SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Title
Review Solar Implementation Plan. (WSO)
Body
SUMMARY:
In Fiscal Year 2022, staff engaged a consultant, McKim & Creed, to complete a review of most city facilities. The study was commissioned by the City to assist with planning for solar installations and to provide a tool that could be adjusted for changing environments. The tool identified eight weighted categories: Internal Rate of Return, Simple Payback, Electricity Offset, Longevity of Roof, Simplicity of Install, Public Relations, Building Efficiency, and Scalability. Buildings were then ranked based on these categories and weights. The original thought was that this document would provide a planning document to help staff determine funding needed to begin solar installations.
Between the start and end of the study, the City received two non-city generated funding allocations, one from the Department of Energy, and a second from ARPA funding allocated by City Council. Both had timelines by which expenditure needed to be completed, and the total allocation was $3,000,000. The expense timing requirement, the status of the funding as non-city generated funding allocations, and staff resource limitations pushed staff to alter the categories and weights of the McKim and Creed formula to fit the current environment. The new scoring looked at Internal Rate of Return, Electricity Offset, and a new category, the ratio of individual install costs to the $3,000,000 allocation amount. The intent was to make sure the city was getting good return on the projects, limiting the quantity of projects that needed to be managed so staff could focus on quality installations within the defined timeline, and setting up to see how buildings with a high percentage of renewable energy operate.
Staff then coupled this with a qualitative review of the new top ten to make any reasonable adjustments that were driven by various non-quantitative factors to come up with the best options.
The result was that three of the top ten from McKim and Creed remained in the top 10 for the city’s adjusted scoring. The reasons that the other seven dropped out related to lower cost to allocation ratios (four), a change in status of buildings (two), and a low electricity offset (one).
The three that were consistent on both lists were consistent with the top three for the adjusted city list, and the fourth ranked building became the Long Center due to its very high cost to allocation ratio. Staff then looked at the new top ten from a qualitative perspective to ensure the quantitative approach was balanced with factors not definable by numbers. This included factoring in construction projects that did not previously exist, secondary benefits of installations, potential shifts in financial impact, and reimagination of some projects that leverage multiple uses that exist on single parcels. The result of this adjustment is that the top four facilities remained the same, and they are estimated to use up $2,250,000 of the $3,000,000 allocation.
The fifth rated opportunity became an installation on the Osceola Avenue parking garage. This is a new structure that was neither acquired nor designed at the time the study began. As the new construction has been planned to have solar as part of the installation and the allocation of design resources has already been made to the Osceola project, this project made sense to add to the list, bringing the total up to $2,550,000 of the $3,000,000 allocation.
As to the remainder of the allocation, staff has five other potential high benefit options for installation, each of which requires some additional work to confirm, and all include the use of carport solar applications. Two of these are the MSB and Garden Avenue Garages, where solar carports would be placed on the roof of the facilities, offering shading for those rooftop parking spaces. The MSB garage is a unique scenario because the garage itself cannot does not utilize much power, however there may be real opportunities related to the Police station south of the garage. Staff are working to determine if state law will preclude the City from transferring power from the garage to the station. Should that not be an option, the solar installation for MSB would be timed with the acquisition of electric fleet vehicles, which would then be charged electricity generated by solar captured onsite and stored in battery technology. The recent renovation work at MSB garage has prepared the garage for an easier conversion to either scenario with the inclusion of strategically placed conduit during that project.
Similarly, Garden Avenue garage also presents an opportunity for EV charging, though it could be used in both fleet and public applications. Staff would again time installation based on fleet acquisition, but also on the public demand for EV charging downtown.
The final three may be the most exciting opportunities for solar installation because they include opportunities for social benefits as well as environmental and financial benefits.
Fire Station 46 was not included in the original study because it had already been planned for a Solar Installation. When the peel and stick application that was planned for FS46 became unavailable, the team began searching for an alternative, however the design engineers could not identify an installation that would be appropriate for an emergency facility in that location.
As an alternative, we have identified an opportunity to leverage an uncommon parcel make up where Fire Station 46, a large parking lot (Lot 36), and a park (Mandalay Park) all occupy a single parcel. While normally facilities like these would occupy separate parcels, this set up allows us to utilize power generated on one or more of these uses for the benefit of the other uses. Conceptually staff believes that leveraging the parking lot for this makes sense due to its proximity to the Fire Station, and the use of carports to generate the electricity would create a secondary social benefit by allowing for shaded parking or overhead shelter. Additionally, because this is a high traffic area, there may be an educational or inspirational opportunity for beachgoers.
Like Fire Station 46, the North Greenwood Library also provides a unique parcel and the opportunity for the creation of shaded parking or shelter for either patrons of the library, or the adjacent athletic fields. In this scenario, we could use the North Greenwood Library parking lot for generation instead of the building roof or provide shading for those attending events at the athletic fields for those needing to get out of the sun or who might be caught in inclement weather.
The final opportunity is at the Beach Library/Recreation facility and the Beach Pool. Similarly, to the above scenarios, these sit on the same parcel, but they have a large parking lot between them. The McKim and Creed study looked at generation of power at the structures of the buildings themselves, however we believe there may be some value in once again taking a covered parking approach, as the lot is generally unshaded and we may be able to leverage the location of the parking lot to ensure efficient power distribution, whether that is the pool side or the building side.
An additional benefit of some of these carport applications is that they allow for a lot more standardization for installation and maintenance of the exterior elements of the system, as roof materials and styles can vary greatly. Carport applications are generally made on asphalt lots with minimal grade changes and spacing and layout that is typically standard. Prior to moving forward with these opportunities, we would need to coordinate with Planning and Development, as the City’s Land Development Code will likely need to be tweaked in some areas to address these types of installations, however early discussions lead us to believe that there is a path forward.
For now, staff intends to move ahead with the top five opportunities and work towards refining the carport installations.
As staff moves beyond the non-city generated allocations for Solar, staff will continue to apply a mix of quantitative and qualitative information to determine what makes sense based on a balance of social, environmental, and financial goals.
No action is required at this time for this item, however the expense associated with each project will be up for consideration by City Council at a later date.