TTG believes the school board was elected to drive the education system in Thornton in a manner consistent with the Town’s values and the Town’s ability to pay. Over the past year, they have behaved like they think the Town is an ATM and they can take money out at will. Further, we believe that it’s the school board’s responsibility to demonstrate that they are spending the Town’s money wisely. Their process must be open, honest, and transparent. We should understand why they are doing what they’re doing because right now, in December, 2023 it looks like they are behaving foolishly. It’s our belief that not one member of the board would spend their own money this way.
We at TTG would appreciate members of the school board respond to these questions. There is a comment section at the bottom.
It appears when the school board voted to move forward with this proposal, they were only approving it to go to the next stage, the stage where Siemens presents a detailed scope of work, a schedule, and a final price.[/learn_more] On November 27, 2023, there was a school board meeting to discuss and vote on the building enhancement projects proposed by Siemens. You can read our analysis here: Thornton Central School plans to spend up to $3.5 million to modernize energy system – Thornton Taxpayers Group
Here’s what the school board did:
- The heating system at the school has been breaking down and school canceled a few times in the 22-23 school year.
- There is no evidence the heating system was inspected by an authorized HVAC installer yet the school board decided they need a new heating system.
- They issued a Request for Qualifications to three firms supposedly expert at school HVAC and energy systems, and chose one, Siemens.
- They then asked Siemens for what they’d propose to modernize the energy efficiency of the school. (There is no evidence that Siemens inspected any part of the school, let alone the heating system – See Note 1)
- Siemens submitted the brief Powerpoint “proposal” with three options.
- The school board did not get any competitive bids from a) local HVAC vendors or b) any other large firms willing to work with a similar contract structure as Siemens.
- The school board had two options to proceed with any option: they could bring it to the townspeople in the form of a warrant article in March, or, without going to the warrant article they could decide to proceed as long as this was a lease agreement that contained a provision to void the contract if the annual appropriation was not approved, a “non-appropriations” clause.
- Rather than bring this large expenditure in front of the townspeople, the school board chose the most expensive option from Siemens, and to not include the town in the decision.
Despite public comments asking for them to bring the decision to the townspeople by way of a Warrant Article next March, the school board voted unanimously for the most expensive proposal. They chose option three in this image. 
You all should know that what you see on this slide is everything we know about what the project entails. We know nothing about exactly what work will be done nor do we have a schedule. Logic would suggest that if pursuing a very large project rational people would you ask for a schedule and a scope of work; and, they would get more than one bid?
TTG has a few questions:
- Why didn’t we have a scope of work or a fixed price. At the October 23, 2023, school board meeting, Siemens presented, and the school board voted to have a public comment session on November 27. Why did the school board not ask Siemens for a schedule and scope of work in time for this November 27 meeting from which they could make an informed decision? Does the school board really understand what they are getting differently between options two and three – other than the $1.2 million price tag?
- Why would the school board rush to make a decision when they have no idea what this will cost nor how long it will last! We don’t know how much it will cost because there have been no decisions on how long this lease payment will be (10-yrs, 20-yrs, 30-yrs?), what the interest rate will be, nor the scope of the project.
- The entire project is at risk because the contract with Siemens must include a “non-appropriation clause”. That means that at any annual meeting where we vote on the school budget, the townspeople can vote to not fund this item (expected to be about $300,000) and if we do, the contract is null and void. It is unclear whether the school board understands this risk.
Lastly, a very important point. In response to our appeal to bring this in front of the town to vote on, every school board member and Kyla Welch, the Superintendent said they couldn’t wait; the need was too urgent. We ask why this is so. Given the school board did not provide this or a similar option last March, nor did they even mention this issue in any school board meeting since March, a reasonable person can only conclude that they created this mess on their own.
==================================================================
Note 1 – Using New Hampshire’s Right to Know law – RSA 91-a – TTG asked for all correspondence between Siemens and anyone at the SAU or school board. The SAU responded that there was nothing, that all communications were oral. We can only assume that if Siemens had inspected the facility and done an analysis of the physical structure of the school, its energy needs and the status of its heating system, they would have transmitted it to the SAU and school board.
After the school board meeting of 11/27/2023 we were informed that the vote they took was only to move the project to the next phase. That phase includes Siemens delivering a schedule, a scope of work, a final cost and a proposed contract.
Here are some questions we’d like answered at the next school board meeting.
- It’s been roughly 60-days since the Siemens presentation. In those 60-days why hasn’t the board asked for one or two more bids? Sixty days is plenty of time for a vendor to provide a quote. We’d like to know if we are getting a fair deal or not. When making such a large and long-term commitment, most would certainly want to know if it’s a good deal. Someone needs to explain why going sole source is in our best interest.
- Please make us feel good that you’ve picked the right vendor. Siemens is a quality company but their response to the RFQ was inferior to EEI. Perhaps someone can explain why Siemens is the best pick.
- Every board member chose Siemens’s Option 3 yet had no more details than a couple of bullet points. How did the board members differentiate between Options 2 and 3 and why you thought 3 was worth $1.2 million bucks more when the difference in annual energy savings is less than $1,200.
- Last year’s Capital Improvement Plan (SHOWN HERE) showed an expenditure of $110,000 for a new boiler and another $80,000 for lighting upgrades. Our question is this: if we thought we could fix our problem with less than $200,000 expense, why are we spending $3.455 MILLION?
“all communications were oral”
No site review report?
No written correspondence from service provider concerning a multi million dollar project?
C’mon man!
This is not a best practice.
Am I missing something?
See my comment…
Great site. Appreciate your effort and paying attention to these matters.
Given the ‘23 school board’s failure to defend the March ‘23 proposed capital expenses*, this does not surprise me. That said, what is the “call to action” for us town-people? Reads like the deal’s been cut 🙁
* Not a political statement, so consistent with your site guidance, simply a fact: it was voted down.
The deal has been done. Legally it was allowed to happen as long as there was a “non-appropriations” clause in the lease. There was. What “non-appropriations” means is that each year the townspeople at the School District Annual Meeting can vote to not appropriate the expense.
And, John, the site is non-political – that is, we post facts and questions. Comments, on the other hand, are the place for individuals to express their opinion and can be as political as they want.
Thanks. But I remain confused, my problem, I agree. So, the town school board can approve a lease, but town taxpayers get to vote on it every year whether to pay that expense? I was not aware taxpayers had line-item approval or disapproval of budget items. And if disapproved, does Siemens remove the added equipment and construction? Again, likely my lack of understanding of how this works. Avoiding tax payer approval via a lease seems underhanded, but I am still not sure how taxpayers are to respond.
Yes, the expense can be approved or disapproved every year. Yes, a line item in the budget can be zeroed out. We have contended that the school board must have a warrant article each year so the people can vote on it but the SAU disagrees and that their lawyer says it doesn’t. TTG is seeking an opinion from the state Dept of Revenue Administration for clarification. They have the final say.
It is the lease agreement, not the contract with Siemens that includes the nonappropriations clause. All payments are due to Siemens in the first twelve months. So, theoretically, after Siemens is paid and the appropriations are not approved, we own it and the leasing company loses out. But it is a clause in their contract and one would think they build that into their pricing.
The contract with the leasing company is expected to be signed this week and TTG will get a copy of the contract.