(The post allows comments, and we welcome comments from the community and from the school board and SAU. See the bottom of this page.)
This “boiler issue” has been around for many years. There is no question the school needs a new heating system as the oil-fired boiler itself is way past its expected life. We are on record as firmly supporting a project to update it. Just as it did a year ago when it floated a bond for a major expansion of the school that was far more than what was necessary, they have done it again with this boiler issue. We at TTG have been asking for months for answers to these questions but the lack of info is staggering. Our questions are these:
- The school board got one scope of work and one cost estimate, and chose that one. How do we know that scope is appropriate and the cost reasonable? Without getting competitive bids, we don’t.
- We know the scope of work is bloated because we have contacted HVAC firms and are confident the heating system can be redone for less than about 20% of the price Siemens has proposed. They tell us the equipment is in stock and they can meet our deadline to have a new heating system for the 2024-2025 school year.
- Based on the Siemens contract and scope of work, it appears the new heating system is grossly oversized. The existing school footprint is 36,000 square feet yet the new heating system including the boiler are sized for a 58,320 square foot building. That’s right, they are sizing the boiler for the size of last year’s proposed final footprint after the addition to the school! Why are we oversizing the heating system?
How do we know this?
The Siemens contract includes a scope of work. Rather than include their own specs for a new boiler, Siemens chose to “include by reference” specs from Stewart Associates, the firm contracted in 2022 to develop specs for the expanded, 56,400 square foot school rather than the existing 36,00 square foot school. - This is pitched as a “Energy Performance Contract” and while it will save us money, virtually all of it from the conversion from oil to propane, the energy savings per year are about 10% of the interest payment. Does this make sense?
At the February 20, 2024 bond hearing, Bob Hatcher of TTG read a letter to the school board (see below) saying that we supported the bond issue but wanted them to get more bids. Given they have failed to do that, we retract our support for the warrant article and request they halt the Siemens contract and do the project correctly and in the best interest of the community.
==========================================================================
Here is the letter Bob Hatcher read to the school board at the February 20, 2024 bond hearing
Dear School Board,
My name is Robert Hatcher and I live at 10 River View Drive in Thornton. I am submitting written comments and hereby request that these comments be included verbatim in the official minutes of the budget hearing. I am giving a copy to the Secretary. Today I am addressing you on behalf of myself and the Thornton Taxpayers Group. We are testifying today to go over the history of this issue and to make a recommendation.
First, we at TTG wholeheartedly support the new heating system and necessary modifications to the school. Make no mistake, we support it. What we are unhappy about, though, is the way in which the School Board has gone about this process. We think the board has followed a process that not many of us in this room would have followed if we were spending our own money on modifications to our home. Here are the facts:
- You’ve known for many years that the heating system was failing and never put it on the Capital Improvement Plan, nor brought it to the town in the form of a warrant article.
- To try to address it, you then floated a warrant article/bond proposal last year which, as many of you readily admit, had no chance of being approved.
- You had no backup plan in case that warrant article failed.
- Rather than take up the issue immediately after the failed warrant article, you then waited three months, until June, to take up the issue again. The minutes reflect the first time this was addressed was the June meeting.
- You then embarked on a process that very few of us can understand. You went sole source.
- Under a “Request for Qualifications” solicitation you chose one firm and subsequently got three options from that one firm. Without knowing the details of the three options you unanimously chose the most expensive, all without a detailed scope of work, a schedule, or a firm price.
- Then, claiming a sense of urgency – the result of you not having a contingency plan and the three-month delay in taking up the issue – you decided to make it a lease so you could do it unilaterally. We now know that doing it as a lease would have cost more than $1 million more in interest payments that means you were willing to spend a million bucks for a few months lead time.)
- Despite being urged to get competitive bids, and that you had plenty of time, you refused to do so.
Again, we support the warrant article but want to make sure we are spending money wisely. To that end, we once again urge you to go get three competitive bids and select a vendor who can meet our budget and time constraints.
I know your pushback will be that we have a signed contract with Siemens but as you may know that contract had a 30-day window for the School Board to secure lease financing. Given no financing was secured and there is no signed extension to that contract, in fact there is no valid contract.
The School Board works for the townspeople and has a fiduciary duty to spend money wisely. Going for competitive bids will go a long way towards helping the townspeople feel confident you are doing so and will go a long way towards our being able to trust you.
The SAU and the School Board are supported for the Boiler Replacement. However, they have used one of the parts of the expansion of Thornton Central School that was defeated last year. They don’t just want a new boiler, they want an addition to the school. We support replacing the Boiler; in the same space it is currently in. We do NOT support adding onto the school with a huge amount of money, currently over $4 million dollars. Vote not and send the information back to the SAU and the School Board to replace the boiler. Thank you.
4 mil for a new boiler? I’m out of town on the 7th. What considerations are given for mail in or proxy voters?
Hi Jeb,
Unfortunately, absentee voting is not allowed in school board annual meetings. This page has the email addresses of the school board. https://tcs.pemibaker.org/school-board/agendasminutesbudgets
My suggestion is to write them an email to express your thoughts.
Request for Qualifications was sent to 4 companies who provide this scope of work! Not just Siemens. EMC, EEI, and Honeywell. Furthermore, the proposal is NOT JUST FOR A BOILER. The entire environmental infrastructure of TCS is failing. Before you choose to vote “No” on Thursday as directed by this group, I implore you to read up on the meeting minutes and other sources of information available to residents of this town to best support our students. You can do so by visiting bit.ly/TCSPerformanceEnergyProject. The yellow mailer from this group is misleading and divisive.
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for sending your comments. We welcome comments from all. We agree on one thing, we all want what’s best for the kids and the staff.
Your first sentence is incorrect. They chose Siemens to do an analysis and present a proposal. NO OTHER firm was asked for a scope of work. NO OTHER firm was asked for a price. My guess is that if you needed work done on your house that equaled 70% of your annual budget, you’d get more than one bid.
With all due respect, unless you’ve done a Right to Know for a deep dive into the Siemens work you have no idea what the scope of work is other than the highlights they’ve mentioned.
We all know the goal is to provide a new heating system so all can be comfortable. If that’s true, then why didn’t we get bids for that scope of work? Why are we spending $4 MILLION to fix a $775k problem? That’s the real question.
There is a huge difference between what we need and what we want. They’ve chosen to go whole hog on a project that satisfies their wants, and that is way too big for what we need.
The flyer the school board sent (which is a violation of NH electioneering laws – no governing body is allowed to advocate for a position, they must remain neutral) is riddled with inaccuracies and doesn’t take responsibility for a problem they created. For example, they didn’t have a backup plan when last year’s article was defeated, and they don’t have a backup plan now. There is no reason in the world why, the day after last year’s meeting they didn’t go and get bids to replace the heating system. Instead, they delayed and put us in this position.
Cute website and postcard! Funny how the first thing on your homepage in bold font (that’s not an actual heading) is the statement “Note, this site is not political.” I beg to differ. How can one believe any of the content you post when you highlight on your homepage such a lie? Who are the members of this group (not disclosed anywhere) and where is the balance in opinions that you profess to support? This website reads like a Free State page dedicated to deconstructing the systems that serve our residents. It’s pathetic and disingenuous. If voters want real information they should look to the School Board minutes and the information they’ve provided.
I agree with one statement from this shadow group—We must stop the madness but the real madness is the propaganda campaign being pushed by pop up websites and mailers from those in town who are disconnected from our youth, current construction prices, our infrastructure needs, and small town values.
Hello Justin,
Thanks for your comments. Congratulations! Of the dozens of emails we’ve received you are the first to complain. The balance of opinions is right here, in the comments section. We have never deleted any comment regardless of their position. We feel healthy debate is the cornerstone to democracy. In addition, we’ve invited elected officials to make comments. So far, they have chosen not to do so.
We are, in fact, not political. We take no political positions, we host candidate profiles regardless of political affiliation, and we present lots of information that helps the people of the town make informed decisions. (Have you read any of it?)
As we’ve said on many occasions, we fully support getting heating system fixed. But just as we’d do with our own home, we’d do so with due diligence. Our goal is to represent the Thornton taxpayers. That means we will take a position when we feel the government (school board in this case) is spending our money unwisely.
We are hardly a shadow group (shadow groups don’t invite others to participate) and we don’t spout propaganda. Everything on this site is factual. I challenge you to find something that’s incorrect or not based in fact. If you do, we will publish a formal retraction and public apology.
Thank you, and best regards,
The Town Crier
As a Thornton taxpayer I feel as if critical information concerning School Board issues is often not being shared properly. We seem to have difficulty even with the simplest of things. Take the notification for this important meeting: A multimillion-dollar warrant approval meeting is advertised as: “MAR7 SCHOOL DISTRICT MTG 6PM”.
Before I spend money on a personal project, I often find a number of alternatives…with an understanding of the pros and cons for each. Today I wish we had a “use existing space” alternative for the new boilers to consider. A viable, more affordable plan B.
Would the Pros outweigh the Cons? I don’t know. What I do know is that a “use existing space” plan would likely not require we build a 1800+ square foot, two story building to house the new boilers, and therefore be much more affordable.
Even today I do not know how taxpayers can get a “use existing space” plan & quote for the new boilers. Do you?