presentations Ken - thinks that we shouldn’t wait for engineer, because he thinks that from first perspective that it’s not a viable project. Worried about cost of value engineer. Gwen - reminds that interviews are separate from initial presentations (more questions and technical personnel). Dan - suggest a “bake-off” project. multiple bidders there during each others’ presentation. Carl - do we have time to select value engineer and still get to bond in March? Alan – The timing will be tight Karl - doesn’t think timing is possible. too much work. Dick – Is having a value engineer really worth it? Gwen – yes, value engineers are worth it because of the technical expertise they can provide. We have to put the job out to bid. Alan - sounds like support for preliminary presentation. Others will be invited. Would it be of positive or negative value to invite state members? Gwen – State is always invited always invited. State will provide financial and technical advisor during interview process. Alan - When and what time works for people? Gwen – does late afternoon work for people? It would require couple hours per proposal? We will draw names out of a hat come up with the order of bidder presentations. Barry - do bidders from other firms have right to be there? Gwen - yes, but can’t actively participate Alan – If there is an RFP to hire a value consultant it will require Council approval/ Gwen – approval will lead to bid 2 to 3 weeks hence Tim - was value added consultant planned on? Gwen – yes, and at this point in the process there is much more money that has been allocated than has been needed. Barry - does the amount of money required leave us short on feasibility money? Gwen - no. We had imagined that we would have to spend on permitting and other things at this point. Alan - are there differences between value engineer and a technical review person? Gwen- no, same thing. Barry - you included the state to work with DOE, but if we don’t use them, what would happen to the grant income? Gwen - maybe. It is a change in scope. It would lead to possible rollback in money provided if we go below 50% of spending. DOE wasn’t into putting all of the money in PACE. Talked to DOE and said that “City-only” is a fall back option. Garth – notes that consultant should also be a commissioning agent Harold - could include in RFP to keep options open Bill - thinks its different skill set. Need to make decision today on technical and financial team. Alan - question on table - RFP proposal to City Council tomorrow. RFP would require the value added consultant to look at: 1. technical review 2. financial review 3. possible commissiong agent Will be presented at the beginning of the meeting. Gwen- Bill Fraser has already been alerted. Alan - will talk about charter changes tomorrow night too Alan - what is the role of the review committee in whole or in part? Gwen - Justin has already volunteered to be on review committee. Will ask bidders for proposals in electronic copy, wants hard copies for review team. not many copies. Who wants to be on the review committee? Edith - what will they specifically be doing? Gwen - will read them all bids. Will be responsible to go to City Council to give recommendation on behalf of MEAC. Dick - what’s the timeline on this? I will be unavailable later in November. Gwen - within a few weeks. BERC will be consultant on it. Carl - what is the time commitment? Harold- up to you…..probably a lot to read, have dialogue, and make proposals. Gwen- probably by the end of January. Approximately 60 to 80 hours total. Harold – review committee would need to present to City Manager, City Council. Harold - from a practical point of view, need at least two people that want jump on. Gwen - Ken and Justin have volunteered. Alan - MEAC may want to caucus to determine what reviewers should ask during meetings. Gwen - BGS, City, MEAC, BERC, legal will be on Technical Review Committee. It should be seen it as a subgroup to make a recommendation to MEAC. Ken - agrees with explanation Alan - everyone else is welcome to put input from MEAC, but Ken and Justin are the guys Gwen - will let people know about all meetings 2. Solar Panels Barry- Recaps the process and history around the solar panel project near the City Water treatment plan. Essentially an agreement with All Earth Renewables which would install solar panels, sell the electricity generated from them. Three options after five year agreement: 1. City can buy from All Earth Renewables 2. City can “re-up” the agreement 3. City can get the panels removed. The plan was not accepted from City Council this fall. Project would require a competitive process. Uncertain if City Council could enter into multi-year agreement with a company. There is now has agreement with City Council to do an RFP. The RFP would have to be Capital finance lease with a non-appropriation clause - to work with City Council on multi-year agreement. Hasn’t begun RFP. Garth – has an idea connected to solar farm project. 58 Barre has photovoltaic in proposal. He wants to see in RFP if putting the solar panels for 58 Barre St. in a different location, like the solar farm near the water treatment plant. Has seen interest from private property owners to do remotely too because of a lack of ability to do it on their own property. Barry- Capacity of proposed solar farm would be 81.000 kwh/year - equal about half of half of city hall’s annual electricity Garth - wants to look at capacity for whole project for the future. It would be great for downtown owners. Project would require city to talk to GMP, but thinks that they could buy in, etc. Barry - whole thing rests on group net metering Dick- doesn’t sufficiently to know that you’re not doing it at a loss. Is this proof out that it works financially? Ken - With the current economic environment and tax credits it would totally work out for private entities, but previously couldn’t work for municipalities. Dick - talking about costs, etc. does the city lose anyway? Ken - depends on the bidders…..will show us how the different finances the would work. There is a rush to claim the state credit before it expires Dick – you’re basically saying that this would not cost the city anything Carl - will know after RFP Ken – there should be some bid that won’t cost the city any money Carl - what’s the reasoning behind just city hall property? Garth - really whatever. We could try to get to private property owners too? Private sector will recover profits in five years, private owners really would want to get out after five years. Dick - is skeptical because he’s heard that it’s difficult to put tax credits, etc. without bringing in a premium Ken - market has changed this year. Carl - what is the business currently? Alan - just to report have a report. Barry – Will talk to Ken about timeline and how to proceed 3. Voters Guide Alan - are there any reactions to voters guide? Gwen - people seem ok on it, not to advocate oriented. We’ve put them at stores, farmers market, etc. Harold – there had been previously discussion about a letter writing campaign too. Ken - has written a letter will submit to night to hopefully get in this weekend. Passes out copes to everyone. Carl - need to repeat in the letter that charger changes won’t cost people money. Alan – we had previously agreed that Nov. 9th would be next meeting which is the night before council, after charter change vote. Is there objection? Gwen - RPC is taking up Master Plan, will have to be gone. Ken - do we know when presentation schedule would be, etc? don’t want to fall off. What can we do to have a PACE? Gwen - thinks we should have a PACE subcommittee, Clean Energy Assetment District (again interchangeably) Garth - photovoltaic could be used for PACE. Gwen - will need to establish loan loss reserve for PACE. Looking at the criteria, would be a lot of work. Ken - credit union is interested in helping with PACE, would be financial arm of project, need to follow up, need to meet with loan director. Johanna, Dan, Barry and Ken will be involved on PACE Subcommittee Adjourned at 8:26 pm NEXT Meeting: November 9th at 7pm in the Police Community Room