Solar power independence may have been on the way for City Hall, if it weren’t for Malibu’s commitment to other expensive projects.
“I’m just not comfortable with another million dollars going out the door right now with the other stuff that’s going on,” Council Member John Sibert said.
Sibert was not alone when the city council members expressed their views on purchasing a solar power system for city hall during the city council meeting on Aug. 22.
Purchasing a solar power system wasn’t the original plan. The city pursued a power purchase agreement with PFMG Solar. The company would have constructed a carpark for the upper parking lot of City Hall. The roof of the carpark would be fitted with solar panels that would provide solar energy for City Hall. However, the negotiations were brought to city council when PFMG and city representatives believed they had reached an impasse.
“Both sides were saying this could be a dealbreaker,” City Attorney Christi Hogin said.
The “dealbreaker” was an “unusual amount of liquidated damages,” according to Hogin. In other words, the city would have to pay for the installation of the system, but wouldn’t own it after the installation. In fact, if the city chose to remove the infrastructure for whatever reason it would have to pay PFMG to do so.
“Normally the city’s not anticipating breaching [a contract], we anticipate living up to it but there are some grounds that are hard for us to be in complete control of,” Hogin said.
With these contractual bindings presented, the two remaining options were to ditch the solar energy effort, or to purchase the solar infrastructure outright. If Malibu owned the infrastructure, it wouldn’t be obligated to a third party company, but would have to front the million dollar installation fee.
Mayor Pro Tem Skylar Peak came out strongly in favor of purchasing the solar infrastructure, requesting multiple times for discussion to move into ways to make it happen.
“By us owning the system, our savings is going to be very great once we go into 10 years and beyond there,” Peak said. “I think it’s important for us to look at this in the longest term scenario.”
Peak cited the city currently spends between $75,000 to $90,000 on electricity for city hall — transitioning to solar could reduce those costs. Other council members agreed with Peak’s reasoning but weighed the financial risk concern more heavily.
“We should definitely buy it but maybe we shouldn’t buy it right this minute,” Mayor La Monte said. “The sun’s not going anywhere.”
Currently the city is committed to paying for the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility and the newly purchased Trancas property. The wastewater plant will be under construction for at least two years, and the city council intends to discuss the details of Trancas in the next city council meeting. Both projects are expected to cost several million dollars.
The council reached a compromise and decided to meet on the issue again in January when City Manager Reva Feldman has an update on how the city’s mid-year finances have done.
Will polystyrene go?
Peak continued his focus on environmental issues and introduced an expansion to Malibu’s polystyrene ban. The expanded ordinance would have removed all exceptions to the ban and, most significantly, would make the ban apply to individuals as well as organizations and businesses.
Peak referenced the continued prominence of polystyrene (most commonly found in the branded product called “Styrofoam”) pollution on beaches in Malibu before discussing the motion.
Once again, the council found itself in universal agreement on the importance of environmental issues but were tied up in technicalities. Specifically, Peak’s suggestion to include all individuals of Malibu as part of the ban created discussion on the feasibility of enforcement.
“We can control the businesses I think. We can regulate the organizations. I don’t know how we regulate the individuals coming into town with those things,” La Monte said.
Council Member Rosenthal added a potential scenario of residents ordering televisions in the mail and receiving packages with polystyrene cushioning material that they wouldn’t be able to dispose of if the city banned the product.
Other cities in California have already banned both the sale and the use of polystyrene. San Francisco expanded its polystyrene ban to include individuals earlier this year, but it won’t go into effect until 2017.
Cities like San Francisco may be at an advantage, where banning the sale of polystyrene can reasonably guarantee a scarcity of the product — compared to Malibu, which is surrounded by cities which might not have a polystyrene ban. Peak argued passing the ordinance would set an example and begin an education process.
“It’s very similar to looking at the cigarette ban. It’s an educational aspect of it. It’s illegal to smoke a cigarette on a county beach. It doesn’t mean they write a ticket to every single person that’s doing it,” Peak said. “I’m not expecting officers to go out and write a ticket to everyone that’s drinking coffee out of a styrofoam cup.”
The council chose to research how other cities have enacted a ban on individual use of polystyrene before revising the existing ordinance. The sale of polystyrene is still banned in Malibu, but individual use is allowed.