For Town Meeting in June, the Finance Committee voted to reject a proposed $4.3 million in energy savings projects in various buildings around town, and voters followed their lead and rejected the ESCO -- energy savings company -- projects.
Maylor pledged to push forward with the proposed ESCO projects, hoping to sway the Finance Committee and eventually the voters.
Last week, the Finance Committee voted to approve the ESCO projects.
"I think what the Finance Committee communicated [at Town Meeting] was that this was a substantial project that had a lot of moving parts," Maylor said. With more than 80 projects in the ESCO proposal, Maylor said there wasn't enough time before Town Meeting to go over them in detail enough to make the Finance Committee comfortable with the large price tag. And at Town Meeting, the Finance Committee rejected it saying they needed more time.
Maylor said he met with the Finance Committee in the fall and answered their questions about the cost and savings of the proposal, pointing out that Reading and Lowell have done similar energy savings projects and have seen dramatic savings as a result.
The ESCO project would include energy management and energy savings initiatives, as well as infrastructure upgrades (including new lighting and new air units). The money spent on it was guaranteed to be paid over the next 15 years from projected energy savings.
Energy Performance Contracting is a type of project that provides a comprehensive set of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures and often offers a guarantee that the savings produced by a project will finance the full cost of it.
Massachusetts state law requires that an EPC project be delivered by a qualified Energy Service Company (ESCO). The company that was to deliver North Andover's ESCO project was Peregrine Energy Group, a company that serves as regional energy management for the 15 communities within the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission.
Cool Fusion
12:21 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Mark DiSalvo .. Is that you.. you cheeky devil you? Sounds like North Andover will be the next victim for this Psyops stunt. I did the Linda Blair thing after about 12 seconds of reading what the voters and town fathers have already dismissed as just another Pinata smash and grab scheme. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO9FD7zI7k0
Bryan McGonigle2
12:51 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
If this can save money - and I suspect it can - I'm all for it.
Two things to keep track of IMHO:
1) Natural gas prices (and maybe other energy prices) have been coming down and might come down further. The projected energy saving can be highly volatile since energy prices are volatile.
2) Any reliance on so called green energy projects. Green energy doesn't save any money - they cost more. They cost even more when you strip out any Big Green government subsidies.
Cool Fusion
9:08 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Bad decisions always make good stories .. we will all have a hilarious good laugh about how we blew $4.4 million a few years from now.
Bill Callahan
5:23 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Hi Coolfusion - Happy New Year!
There were a number of changes made from the proposal last year (which the Committee did not report favorably on)
1. The payback periods were shortened, decreasing the total proposal cost.
2. More money was added for maintenance - so that the items purchased will be maintained properly.
MikeA - the rate of growth of the energy prices for each year was estimated at 3%. I agree that natural gas prices have been coming down but electricity prices have still been rising. There is no "green energy" component to the agreements.
And, most importantly to me, there were no assumptions about capital costs avoided (by replacing items before they break). I think that shows that the assumptions were conservative.
The Committee did vote unanimously to recommend favorable action (although I am speaking solely for myself).
Cool Fusion
9:20 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Post it. Publish the latest ESCO proposal on line so we can assay the estimated and guarenteed topline as well as bottom line obligated annual cost numbers. Why are the avocates slow-walking the detailed information - what are they afraid of?. Joyce Bradshaw's very competent web team could have this on-line in munites and Patch could link it.
"The money spent on it was guaranteed to be paid over the next 15 years from
projected energy savings" quote says all we need to know. IF, and that's bulk purchased super-sized Costco "IF", any savings were realized .. then all the savings go to pay ESCO. If there are no or little savings .. then the taxpayer is on the hook for the residue. As stated, it's ALL RISK and certified ZERO BENEFITS to the taxpayers. And where is the independent actuary firm that will verify that the savings are in any manner REAL and just not contrived?
Does the eight year under-budgeted, cost-overrun, and payments still pending after 7 years, and twice thrown back-to-the-taxpayers project to "Remove the utility poles around the common" raise any alpha wave pulses in any citizen's memory?
This is a similar proposal that was voted to be allocated in 2005 to the tune of slightly less $'s to study energy savings for the school system and never spent because it was after 2 years determined by the supertendent's office to be "Unfeasible". What changed? Does anyone have the slightist idea what is in this "Pig's Poke"?
Bryan McGonigle2
11:46 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Bill - thanks for posting the info.
The 3% you mention probably includes both electricity and heating and sounds reasonable - but the actual number will be volatile.
Cool Fusion
2:11 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
These two mentioned cosmetic Lipstick and Mascara addendums to the same unaudited ESCO proposal that has been declined twice in the past by the town committees is a bit shy in effect to attract savvy converts .. Have you thought about sprucing it up with a fabricated Lady Gaga outfit or a Madonna type Bustier?
Michael Quinlan
2:22 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
It is my understanding ESCO is directly paid by the town for all of the work and project management during the period the changes/upgrades occur. North Andover is to be 'repaid' via the savings in what would have been spent without the upgrade/changes over the next 15 years. ESCO 'guarantees' the savings will actually occur and, if they don't according to the agreed schedule, ESCO will make annual payments to North Andover to make up the difference. Therefore the actual terms of the contract are critical to evaluate the chance that North Andover actually receives a positive benefit. "Sell the sizzle..."
Bill Callahan
10:56 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Dear Coolfusion,
As you will recall, Coolfusion, Town Meeting has the ultimate say on all spending matters are the legislative power in the town. The "avocates" [sic] are not hiding anything and discussed this all openly in about 8 hours of meeting.
The way the contract is written is that the energy use is measured each year. If the energy savings are not realized, then Ameresco is obligated to make up the difference between what we pay them and the expected savings. There are definitely benefits to the taxpayer as soon as the project is complete because needed improvements and repairs will be completed.
Cool Fusion
2:31 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Thank you Bill C. I now feel completely informed. The taxpayers ante up and enrich ESCO coffers by $4.4 million now and wait 15 years to see how much of our principle comes back with a vague chance for a small savings. Goldman Sach calls such a Complex Swap Derivative. Standard & Poors rates it a "Bbb" Speculative Junk Bond. Interstate 93 commuters call it another "Big Dig" boondoggle. Las Vegas calls it a backroom high risk gambling table reserved for "High Rollers". Let's just agree that it's ALL RISK and NO RETURN.
Why instead, if we have $4.4M to blow, we just do a call-back on $4.4 million of our outstanding bond issues .. self-credit the liability charge and save ourselves 15 years of interest payouts and bank REAL savings for future project that have some degree of merit.
Michael Quinlan
9:37 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Bill, Ray Santilli, Assistant Town Manager, wrote me that no contract exists because no money has yet been allocated. Your statement above ('The way the contract is written...') implies that you have reviewed the contact as a member of the Finance Committee. Is this true? If so, who has the contract? Does the Finance Committee have a copy?
Bill Callahan
5:36 am on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Mike - Ray is correct; we have not received the contract yet; but that is the mechanism described in the AMERESCO proposal.
We've included money for testing and measurement each year in the cash flows so that we can verify the energy savings. And if the savings don't materialize, there is a claw back provision. They have paid under similar provisions to other towns and the existence of the claw back provision makes sure that their savings projections are conservative.
Bill Callahan
11:34 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
And the entire full list of all the projects will be part of the town meeting warrant.
Cool Fusion
9:49 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
We're still waiting for the general manager to give the go-ahead for the town clerk to post the Ameresco proposal on-line. He was requested to do so three (3) days ago. He's stonewalling.
No substitutions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wtfNE4z6a8
Cool Fusion
7:48 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
That and a slice of Wonderbread...will get us only a front cover Snicker Bar wrapper synopsis. We're still waiting for the Town Manager to publish the entire plan on-line in order for the general public to view all the Devils in the Details.
Michael Quinlan
2:11 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
When will the proposed contract be posted on the town web site? If it exists now and the FinCom unanimously supports it, why can't it be posted now?
Cool Fusion
8:47 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
How many licks does it take to reach the center of a Tootsie Pop? The answer is a lot less than what it takes to get the Town Manager to publish the ESCO proposed project on line to allow the citizens to get to the center of this contrived budget Popper.
Michael Quinlan
2:28 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Does the contract focus on the amount of kilowatts (or other directly quantifiable electricity measurement) to be saved? Otherwise, it seems like a gamble on the movement of electricity prices rather than more efficient use of electricity.
Cool Fusion
8:36 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Why are the town officers slow-walking the ESCO information? Are we about to approve the taken out of service Boeing "Dreamliner" nightmare with it's cracked window ports, leaking fuel tanks, and underbay battery fires? Unlike FINCOM and the US Congress, We the people like to read the "Bills" BEFORE we vote on them.
Bill Callahan
11:01 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Hi Mr. Quinlan and Coolfusion -
I would be happy to send you a basic outline of the projects and cash flows of the project electronically. I don't have the entire project on a file - it is a big binder.
My email address is wcallahan@townofnorthandover.com.
Happy Martin Luther King Jr. weekend!
Cool Fusion
1:11 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Whatttt ??? Exactly what is the cockamamie excuse that our Town Manager uses to refuse to publish, with a degree of posthaste as requested a week ago, the entire $4.4 million Ameresco proposal on the NA website for the citizenry to evaluate?
It seems that we're also missing the "Lessons Learned" document from the "Remove the telephone poles and bury the cable around the common" project Mega-Fiasco with its surfeit time and extreme cost overrun and we're still paying for 7 years later. If all you have to date is a basic project outline .. then this obviously was not nearly ready for prime time.. must more .. the FINCOM approval .. or the voters. We The People.. do well defined, well researched, and well evaluated projects .. not basic outlines.
Bill Callahan
1:27 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Coolfusion - as I indicated, there is a 3 inch binder on the project and the Fincom alone spent many hours reviewing. I will ask Mr. Maylor to post the detail you requested and check my email to see if I can send you the documents I have in electronic format. Thanks again.
Cool Fusion
2:15 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
We're assuming the published on-line plan will include at least:
List of Requirements and specifications
Request for Proposals (RFP) statement and Bid Returns to date
Independent consultant's report
Risk/Benefits analysis document
Minutes of FINCOM approval meeting
Ameresco's Statement of Work - proposal
Dunn & Bradstreet company viability report
Contract Escape clauses, service interruption clauses, and non-performance penalty clauses
Implementation Roadmap with time table
capital expenditures
Cost and extent for North Andover obligatories
Support plan
Audit and monitoring plan
NA'S project functionaries and staff responsibilities (Project engineer, Technical engineer, Audit & accounting, Quality control, Monitoring and community reporting, etc)
Bill Callahan
1:36 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Hi Mr. Coolfusion -
The executive summary is online.
http://www.townofnorthandover.com/Pages/index
Have a terrific day,
Your Cyberpal -
Bill Callahan
Michael Quinlan
2:08 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Executive Summary is worth reading. Gives a reasonable outline of the twenty one types of proposed projects. (I presume this will be given as a handout at the Town Meeting but is really to long to absorb as the meeting is starting.)
Can we get a link to the proposed contract so we can evaluate the chance that this is a good deal?