Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Alpha topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Traverse commissioners direct Project Alpha team to get hard solar numbers, remove green-roof option
Summary
After a long debate about costs, payback and site constraints, the board voted to direct the Project Alpha building committee to return with precise solar-panel costs, incentives and ROI within 30 days and separately removed the green-roof option from design consideration.
The Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 1 directed the Project Alpha building committee to return within 30 days with definitive numbers for adding solar panels to the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Central Operations Building (COB), and voted to remove a green roof option from the project plans.
Commissioners debated technical, financial and site constraints at length during a presentation from the county's designers and utility partners. Designer Jerry Tomczak said the DD (design development) set narrowed the EOC cost range to roughly $14.15 million to $14.875 million and the COB to roughly $12.0 million to $12.66 million; those estimates include contingencies and some sustainability items, he said. Tomczak told the board the EOC estimate now includes construction of the radio tower, though equipment to outfit the tower remains the county's responsibility.
Why it matters: commissioners were split on whether to commit to rooftop solar now or wait for a more detailed financial analysis. Proponents argued solar supports long-term sustainability goals and can be augmented by tax credits and grants; opponents said the current return-on-investment estimates were too uncertain and that rapidly evolving panel technology could make an installed system obsolete within the payback window.
What the board decided: a motion directing the Project Alpha committee to develop definitive solar-panel figures (including supplier designs, expected annual generation, available federal and state incentives, interconnection/rebate terms and estimated payback) carried on a roll-call vote. The board also voted to remove the green-roof option from the design package, after members said that a green roof offered limited stormwater/detention benefit for the project's required design storms and would reduce available roof area for solar.
Context and technical points: DTE Energy engineers told the board they are evaluating encasement and material upgrades for an existing transmission easement that crosses the site and that DTE intends to commit significant funds to make the county's proposed surface and loading changes workable. On water, staff estimated an irrigation-only well at roughly $25,000–$30,000, while equipping a private well to serve domestic water and fire-suppression backup would substantially increase costs (staff cited an additional $250,000–$300,000 for reserve tank and pumps, and said this would require further health-department review and design work).
Quotable: "We're going to be outdated in a short period," Commissioner Nelson said of solar-panel technology. Jerry Tomczak said, "We can size the roof for weight loads now and revisit solar after we get firm numbers," noting the county could add panels later if it chooses.
Next steps: the building committee must report back with vendor- and incentive-specific solar numbers, anticipated generation and ROI within 30 days. Staff will also continue to evaluate stormwater alternatives (underground detention, cisterns, porous surfaces) and DTE will provide a cost proposal for easement work. No final construction contract was awarded at the meeting.
