Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Solar Project Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners pause decision on county contribution to Search and Rescue solar after sheriff raises economic concerns
Summary
The board heard a funding request for Rocky Mountain Blue Sky additional funding for the Albany County Search and Rescue building solar installation. After differing views on financial feasibility and federal tax-credit risk, commissioners tabled the item to gather more details and requested the contractor be present at a future meeting.
Albany County commissioners delayed a final decision on whether the county should provide additional funding for a solar installation at the county Search and Rescue building after the sheriff and other commissioners disagreed over the project's near‑term economics and grant structure.
County staff presented a revised quote for the Rocky Mountain Blue Sky project and said the developer asked the county to contribute about 30% of the cost up front, provide an additional 30% that could be used to apply for federal tax credits, and anticipated a 40% share from the Blue Sky grant. Staff provided updated dollar figures to the board and asked for direction.
Sheriff representatives told the board that if the county must pay a substantial portion of the installation before receiving federal reimbursement, the net economics did not justify proceeding on that site. The sheriff said the Search and Rescue building’s energy consumption and payback period made the project not economically feasible if the county had to carry a large upfront share.
Other commissioners argued a 40% grant contribution plus the expected federal tax-credit payback would produce a positive 20‑year return and that Albany County has been a major contributor to the Blue Sky program; they urged pursuing the funding if payback projections held.
County staff asked whether a lower county contribution (20% or 10%) would be acceptable; the board asked the project contractor (identified in prior communications as Leo) to appear at a subsequent meeting to answer technical and financing questions. The board voted to table the item and asked staff to return with additional financial details and the contractor on the April 20 or May 20 meeting agenda. No appropriation was made at the meeting.
