Hello, folks. I call to order the January 21st, 2025 public hearing and special meeting of the Committee on Administration, Finance, and Law and Public Services. Time is now 6.01 p.m. Mr. Clerk, when you get the chance, will you please call the roll? Alderman Connors. Present. Alderman Barbosa. Present. Alderman McNamara. Present. Alderman Santiago. Present. Alderman Simpson. Present. Alderman Gibson. Alderman Pabon. Here. Alderman Smedley. Alderman Beloyed-Savaja. Here. Alderman Russell. He is seated for, he is a voting member for Alderman Gibson. Also seated is Alderman Scott. We have a quorum. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Clerk, will you please read into the record the notice of public hearing? I would like to make a motion to waive the reading of the legal notice. We have a motion to waive made by Alderman Santiago, seconded by Alderman Simpson. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Motion carries. The reading is waived. Having been noticed properly, we will begin the public hearing. Please remember to state your name and address for the record and limit your speaking time to three minutes. The items for public hearing are item number 36666, Tax Modification Agreement with Ellis Stanley Land LLC, and item number 36686, Minutes of the Common Council Committee Meetings. Are there any speakers for these items? Oh, yeah, red button, thanks. Since you're part of the subject matter of what we're discussing, it would probably be best to save the majority of your comments for the meeting itself. If you want to say anything briefly now, feel free. Well, I'll just introduce those present here for this proposal. I'm Attorney Michael Carrier, 24 Cedar Street, New Britain. I have with me Mr. Darien Cridman. HE'S THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY FOR WIND DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES, WHICH IS REALLY THE BUILDER OF THE ELLIS BLOCK DOWN AT 321 ELLIS STREET. SO WE CAN SAVE OUR COMMENTS UNTIL THE ITEM COMES UP. THANKS, YES. THANK YOU, ATTORNEY CARRIER. WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. LOOKING FOR ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THESE ITEMS, THE TAX MODIFICATION AGREEMENT AND THE MINUTES OF THE COMMON COUNCIL COMMITTEE. ONE MORE TIME, ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS FOR THESE ITEMS? And one final time to technically make it three this time. Are there any speakers for these items? Anyone on the phone? No, great. Seeing no speakers, we will close public hearing and move on to the special meeting. The time is now 6.04 p.m. The first item on the agenda is the tax modification agreement with Ellis Street Stanley Land LLC. Once again, first may I have a motion? Mr. Chair. Alderman Santiago. I make a motion. Make a motion to accept and refer to the full council with a neutral recommendation. Second. We have a motion to refer with a neutral recommendation made by Alderman Santiago, seconded by Alderman Savedra, Bologna Savedra, pardon me. Any discussion? I think at this point it would be appropriate to invite Attorney Carrier back up to continue where he left off. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Again, Michael Carrier for the developer, Ellis Mill LLC. We're here this evening to request a tax modification agreement for the solar voltaic facility to be built on 250 Stanley Street. If you recall, this 250 Stanley Street was originally part of 321 Ellis Street, and the original thought was that in developing the old mill building into the 154 apartments, that the rear parcel wouldn't be needed because there was sufficient parking on the front piece. So that was going to be, it was separated so that it could be sold off and developed in another way. It still would have been subject to the actual plan approval by the council, whoever brought forth a proposal, but it didn't appear to be needed at the time. But then the idea came around about having the building serviced by this solar facility, which would actually help the residents. to the tune of like $92,000 a year, which is almost like $600 per unit off of their electric bill. So we came back with a modification to the plan to allow Forth East Solar Facility to be built on 250 Stanley Street, which was approved, so that's part of the plan. But then the problem arose in that that piece, since it is now a separate piece of property, isn't part of the original tax modification plan. So that just throws off the numbers because the value isn't there if it's going to be taxed. Now, I'd like to have Mr. Cridman come up to basically explain the project a little more and how the numbers work so you can see what I'm trying to say. Is that Mr. Kremen? Thanks, everyone. My name is Darien Kremen, representing wind companies. I do have a few slides, and there we go. Great. Watch your head. Slides are working. Okay, great. So I'm just going to cover a few slides. I don't think we need the drop-down screen because anybody here can see the TV screen and you folks can't see it. Okay. Okay. I promise I'll be quick. Just a few slides to introduce the solar project. I was here... Sure, that's fine. Once again, my name is Darien Kremen representing Wynn Companies, the developer of 321 Ellis. Hopefully you all know Wynn Companies by now and the work that we're doing at the Ellis block. We are approximately 95% complete with transforming that vacant mill into 154 units of affordable housing, and it's going to be absolutely beautiful housing. the mission statement of the company on the screen there. I've been with the company 16 years and I can say that I firmly believe in everything here and I've seen our ability to transform neighborhoods and communities and really maintain them for the benefit of the whole community. And specifically at Ellis, this is the revised master plan that was approved by the Common Council back in June 24. And this is showing the mill building, the parking, and then the solar both on the mill and on the adjacent lot to the right of the screen. The solar will be owned by an entity, Stanley Street Solar, and that entity is leasing both the portions of the roof from the owner of the mill building and leasing the land that the ground mount solar array will be located on from the owner of that land parcel. So the mill building owner is Ellis Street Mill LLC, and the land parcel to the right is Ellis Stanley Land LLC, and the solar owner is Stanley Street Solar LLC. Lots of entities. It's all wind companies. And so we're uniform and united in our commitment to transforming the whole parcel into something that I think is going to be truly remarkable. This is our largest solar project that we've done. even though we've done 20-something of these on various properties across New England and DC and other states. This is one that I'm really excited about. And I'm excited about it because it's really an example of community solar where we're able to produce power at one location and then directly share it with the residents who, in this case, live in the adjacent property at Ellis Mill. There's approximately, as Michael mentioned, $92,000 per year in available savings for residents that will be transferred automatically on a monthly basis to each resident's electric bill. So the $92,000 is an annual number, but every month a certain allotment per apartment will receive credits on their electric bill. So that equals about $600 per year. Savings are automatic, paid by Eversource to reduce each eligible household's monthly electric bill. And so that's why we're doing this. One of the reasons that we need a pilot in this case is because the solar production each year this is going to operate over the next 20 years, it doesn't increase. The value of that solar doesn't increase. In fact, it decreases. The amount we're paid by Eversource is fixed. kilowatt hour for 20 years. And like all solar, there's a slight degradation every year. So we model and what we've seen in our projects is about half a percent decrease in the amount of electricity that this is going to produce every year. And that over the 20 years decreases gradually. So we're producing the most we will produce in year one. And then by year 20 we're producing the least that the project will produce. But the amount paid for that by Eversource is fixed. And so the value of the solar actually decreases over time. So because of that, the solar project really has no ability to pay for what might be future increases in tax, unlike real estate or unlike other developments that you might see. And so it's very common for solar projects to request and receive pilot agreements with local municipalities to enable the financing of the solar. So that's basically the position that we are in and the reason we're coming today to request a pilot. The pilot that we're asking for would keep the land-owning entity of that separate parcel, Ellis Stanley Land, remaining responsible for taxes based on the assessment of the land only at the current mill rate. And then separate from that, the solar that gets installed, because it's a lease and because it's owned by a separate entity, it would actually be personal property if I'm and how I'm interpreting the tax law. And so that wouldn't be assessed to the landowner, it would be assessed to the Stanley Street entity, and we're asking for an exemption for that value for a period of 25 years. I'm happy to answer questions. Those are the slides I had. Hopefully, I mean, I would recommend that you consider a positive referral to the full council. in lieu of just a neutral referral but I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. I think there are a few questions. I'll take the liberty of just asking the first one then I'll pass it off to whomever is next. In the circumstance of you know public housing there's specific financing tied to the pilot period. Is there contingent financing here or is this more of something that's already happening but you're looking for some sort of assurance going into the future? We have not closed on financing for this. We have the ability to start the project and order equipment at risk and that's exactly what we're doing and it legitimately is at risk because of various external factors not in significantly the potential for future tariffs or tariffs later this year on solar equipment and we're basically rushing to order equipment, lock in the pricing so we can move forward quickly. With that said, a pilot and certainty regarding taxes is necessary for closing on financing. So any future bank loan or any financing that we obtain will require certainty. The project would not be able to close if we did not have surety of what the future taxes could be. I will also say the state of Connecticut does have tax exemptions for certain solar projects, certain categories of solar. That was the law supporting that, I believe was passed in 2003. Don't quote me on that, but early 2000s. I've read it. For whatever reason, it doesn't apply to multifamily. It doesn't apply to what we're doing here. with community solar because community solar didn't exist when that law was passed and it hasn't been updated since. So this is something that possibly would have been under the purview of that state law but for being community solar? And I would say potentially will be exempt. There was a bill introduced that would have exempted projects like this that Deep and others were in support of, Connecticut Green Bank, et cetera. not pass, and I don't even know if it was voted on in full, but it was introduced and deliberated. But that's correct, yeah. Thank you. I don't want to hog the mic. We'll start with Alderman Pavone. By any chance, do you know what the tax is going to be a year on this? Currently, the land only tax is about $5,600 per year. And that's what the land parcel is currently paying in the first year that it's been its own separate parcel. So before this, it was a 10 acre parcel under the existing pilot. We divided it in 2023, and so the seven acres is owned by the mill, and then the three acres is owned by the Ellis Stanley Land Entity. That three acre lot, the land only assessment is a little north of 5,000, between 5 and 6,000. I don't know what the would be assessed value of the personal property which is the solar equipment would be. DIRECTOR DEWOLF. All right. Thank you sir. DIRECTOR DEWOLF. To all of them. All of them on Pavone's question. The assessor and I think Mr. Koenig is here has provided us with a schedule that would on the personal property side of things that over I think your ask is. 25 years? 25 years, yes. Yeah. And he's provided us with a schedule that the tax break would be $461,000 over 25 years. And I don't know how the, you know, it's the depreciation. I know Mr. McConnick is here, so, and he knows a lot. So he can shed light on this. Through you, Mr. Chair. I'd love to hear Mr. Koenig's opinion. Thanks. Good evening, everybody. When this project was brought to my attention, I had asked for what the original cost of the equipment would be for the solar. And that's how personal property is in Connecticut. It's every year the owner of the property must declare the equipment, they declare the original cost. and there's a depreciation schedule that goes with the property. So the original cost is $1,625,000 and over seven years it depreciates and then in the eighth year it goes to 30% and that becomes the residual for its lifespan. So I'm just taking the original cost that was quoted to me, taking the depreciation factor, then taken at times 0.7 for the assessment, and I'm coming up with the various tax amounts for the 25 years. I can't predict what the mill rate's going to be or anything like that, but that's where I came up with the $461,000 or so in taxes. Alderman McNamara. I was going to say, well, that, again, the mill rate is not a static number, so those But this is just a projection over time, if it was 39.59. Yes. Okay, well that, I think that specifies what the ask is in terms of the tax break being requested. So, next slide. Okay. I haven't seen that. that calculation but thank you for that. What I heard was that there's a thirty one point five percent annual personal property tax based on the value. That's after that's after eight years correct or it goes down to 30 after eight. Right. It's a sliding scale. Yes it there's different schedules for different types of equipment for personal property and This is typically called Code 24 in personal property. And in the eighth year, the residual goes down to 30%. And that's the schedules that all assessors would use for the taxation of this type of equipment. Yeah. Awesome. Thanks. Stay close. Yep. I'm right here. Yeah, I have a few of my papers. Oh, sorry. Here you go. Well, I would love to... have a look at that. I know that on the federal tax basis, the depreciation schedule is much different. It's an accelerated depreciation where the full value of the solar is depreciated within six years and then it's zero after. And I can say just practically from an installer and an operator's perspective, when you install solar, it loses its value almost immediately. I mean, it's like driving a new car off the lot and then after five years, eight years, nobody is taking... a solar farm that already exists and dismantling it and using that personal property elsewhere. So the value really is inherent in the initial installation, but then it quickly depreciates. And the annual value from that, the actual production is, like I had in that one slide, is calculated and it's known and it does decrease over time. So in year 20, we're not at 30% of its value, and I would argue it should not be assessed at 30% of its value. I understand there is a schedule, I'm not as familiar with the state schedule as the federal depreciation schedule. Alderman McNamara, and then we've got others. Sorry, counting on you Alderman Russell, thank you. Since you mentioned the federal, are there tax benefits or is that the valuation the feds give you? Is there a tax benefit or break? I'm not aware of any executive orders today taking those things away, so can you tell us about that? Yeah, there are tax credits at the federal level that are available, and those are specifically what we are utilizing in order to send the $90,000 per year to the residents that live at Stanley Street. We're not collecting a payment for that community solar value. Whereas in other states and other markets, you might see a deal where you sign up for a community solar project and you get a 10% discount off of the credit value that you receive. So you receive $100 in credits, you pay 90, you save $10 a month. In our case, it's different. We're passing through the full value of those savings to the residents. So, for every dollar of a discount on their electric bill, they keep a dollar. So, we don't have a transaction in there where we are collecting additional revenue from those residents. And that's supported by the federal tax credit. Other woman, . Hi. Can you explain to me then how you make the money or you representing the company who's going to put up the solar panels? So if our assessor's numbers are correct and we're looking at $461,000 in a tax break, and of that tax break, and I'm doing my own math this way, $92,000 of that is going to be given to the residents. How do you or the company with the solar panel make money? What is your incentive to have that there if the residents aren't receiving money the full benefit of the electricity generated through these solar panels? How is the company making its money? Good question. The total project costs are more than that 1.6 million or whatever it was quoted. That is the value of the residual property, but the installation costs are not included in that. This is a comprehensive project on both a roof and the land. Where to start? We've typically, and in this case, what we will do is we will provide some amount of equity, whether it's 30%, 25%, 40% actual cash, and then match that with a bank loan. And that bank loan is supported by the revenue that we get from the sale of electricity. In this case, we have a 20-year fixed payment from Eversource That's based on the rate that they are guaranteeing us. They're going to buy 100% of the power that we send to the grid. They're going to take 20% of that and give it to residents directly. And then the remaining 80% we're going to use to cover our debt service. So that is the shorthand sort of deal structure of how this is intended to work. And we've done this in... I said maybe 20 individual cases. Never with this Eversource program, and never where we are gifting 100% of the value of the solar away. Can I follow up, Mr. Chair? Yes. So 20% of what you sell to the electric company goes back to the residents, but then 80% is used to pay down the debt you owe on the bank. Where's your profitability for the company? Again, I get to the question of what is incentivizing the company to put up this, the solar panels. So the amount of equity put up has a return on that based on the available tax credits and then the residual excess amount beyond the debt coverage. So our minimum is at 1.15, depending on where we go, it might be 1.2 debt coverage. And so our minimum amount of revenue has to cover at least the amount we owe the bank, plus all the expenses, plus 0.2 debt coverage ratio. And basically our equity amount that we put in gets sized to match that bank loan. So it's sort of a dance. between, do we put in 30%, 35%, 40%? How much is needed to actually equal it out? And my last question is, is there a plan when the solar panels are no longer effective, how will you dispose of them? Will they sit on that property in New Britain being a blight forever, or is there a disposal plan, and have you disposed of solar panels in other projects? We have disposed of them specifically on roofs, where the roofs need to be replaced. and the solar has reached the end of its life or maybe the solar could continue for a couple of years, but the roof needs to be replaced regardless. We've removed them and there are a few companies that do recycle, although it's mostly the aluminum that they're recycling, not the actual electrical components. In this case, the lease that Stanley Street Solar will have with both the landowner, Ellis Stanley Land and also Ellis Street Mill, includes specific language about decommissioning and the requirement for the lessee to decommission the solar at the end of the 20-year lease term. And the reason it's a 20-year lease term and we're asking for 25 years is this is going to take at least a year to actually construct, turn on, and then the decommissioning period is also, you know, at the tail end, about a year. Of course, on the next speaker, Alderwoman Barbosa. Hello. When it comes to the monitoring and accountability, what mechanisms will be in place to monitor the operational savings generated by the solar facility and ensure that these savings are realized and effectively passed on to the residents? We just met with Eversource last week. This is a new program. They've done one of these in the whole state of Connecticut so far. So it's a new program. There is a... I want to say it's a working group that advises Eversource and DEEP and the other program administrators on the effectiveness of the program. Part of Eversource's responsibility is to report back up to the administrators of the utility program how effective it is. But within the actual regulations, Eversource is mandated to take that 20% and send it to the meters and the accounts that we specify. And once we specify them, even, and this is as recent as last week, even when there's turnover, let's say someone's receiving a solar credit, two years later they move out, and then a month later someone else moves in, that transition will automatically happen. So that new resident will automatically receive the same credits on their electric bill without us necessarily doing anything. So it's 100% on Eversource's um, responsibility to allocate those credits. Um, and they are also responsible for reporting up to, um, to the agency to, to document those savings. Do you have any data from similar solar projects that have received tax, tax exemptions? Um, I don't have any data. I could ask a there's an industry group that I'm on the email exchange for maybe 100 solar professionals. I could ask that group but I don't have any on my fingertips right now. Because I would like to see what lessons we can learn from their financial outcomes and the impacts it's had on the community. I'll let you go. So thanks for being with us tonight. I guess my first question would be relating to the language presented in front of us. There's an estimate here that, assuming this goes through as is, that there's going to be an annual savings of about $92,787. Is that... accurate in terms of this number will hold steady or no? It's an estimate because the actual production varies depending on weather. So if we get a very, very cloudy year, the amount of solar produced won't be as high as what was forecasted or underwritten. Right. So aside from natural elements, The slides I have here say that the electricity rate is fixed for 20 years by Eversource, but this chart shows a decreasing production of electricity. So if we're at the same rate and at year 20 we're producing less, how can we expect a savings as a city of that 92,000 change? So the, there would also be a 0.5% degradation in the value annually. Okay. Through you, Mr. Chair, the language we have here specifies that this is a tax modification agreement. It doesn't establish a payment in lieu of taxes. I'm just wondering, I guess maybe this is for corporation counsel actually. Does the language we have here grant a pilot or is this just an adjustment in the taxes that this owner would be paying. I'm actually going to ask Mr. Koenig that. He is the expert. I guess essentially what it's going to do is if you did vote for this, there is a modification to the taxes because instead of paying the tax, they'd be paying zero. So it does modify the amount that they would pay. The original concept was that it was going to be part of the real property, but in Connecticut, solar installations like this that are leased are typically handled as personal property. So the real property that it sits on will pay its regular property tax, but the solar would be separate as personal property and would need to be declared annually. And the, I guess the tax modification would adjust that payment to zero. Interesting. Thank you. And the language we have here, if we voted on it right now, establishes the modification agreement, a tax modification agreement for 25 years. And we have production estimates for 20 years. So my question for you is, what do those last five years kind of look like? If it's 0.5% year over year, I'm just looking for a more complete picture of a 25-year production for a 25-year tax break. The production would still continue to go down by 0.5% annually through year 21 through 25. The value of the solar would go down remarkably. So the Eversource value is fixed for the first 20 years, and then after year 20, it would go to the wholesale rate, which is one-eighth of the value from Eversource. So a significant reduction in any revenue in year 21, 22, 23. If the solar kept producing, it could otherwise be decommissioned after year 20. Now, is that value according to the price or the production? The price, the value of the solar is based on how much the electricity's worth. And so in Connecticut, the electricity is worth, in this particular program, where Eversource is buying all of the electricity, a certain value for the first 20 years. After year 20, that, Eversource is not gonna buy the electricity. They don't have to, basically. Right. So the electricity will continue to flow to the grid. As a generator, the way that works is the generation facility will receive compensation, not from Eversource, but from ISO New England as a wholesale generator. And so it's a wholesale rate, which is like, I don't know what it is, five or six cents a kilowatt hour. It's extremely low. Why aren't we doing this now as a state? That's a rhetorical question, but after this 20-year period, the rate drops, what, an eighth or a tenth, you said? It drops significantly, yeah. Wow. Thank you. No, this has been very educational. I think I'm all set. Thank you. Alderman McNamara, and then we'll go back to Alderman Barbosa. Thanks. This solar field, is it solely for the benefit of the residents in those uh mill does the energy asset go anywhere else like if I lived at 92 Stanley would I uh there's there's no it's not a source of asset or revenue uh anywhere else but Brass Mill? Right Ellis Mill right right and and so we're required to only enroll affordable residents households that qualify and because we have the 154 right there and that facility has qualified through, again, the state-administered Eversource program. Eversource has the green light to basically provide the benefit directly to those meters. And since this is a unique or one-off, one-time here, are you aware of, I think you said, but you're not aware of any in Massachusetts or anywhere else where the typical length of the modification, like the 20 years for the utility, and now the ask is for 25 years. Is there a, do you know in terms of the financing or the whole scheme of things you have, could you live with less than 25 years? We could live with 20 years, assuming that year one is 2026. So this year we will construct, this is our plan, to construct the project this year. I don't know how that works relative to just when the first assessment would be made on the personal property and thereafter, but I don't know if you could comment. Yeah, so... So personal property has to be declared every year by November 1st and it has whatever's on the property as of October 1st has to be declared. So if this solar array is up and installed as of October 1st of 2025, then it would impact the tax bills as of July 1, 2026, okay? that's something to keep in mind. So when we talk about beginning any kind of abatement, if there is one to the grand list date of October 1 to 25, that would first impact taxes in July of 26. Thank you. So just to answer your question, 20 years starting in the tax year 2026 would work for us. Thank you. Alderman Barbosa. With that being said, given the extension of construction deadlines, if the solar installation does not proceed as planned, what legal measures are in place for the city to reassess the tax exemption request or to hold the developer accountable? Might be a Corporation Council type question. I'm sorry Alderman Barboza, what was the question again? What is the current, regarding the current status of the construction for 250 Main Street, if the solar installation does not proceed as planned, what legal measures are in place for the city to reassess the tax exemption request or to hold the developer accountable? So according to the draft agreement, I don't know if you got a copy of it. Okay, okay. Section 3.1 of the draft agreement says that the agreement will be null and void if Stanley Soler fails to complete improvements by October 1, 2025. 27? 2025. That's the draft agreement right now. So they have to finish the completion by 2025? They have to complete the solar installation the personal property improvements by October 1 2025 and if they don't then the agreement is null and void. Are you guys on board. I mean are you guys able to complete it by October. Yeah. The solar equipment will be delivered and installed on that lot before October 2025. You don't have a specific date or time frame besides October 2025? No. I have approximate weeks for delivery, but we haven't actually released it because we're waiting on this. This has been educational. I have more questions. Alderman Santiago. Yeah, this is going to go to about That's 92,000. Now, who – how many units are there in the building? Again, I don't know. 154. So every single one of the units would basically be able to benefit from the tax – The $600 a year. Per year. Okay. Well, yeah, that answers the rest of the whole thing because, again, it was pretty much how much – it might be more or whatever. So every single unit would be beneficial for it. It's about $50 a month, correct? Yeah. $600. Yeah. Yeah, about 50. Yeah. OK. Pretty much . There's, I mean, there's only one scenario I can see where if a resident opts out for whatever reason, and people do that sometimes, then we would respect that and not sign them up for the program. So voluntary exclusion is possible. Qualified is income eligible. So not every person might qualify then? No, all of the residents at Ellis Block are qualified. Okay. Yeah, all the households. Alderman Russell. If they do op out, can you tell me where that money would go? Would that be used for the rest of the residents if there's money left over? Yeah, the allocation would change so that each resident would basically increase, instead of $50 a month, it would be $51 a month, or $52 or something. All right, thank you. I had one additional question. I'm looking for it in the contract. Is there something in here that locks in that 20% to the residents as a proportion of the electricity generated? You said that approximately 20% is being redirected to the residents. Is there something in here that locks that in, That is what's required through what's called the RRES program, the Residential Renewable Energy program, which is based on state law, state statute, the program that Eversource is required to administer. So that is the program that we are enrolling in, and there are program manuals and a contract. But that's separate from what we would have with uh, the city, for example. Right. But that's what, uh, is that the same, um, agreement that locks you into that 20 year period of payments too? So it's the same. So you're required to give 20% in order to get the 20 years. That's exactly. That seems like something that are written by the state government. It makes sense. Alderwoman Belen-Savedra. I'm sorry. I'm going to go back to a previous question. Um, how many panels are you putting up with this project entail? I don't know how many panels. About 750 kilowatts AC on that lot. So maybe 1,100 panels. I'm going to go back to this question again. Just a straightforward answer, please. When they're decommissioned and they need to be disposed of, are they staying on that property? Is decommissioned solar panels or is it all going to be removed? So the terms of the lease require decommissioning. The lease is for 25 years, so the decommissioning period would end at the end of that 25-year term and require the removal of the solar. Okay, so it would require you to remove those? It does require it, yes. Okay. Be very specific and clear about that. Yes, yes. Alderwoman Scott? I know we were talking about if the residents opt out but what if they're not completely full all the units aren't full or occupied at the time with what we still be able to benefit the residents benefit from the $50. Well if no resident is living in a particular apartment then then that residents not there to get the benefit. The other residents who are enrolled will benefit. Thank you. And that's administered through Eversource. And nuances like that are what Eversource, and it's a public meeting if you're interested, what Eversource defines within the work group for the RS program. Okay. When is that meeting? Oh, I don't know exactly. It's once every two months or so. Okay. Could you let us know when that meeting's back? Sure. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for answering all these questions. We've got a few more. Alderman Santiago. Just a quick, just to reiterate, the property itself will still be taxed, just not, the land itself will be taxed, just not the solar panels that are on there. That's the proposal. Okay. I'm sorry, and then the full rate. The mill rate. Just a point, if I may. I believe I looked it up. The valuation is about $107,000, so it would be... of the land only, I believe. Thank you. The valuation of 250 Stanley Street is $203,000, so $142,100 of assessment times our mill rate. That's $56,2574 in tax. Okay, yes. Thank you. My math, as usual, is wrong, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And Alderman Simpson. Thank you. You may have mentioned this earlier, so sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, but do residents have to apply to get these, the benefit, or is it automatically applied to their bills? They don't have to apply. The disclosures and the program information is part of the leasing package that they receive when they opt to lease an apartment. And again, we're not selling the solar. We're literally just gifting it. So our council has determined we don't need a contract with each resident, so they don't have to apply, and they don't have to actually execute a contract either. Alderwoman Barbosa. Question. You mentioned earlier opt-out. So if they don't have to apply, then why would they have that option to opt out of it? Because they're automatic. I just mentioned that because some people, despite what might seem like a great deal, might want nothing to do with it. And that's their discretion, so we would respect that. Some people choose to pay more. That's true. I would... entertain a brief recess to digest. Yeah, could we have a recess? Yeah, let's all take a five, ten minute recess to, that was quite a lot of information, so let's say ten minutes and we'll come back at seven. Thank you. All in favor of a ten minute recess? Aye. Aye. All opposed? A reminder, we are to return in a minute or two, so... call us back from recess. I just want to say thanks to everybody for working so diligently on this one and co-operatively. We'll resume our discussion and entertain any motions or amendments. Alderman Sahn? Oh, sure, sure. Yes. Yeah I just wanted to thank you all for deliberating and considering this. The reason that we're doing this program similar to the reason that we develop affordable housing is really to benefit residents and to do so we need certain subsidies. Affordable housing would not exist if there weren't state housing tax credits federal housing tax credits federal programs through HUD other programs that municipalities might offer like tax abatement. Same thing for solar. Solar would not exist in this form where it's community solar where we're benefiting residents with a significant amount of money annually, if not for certain incentives. And so when you compare the potential tax revenue that the city might get over 20 years, $470,000 sounds like a lot. What we're proposing is significantly more than that that we would deliver to residents, some $1.5 million or more over that 20-year period. And the way that we will do that is by relying on the state program through Eversource, the federal programs like the tax credits that exist, and also the ability to finance it, which includes consideration for local property taxes. I don't want this lot to remain undeveloped and basically fenced off from the rest of our property and forgotten about. I'd rather not see it developed into... self-storage or some other future, you know, purpose. But that's the competition. It's basically on our end, can we finance the solar? We'd like to do this. And on your end, you know, I understand what's the value of potential tax revenue, but I want to emphasize the value going to residents and our ability to deliver on that through the solar. So I hope that that would be considered as we deliberate. Thank you. Yes, I appreciate and the council appreciates the investment in the city, the thoughtful redevelopment of the entire two parcels together. People are very excited about it. I'm very excited about it. And just thanks for coming in and bearing with us as we deliberate and move through it. But at this point, Alderman Santiago. Mr. Chair, I would like to offer amendment to the resolution. Please let us know what your amendment is. The amendment would be where the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 were asked. For the period of where it crossed out 25 years and add 10. And then down where it resolved at the end would be for a 10-year period with the option to apply to Common Council for additional period of exception. I have a motion. Do we have to amend. Do I have a second. Seconded by Alderman Simpson. Any discussion on the amendment. Discussion on the amendment. Seeing no discussion on the amendment all in favor of the amendment say aye. All opposed nay. The amendment carries back to discussion on the resolution as amended. Any Alderman Simpson? I'd like to offer a friendly amendment. It's in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The sixth whereas to replace the word approximately with the words upwards to. And that's all. Second. I have a second on the amendment. Can we clarify upwards to is what you want in there? Or can we find maybe a up to? Sure. Let's change that amendment to up to that. Okay. You know, directions can get confusing sometimes. So we've got any, I have a second on the amendment from Alderman Santiago. Any discussion on this amendment? Again, can you just restate it one more time? Yes. And the sixth whereas replaced the word approximately with the phrase up to. Okay. The whole whereas? So in total it reads whereas the proposed solar facility has been designed to maximize the financial benefits shared with residents by providing annual savings of approximately $92,787 directly to affordable housing residents of 321 Ellis Street and now the change there is to just change the word approximately to up to. No problem. Any further discussion on the amendment from Alderman Simpson? Mr. Chair, just a question to, now this 92,787 is not, it could be more than that, correct? Could it be more, or is this pretty much what you're, the 20%? Because we're talking about 20% of the, whatever accumulates into, from the, from the cells, correct? Correct, yeah. So it could be more than 20, it could be more than that. It could be if we had 360 sunny, sunny days. Yes. Whereas we normally have 280 sunny days. So this is average, you're looking at the 92,000, correct? Okay. Thank you. My, another question, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, to you. Is, is this issue with the up to, coming again, it's just pretty much. I think it makes sense, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Just, thank you. Great. Any further. Corporate Council. Just a. Point of order, I think originally you guys were supposed to substitute the resolution because we had the original one and then we had the change. Yes. The first, sorry I missed that, I got. So we have to go back. technically go with the resolution replace it then amend it for that one correct or could we just do it all in the since we're doing the changes. True you could do it at that point yeah. So why don't we withdraw should we withdraw the amendments and then start over. Yes all right. OK. Sorry. Thank you. Alderman Simpson. I'd like to withdraw this amendment. Thank you. Amendments withdrawn. Okay. Now also Mr. Chair, I would like to withdraw my amendments also. Does that require a vote? Yes. All in favor? No, no. Okay. Now that amendment is withdrawn. We are back to the original resolution. To a point of order to back up the council, the revised resolution is clearly labeled substantive with the amendments. So you have to move to substitute. I will pass that to me. Thanks I will take a crack at this one. I will make a amendment as the sorry motion to amend and I will it will be a three part amendment. First I would like to adopt the substitute language provided here on the substitute resolution. I would, in addition to that, like to amend the, we're doing the other one first, where's the years? No, we're going to do the approximate first. Sure, we will amend the sixth whereas to change the word approximately to up to, and then the third and final amendment will be to change the period of time in the seventh whereas, from 25 years to 10 years with an option to renew added to the resolved. And then also the resolved. I did with an option to renew added to the resolved. I think Alderman Santiago wanted. Yeah you have to I'm sorry Mr. Chair you would have to do you corporate the end resolve will be for a 10 year period with the option to apply to common council for additional period of exemption. Thank you for that language. Thank you. All right so we've got those three changes. Second. We have a second. Any discussion on this amendment. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the resolution as amended. Say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Great the amendments carry. Back to discussion on the resolution as amended. Any further discussion on this resolution as amended. No. Alderwoman Scott. I had a really quick question I just wanted to know if it was is the heat through the electric in the apartments. Is it electric or gas. Oh good question. We do have natural gas and we have electric. I can get you more detail on exactly what the heating system is at the at the building. And what happens if they need to be repaired the solar because. The solar owner, Stanley Street Solar, is responsible for all maintenance, including panel replacement or, you know, annual maintenance needs. Okay. And I just wanted to say I'm excited that we're going to have some – we're going to be using natural energy for this, the solar, the green spaces, and things are really important. So I'm excited that that's going to happen here in the city and that this will bring an extra – You know it's a pilot so I'm excited to see you know how it comes out you know in 10 years and we'll be able to look at it again over time. And so thank you. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Great. I'm excited too. Thank you. DIRECTOR HERSEY- All right. Any further Alderman Santiago. Oh all right. Seeing possibly no further discussion all in favor of the resolution as amended say aye. All opposed nay. The resolution carries. Thank you very much for coming in and going with us through the process and excited for this energy to be produced here in New Britain. All right. Moving along then, the second item on the agenda is item number 36686, minutes of the Common Council Committee meetings. May I have a motion? I have a motion to refer with a neutral recommendation made by Alderwoman Valencia-Vedra and seconded by Alderman Simpson. And any discussion on this? And Alderwoman Valencia-Vedra would you like to roll it out? When I put it in and it was being referred here, I said there was going to need to be some tweaking done because obviously this initial resolution didn't take into consideration THE STATE LAW WHICH REQUIRES MINUTES TO BE POSTED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE MEETING TAKING PLACE AND UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE CORPORATION COUNCIL IF WE WERE TO DO ANYTHING IT WOULD BE TO AMEND OUR STANDING RULES OF THE COMMON COUNCIL JUST REQUIRING THAT MINUTES OF COMMON COUNCIL COMMITTEES TAKE PLACE AND WHAT'S RECORDED IN THE MINUTES ARE THE MAKERS OF MOTIONS AND THE VOTES AND THAT WE CAN TO meet the letter of the law but also get to my intention where the body should it should then come back to the body for a vote is within those seven days the minutes can be posted either as pending committee approval and or listed as a draft of the minutes and then at the subsequent meeting of that committee the committee would vote to approve the minutes and however we want to word it i did work up something I'm not wedded to the wording. I just want you all to understand what my intentions are. I do feel strongly that when minutes represent what actually unfolds at a meeting, it should be voted on by that body. I am not criticizing anyone. I understand that process has not been put in place, and I am in this moment just trying to create that process by putting it in our standing rules. Alderwoman Belan-Savedra. Mr. Chair just I have to have a question. Alderman Pabon was okay I'm sorry by a hair. It's got a couple. Now is there minutes on this committee meeting. Do we take minutes for this on this for this meeting. Yes. Okay so now what was the difference between the other meeting we have that we didn't have no minutes. I'll do that. Alderman. I'll do it. Alderwoman Valencia-Vedra, why don't you field that one? So the minutes are being taken. What's not happening is they're not coming back to the committees for approval. They're being taken and posted without being approved by the body that they're representing. And I just don't feel comfortable that somebody else is posting what happened at the committee without the committee affirming, yes, these are the minutes of the meeting. We agree that this is a fair representation of what happened during that meeting. So it's seeking an approval process. Minutes are taken, but this is seeking to actually have an approval process by the committee. Okay, next was Alderman Santiago. All right, so it's going to be two parts to answer. The other one is, again, we have the council that we do approve those minutes. We don't approve these minutes. We don't have to approve. It's not in the standing rules or it's not in the FOI that we have to. So this is why she's producing this, to have it so to come back and we which I don't have nothing against that. It's just the idea was that it was confusing, a lot of things going on, and it is what it is. My other thing was the question was to the Corporate Council on the idea of putting temporarily on the page. I don't think that's possible because everything that reflects the page has to be voted on and agreed on. on the website or whatever. Yeah, I think that's what happens with the council meetings right now, though. I think under state law, they're required to be posted within seven days of the meeting, and I think that sometimes the council doesn't approve those minutes yet, so they're posted pending that approval, and then if for some reason if there was a correction, then it would just be a... the posting would be amended to reflect that correction. So I think that's what happens with the council meeting, the minutes, excuse me, right now. I think they're posted prior to approval a lot of times. I could be wrong on that. I don't, because I don't see it there. I don't see it. Well, because they've got to be approved within seven days, so think about it. So you're having a council meeting tomorrow night. Yes. And the minutes have to be posted by next Wednesday night, but you're not going to have another council meeting to approve those minutes. prior to next Wednesday night when they have to be posted according to the state statute. So the idea is they're posted and again the minutes are only really reflecting the motions that were made and action that was taken so there's not really going to probably be a lot of correction so I think it's posted pending that approval and then if there's any corrections like I said once you have those corrections then amended and everything goes to place and then the final. Then you would put the amended minutes on the posting, I mean on the website. Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah, I appreciate the discussion trying to establish this process. It is especially, you know, it's my first term here. It is a little confusing to see the Common Council go through and approve minutes and then have literally the same people in the same seats in the same room discussing the same business items to then not have to just have that process. But in order to kind of meet that expectation of posting minutes within state statutes, which obviously are going to happen no matter what, right? But to then go and approve those minutes before that posting happens, take tonight for example. This right now is a special meeting. So these minutes will be posted within seven days. But if we were to approve that before that seven-day mark, like formally as a vote, then we would have to have another special meeting to which those minutes get posted, which we would have to have a special meeting, so on and so forth, until... I think we come to our regular meeting where we can bury the hatchet. So it's this logistical and practical concern that, and I'll admit it, I don't know what the answer is to that, but the clarification you just provided I think can help sort of ease that process along. And in terms of amending the standing rules, our standing rules as now use Robert's Rules of Order as a default. And there is a procedure for minutes approval within Robert's rules. So, no? I'm happy to go and dig up my homework on this, but this is something that I've put hours and hours of research into. We've got some Robert's rules fans in here. All of them in Santiago. Mr. Chair, through this, not to go against... the idea the sort of resolution is really not because you have to amend the Roberts rules correct if this is the case. No you wouldn't amend Roberts. Well not Roberts rules the standing rules. The standing rules. So this resolution doesn't this resolution can't change the standing rules so you really have to technically go back with another resolution to correct to amend the resolution. Technically this is not we would have to come back or have another resolution if am I correct. Yes. To reflect those. Or she can amend this resolution to. This one? Yeah. Okay. To reflect the standing rules? To amend the standing rules. Okay. To approve, to have the committee approve the minutes. Okay. If I may. Or you can start, I mean it's up to how you guys want to do it. So if I may, we would just be, we'll be posting the the minutes exactly as we do with common council meetings within the seven day period and if subsequently those minutes are amended or changed at a meeting they would just be swapped out on the website with the with the final version we would be in compliance with the state law because they don't care if they're approved or not they just say post them within seven days they don't care whether we've met and uh... decided they're perfect uh... so we will just be implementing the same process that we do for common council meetings for subcommittee meetings creating some consistency, perhaps. Is that correct? Is that my understanding? That is correct. Thank you very much. You're welcome. We had Alderman McNamara and then Alderman Valencia-Vedra. So just procedurally, if a committee meets on a Tuesday and the minutes are created and posted but they're not approved, if an action taken by that committee the following Wednesday at the council without approval of the minutes, does that call into question any action taken by that committee? And I just, you know, I'm aware of the kerfuffle of objecting to a section in the minutes of that particular meeting of the PZH, PZH, yeah. Kerfuffle, indeed. Yeah, that, and in the course of that meeting, the FOI issue came to my attention, and I called it the attention, but not in recess of that meeting. to the your colleague and I did call him to that attention that the issue being you can't amend a special meeting you can't you can't call off the table any other items it's only the call that meeting so I think that's how this kerfuffle got started that being said I think certainly the minutes should come back to the committees for approval. clarification Alderwoman Valencia Vedra I'd just like to propose an amendment and I'm in my opinion at this point in time the kerfuffle has come and gone I stated publicly my opinion about that twice there's no need to keep digging that ditch so this is strictly about creating a process so everyone understands so what I'd like to do is an amendment is strike all so there's no language in this resolution that's in front of you and just strictly say that we would like to amend the standing rules to require the minutes to be taken of all council committee meetings. Such minutes shall contain the makers of motions and the votes. The minutes should be posted within seven days in accordance with the Connecticut General Statutes and adopted at the next regular meeting of that committee. Second. All right. That's I have all in favor of the amendment of the resolution say aye aye all opposed nay the resolution of the amendment passes on the resolution any further discussion of the underlying resolution any further discussion as amended seeing none we have a neutral recommendation all in favor say aye aye all opposed nay the recommendation passes. All right we have a motion to adjourn. All right second motion adjourned by Alderman Santiago seconded by Alderman Simpson and everyone have a great night thank you.