Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council schedules public hearing on city solar easement; members press staff for payment and collateral clarifications
Summary
A public hearing will be held on a long‑term easement with Red Lion Burlington Solar LLC for solar at the RecPlex and animal shelter; councilors asked for clarification on payment timing in the service agreement and whether an exhibit assigning collateral could put payments to a financier (Two Rivers Bank & Trust).
Get email alerts on the Energy Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Burlington City Council work session on April 27 included a preview of a required public hearing on a solar power generation easement with Red Lion Burlington Solar LLC for city‑owned property (the RecPlex and the animal shelter).
Mr. Bird said the easement is required because the underlying power purchase agreement is longer than three years and that the easement authorizes the provider to place infrastructure on city property. "This lease for land or an easement will provide for the solar provider to build infrastructure on city property," he said.
Councilors used the work session to press staff on contract mechanics. One council member asked about the solar service payment schedule and whether payments would be due 10 days after the fifth of the month as written in Article 7, Section 703, or whether the city had previously allowed a 40‑day payment cycle to accommodate council claims approval. The council member asked staff to clarify the payment timing language; Mr. Bird said he would clarify and circulate the correct section.
A separate concern focused on Exhibit D (acknowledgement of collateral assignment). A council member asked whether an assignment to a financier could effectively require the city to make payments to a lender (Two Rivers Bank & Trust) instead of the provider. The member said the language "sounds like it almost puts us on the hook for the payments." Mr. Bird responded that if the provider assigned financing, payments could be made to a financier instead of the provider but that the city’s obligation would remain limited to the purchase/payment terms in the agreement; staff said they would follow up with a clarification to council.
No vote or formal action was taken in the work session; the public hearing and any decision on the easement will occur at a future meeting.

