REVISION
ENERGY
le Inverters
REVISION
ENERGY
Sam
Major Solar Equipment
Major Equipment Warranty Commercial Life
REC NPeak Solar Modules 25 years 40+ years
SolarEdge 3-Phase Inverters 12 years 15-20 years
SolarEdge 3-Phase DC Optimizers 25 years 35-40 years
SolarEdge WattNode RGM Meter 5 years 15-20 years
Ecolibrium EcoFoot 2+ Racking (ballast) 25 years 40+ years
lron Ridge XR100 Rail Racking (flush) 10 years 40+ years
(Q) REVISION ENERGY
REC
SOLAR'S MOST TRUSTED
330 We = Power
? O YEAR PRODUCT
WARRANTY
O 7, ANNUAL DEGRADATION OVER
7/0 25-YEAR POWER WARRANTY
Three Phase Inverter
with Synergy Technology
for the 208V Grid for North America
SE43.2KUS
Specifically designed to work with power optimizers
# Easy two-person installation - each unk
mounted separately, equipped with cables
for simple connection between units
# Balance of System and labor reduction
compared to using multiple smalier string
inverters
Independent operation of each unit enables
higher uptime and easy serviceability
No wasted ground area: wall/rail mounted,
orhorizontally mounted underthe modules
{10 inclination)
Integrated arc fault protection and rapid
shutdown for NEC 2014 and 2017, per article
690.11 and 690.12
Built-in module-level monitoring with Ethe met
or cellular GSM
Fixed voltage inverter for supenor efficiency
(97°) and longer strings
Integrated DC Safety Switch and optional surge
protection
Built-in RS485 Surge Protection. to better
withstand lightning events
Bennett — Prescoti, LLC
1479 Arnherst Street
Mashua, NH 03064
December 7, 2016
Mir. William McKinney
Building Oificial/Manager
Department of Building Safety
City of Nashua
Nashua, NH 03061
RE: Prescott Square Buiidings A- B-¢
Dear Mr. McKinney,
Please find this as our formal request for consideration of reassignment of prepaid fees for
permits issued related to Buildings A — B — C at Prescott Square Condominium in accordance with the
City of Nashua Revised Ordinances Chapter 105: Building Construction, Article Vi: Fees, Section 105-21
Permits and fees. B.
In October of 2007, Building Permits were issued for Buildings A— B - C to Benneti-Prescott, LLC
for the construction of 3 - 8 unit buiidings. Also in Gctober of 2007, Plumbing and Mechanical Permits
were issued for the same Buildings A-— 6B —C. In June of 2008, Electrical Permits were also issued for
Buildings A-B—C.
As most in thie industry end beyond know, tie financial collapse nationwide that took place in
the fall of 2008 crippled the Real Estate worid and especially condominium projects. The result of those
conditions was that we were greatly impacted at this project in that we were forced to rent ten
compieted units and halt active construction on these 3 - 8 unit buildings. For the past 8 % years, we
maintained the project to the extent thai even irrigated lawns around these foundations were fertilized
and mowed and all related paved areas were kepi free of snow during winter months. We have
maintained annual property tax paymenis of $20,000+ per year, $16,000 of witich is allocated for the
improvements related to the subject 3 — 8 unit building foundations and utilities.
The point to this history is to nelp frame the base for this requesi, that for reasons beyond our
control we were forced to suspend the completion of the project until such time as construction
financing for condominium projects such as this became available and stable. We intend to begin
construciion the first of january, 2017 and build all three buildings throughout the 2017 and early 2018
construction season.
Board of Aldermen Page 13
April 12, 2016
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Dowd, 8
Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy
Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Schoneman, 6
Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty
MOTION CARRIED
Alderman Schoneman
While we didn’t vote on the legislation itself and while the result is exactly the same as it would have been had
we debated for a long time, we will debate it undoubtedly later, | think it is abundantly clear that there were not
ten votes to support it and there were six votes that wanted to at least have that conversation and would have
most likely voted no.
R-16-020
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT TO RESTRUCTURE THE DEBT OF CLOCKTOWER HOUSING
ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Given its second reading;
MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-020
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Moriarty
| suspect there is some kind-heartedness on the part of the city that is involved with this deal, public/private
partnerships. Nevertheless the fact remains that if the city needed money because it was strapped for cash
and if the city was a shrewd businessman the city would recognize what the comment on exhibit D where it
says in reference to the fact that the city is owed almost $11 million. The development note matured on
October 1, 2010; the city did not demand payment on the development note nor declared Clocktower at fault.
Essentially, Clocktower owes the city $11 million and the city decided not to demand payment. The city has
decided to extend the terms of the note and get a half of million dollars out it. If | am reading these documents
correctly the city could be sticklers to the law and say | want my money and the city has chosen not to. The
vote yes is to forego the $11 million payment and instead receive $500,000.
Alderman Siegel
If one were a shrewd businessman one would have paid attention to the Finance Committee meeting where
this was discussed at length and as a shrewd business person | asked all of the questions about the contract
and was clarified by Attorney Prolman that the city is really a conduit for HUD money. There is no taxpayer
money at all involved in this so the city is actually owed nothing. For restructuring the loan we are getting
$500,000 and we are risking not a dime of taxpayer money. When | first read the documents and | saw an
extension of 30 years at a 1% interest | went bananas thinking | would never do that with taxpayer money but it
is not the city’s money that is being dealt with this way. We would be insane to turn this deal down is my
bottom line statement.
Sample Construction Timeline
SoS
=
tN
ds
&
wrt
oy
wd
oo
we
ho
2
-
jot
po
NE
a
5B
pod
wt
16
zy
S
3
x
=
va
=
> 3
Blue Line Represents Activity Start Date Timeline
Yellow Line Represents Activity Duration
All Dates and Durations are Subject to Change
QQ) REVISION ENERGY
Ballasted Rooftop Arrays
cee Be
} ee 7 wo ~
REVISION ENERGY
Pitched Rooftop Arrays + Ground Mount
WWTP Ground Mount; ae
Be ene
ee REVISION ENERGY
Solar Proposal Financials
City of Nashua RFP
(Q) REVISION ENERGY
