(In August 2023, the School Board authorized the Superintendent to allow a no-expense audit of the energy systems in the school. They allowed Siemens to perform the audit. Here is the presentation Siemens made to the board and community on October 23, 2023.
Notes from October 23, 2023, School Board meeting to discuss the energy audit.
- The process was this, the SAU sent out a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and got three responses. Siemens response HERE. Honeywell response HERE. EEI Response HERE. Siemens was selected to do the audit. (Note that Siemens shows two projects in NH, one in 2017 and one in 2018 and EEI shows nine projects in-process or completed since 2017 including a major project for Plymouth Regional High School.)
- The Siemens process is this:
- Perform the audit.
- Present the results of the audit to the school board and the public (Oct 23, 2023 meeting).
- School board votes on which, if any of the options to pursue.
- If one is approved, Siemens and the school board enter into contract negotiations.
- Upon completion of the contract, Siemens performs the work.
- Siemans proposed three options.
- Option 1 – an energy modernization of the school – cost of $165,420 which will have guaranteed (1) savings of $13,590/year. (Payback of 12-yrs.)
- Option 2 – all of Option 1 but also a new boiler and boiler room, pumps and accessories. Total cost of project $2,634,413 but with rebates and incentives the total cost to the town will be $2,236,713.
- Option 3 – all of Option 2 but also with two “energy recovery ventilators” and two “radiant panels”. Total cost of project $3,865,626 but with rebates and incentives the total cost to the town will be $3,455,926.
The school board voted to have a public meeting to discuss the options and to get feedback from the public. This will happen on November 27 at the school board meeting.
Of special note, the SAU and the school board think that they do not have to get this approved by warrant article, they can do it themselves. TTG has asked the SAU for clarification on how this is possible given RSA 33:8 requires a 3/5 (60%) vote at an annual or special meeting.
Note that doing this project uses ESSOR funds. Given this RSA, I wonder if this provision to hold a public hearing on the use of the funds is required.
Update, November 22, 2023
We obtained the letter from the SAU to Siemens authorizing them to perform the audit. It’s HERE.
A couple of interesting things in the letter:
- It does not appear to be a contract as it’s not signed by Siemens. It’s a “letter of intent”. Some letters of intent if signed by both parties are considered a contract. See HERE.
- There is no specific scope of work specified.
- In the schedule on page 2, they reference a board meeting where the scope of the project is discussed.
Please comment below on your thoughts.
Questions for the public hearing on November 27
Siemens lists Hopkinton (contract signed September 2017) and Oyster River (contract signed March 2018) schools as references. TTG has contacted both and under the NH Right to Know law (RSA 91a) and obtained copies of both contracts. The scope of work seems similar, but one thing is troubling, neither of these contracts contains a non-appropriations clause. See here for more information on multi-year contracts.
So, here are some questions:
General Questions: Do we have an issue that requires spending millions of dollars?
- Has there been an analysis by a competent HVAC professional on the issues with the boiler/hearing system? If so, where is it? Why are we pursuing this course of action without such a diagnosis.
- At the October school board meeting, Steve Babin a HVAC expert offered his expertise. As of Nov 15, 2023 the school board has not taken him up on his offer.
- Has the School Board gone out for bid – OR EVEN INQUIRED for just a new boiler?
Questions on the audit and the Siemens “proposal”:
- Reviewing the Siemens response to the RFQ they list two project references from 2017 – 2018. So, it seems Siemens either hasn’t done a project in New Hampshire for over five years. Why? That leads us to ask, are they the best firm to be doing the work?
- For the school board to enter this contract without a warrant article, a contract with a “non-appropriations” clause is required. Neither contract with Hopkinton nor Oyster River contains a non-appropriations clause. Is Siemens aware that is what our School Board intends to do?
- The School Board is holding a public hearing asking for our comments but they do not have a detailed scope of work. Do they know what they are approving? NOTE: TTG HAS ASKED THE SAU FOR A SCOPE OF WORK SUBMITTED BY SIEMENS.
- Does the School Board plan to hold another public hearing to use the ESSOR funds? Is the school board allowed to execute this contract that includes ESSOR funds without a public hearing?
Please list below questions you might have and we will list them here.
COMMENT #1:
Because the recommended Option (#3) includes equipment plus bricks & mortar for the
“New Building Envelope” and the “New Boiler Room”, these questions arise…
1. Can capital improvements such as construction of a new permanent boiler room be leased?
2. What will it take to see two total costs of Option #3:
One as leased costs.
Another as purchased costs?
3. Savings due to energy efficiencies are aspects of the proposals that must be known to make an informed decision.
My bet is that someone has calculated the estimated savings in energy costs for each of these proposals.
How can the taxpayers see the expected savings resulting from increased efficiencies for all three of these proposals.
Apologies if these savings appear someplace in the proposal that includes more detail.
Should be front & center.
They are holding the public meeting NOT to get a vote but to get public comment before they vote. You ask good questions and our only recourse is to attend the meeting and make a stink. I’m not necessarily opposed to a new boiler and energy improvements but doing it this way, and potentially adding $288,000 a year to the operating budget is not the way to go.
re: your questions #3 look at the slides above on the right. They include “guaranteed” savings. I asked about that and, yes, Siemens will guarantee that amount and if it’s not realized, will write us a check for the difference.
I’d be in favor of exploring ALL the available options including leasing and buying. Of course, buying will entail a warrant article and we all know how that went last March.
Page 5 of the Siemans response to the RFQ is that this will likely entail an addition to the building for a new boiler room as well as a “special education classroom positioned above”.
So, if this is a lease, and Siemens will construct a new boiler room with a special ed classroom above, does that mean that the school district will own most of the school and will be leasing those two rooms?
Another big question is what happens when the lease runs out? Is this a lease to buy and at the end we’ll own it? If so, that’s a purchase not a lease.
What process exists to get our questions answered satisfactorily?
The process is to ask questions at the public meeting on Nov 27
It seems weird that the school board would approve such a large purchase without a detailed scope of work and schedule. TTG has asked the SAU for anything like this but so far have not received anything.
Given what I saw at the March ‘23 School Committee meeting, none of this surprises me. From my view (my opinion only), the School Committee viewed the taxpayer as an inconvenient obstacle, not a stakeholder.
I fully support having reliable heat and electric, and given reasonable options, I would approve. But going the most expense route just to avoid taxpayer approval is corrupt. Is there an “action” suggested?
I’d love to see School Committee interaction on this site to demonstrate they are at least listening.
To demonstrate I am actually a sane person, I posted this at 11:20 PM, not January 27, 2024 at 4:21 am 🙂