My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-2024 Council Packet
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
09-11-2024 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/13/2024 12:04:20 PM
Creation date
9/13/2024 12:00:54 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
246
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
<br />with six vendors in attendance. Four questions were received with additional documentation <br />requests by the question deadline of August 26. All questions and documentation were issued as <br />an addendum on the city’s website, and sent to vendors by CERT. <br /> <br />Staff received eight proposals by the August 29 deadline. Request for Proposals were reviewed <br />by staff, with a number of factors taken into consideration including: <br />• Municipal government experience <br />• Cost <br />• Output of proposed solar array <br />• Warranty and maintenance <br />• Understanding of the city’s unique project scope <br />• Understanding of the second round solar grant application process <br /> <br />The eight vendors that submitted proposals were: <br />1. All Energy Systems <br />2. Apadana Energy <br />3. Blue Sky Electric <br />4. Energy Concepts <br />5. Planet Solarity <br />6. Renewable Energy Partners <br />7. SolarPod <br />8. Wolf River Electric <br /> <br />Each of the proposals was unique, and all had different goals for the size of the system and the <br />amount of electricity that could be generated. The actual city cost after the grant and tax credit <br />payments are received was similar among all eight vendors, with the lowest being $0 (due to an <br />additional grant that would be possible due to the type of equipment proposed) up to $11,620 for <br />the highest cost. <br /> <br />Apadana Energy exhibited great knowledge of the project in its proposal, and a good <br />understanding of how the system would work with the tree cover around the City Hall grounds. <br />Some of the companies said they would not recommend a solar project without the removal of <br />the large tree in the south lawn due to the shading of the roof. Apadana looked at it closer and <br />said “multiple trees were found that will cast shade onto the array, including directly south of the <br />array. However, we simulate that this tree will not cast an uneconomical amount of shade, as the <br />sun will be closer to directly overhead when the shade from the tree hits the roof surface.” <br /> <br />Apadana also had a good grasp of the second-round grant application process and seems to be <br />well-prepared to complete and submit the application. They have worked with numerous public <br />entities on solar projects, including some large projects with the State of Minnesota and project <br />on one of the St. Louis Park fire stations. <br /> <br />Their products and warranties also meet all requirements of the grant application, and they <br />included a 10-year workmanship warranty, which only three of the companies offered. Most <br />offered only a one-year warranty on workmanship. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.