Solar panels galore

      In spite of hard facts showing that solar panels do not save enough electricity to pay off the capital investment, I've been told that Selectman Chartrand and Selectwoman Gilman are actively pushing the use of solar panels at other municipal sites in Exeter to complement those at the DPW.  They are not a wise investment and responsible use of taxpayer money.
     While it will be argued that some of the cost to taxpayers will be offset by grants, one should question why any taxpayer's money (which includes grants) should be used to purchase and install these panels when it has been shown by Frank Ferraro that those currently in use at the DPW are actually costing the Town money and they will continue to do so, only at a higher rate, for their entire life.  Ferraro, an engineer and executive at a major company, routinely evaluated capital investments and is well qualified to have examined the $115,000 purchase and installation of the existing solar panels at the DPW.  Why is his information being ignored?  Another example of "We know best and need no input from others" attitude.
     Keep tuned in and Publius will keep you posted on this boondoggle.

It's water over the dam.

     While we did not get the Fish & Wildlife "Sandy" grant the Town is seeking a $100 thousand Aquatic Resource Mitigation (ARM) grant with a deadline of August 18th and a $200 thousand EPA 319 Water Shed Assistance grant with a deadline of July 11th.  Admittedly these are small compared to the aforementioned grant, Paul Vlasich stated the Town will pursue other grants that are or may come available.  In the meantime, he said he would proceed with the project for which the Town has applied for and received a 10-year bond.
     The bond, principal and interest, will be paid for on the basis of work completed.  Thus, it is not paid back as equal monthly payments over ten years.  Don Clement stated that the impact on our tax rate cannot be accurately computed as there are too many variables, with the Town valuation being just one.   A comment on this blog does provide input on this subject.
     A side issue is the contract with the Mill for providing them water.  This still needs to be resolved according to Vlasich.

Great Dam Removal - The "Sandy" Grant

     The following is taken directly from the Fish and Wildlife website within the Department of Interior website:
June 16, 2014 – Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell today announced $102 million in competitive matching grants to support 54 projects along the Atlantic coast. In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, the grants will fund science-based solutions to restore an estimated 6,634 acres of wetlands and marshes; 225 acres of beach; and 364 acres of riparian buffers (vegetation lining streams), which help strengthen coasts to withstand future storms and sea-level rise. Other projects include dam removals and culvert replacements, which will open 287 miles of streams to fish passage while reducing flood risks to communities. Many projects will be complementary to similar U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service efforts already underway along the Atlantic coast. The projects also will provide an economic boost, creating hundreds of jobs in local communities.
     Our fit within that criteria could not have been better.  So, the question is, "How did we word our grant application?"  Why did we lose out?  Some one from the Town should be inquiring of the grantor why we did not make our case.  Let's call it an important learning exercise.  And, by the way, some of those awarded grants seem a bit outside the criteria.  Political involvement is suspect.

Maintaining the integrity of this blog

     Once again readers are reminded that The purpose of this blog is to inform Exeter residents on events and undisclosed information.  It is not to debate political philosophies. It is not to promote ideals- Democrat v. Republican.  It is not to debate conservatism, socialism. libertarianism, liberalism.  Comment is limited to one per posting with no back and forth.  If you have comments on the issue, stay focused on the ISSUE.  Help keep this blog educational, factual and informative.

Great Dam Removal update

     Heard a rumor around town that on June 16th,last Monday  night, the Town was aware of the Great Dam grant application status but didn't want to tell the public.  Some checking was done.
     Official word. According to the U.S. Department of Interior and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation websites, earlier Monday, that same day, the results were issued to the press naming the successful applicants. Of note is that usually applicants are informed in writing PRIOR to the press release.
     Only one project was awarded a grant in NH. It wasn't us. (Congratulations to Dover) 54 projects were approved, running down to Virginia. Virginia, New Jersey and Delaware were the big winners, but so was Boston Harbor..
     Not receiving the 75% grant hurts bad enough, but a number of approved grantees received greater than 75% that was supposedly the limit. Some of these grants, receiving over 90% funding, were for coming up with plans!
     In reviewing the awards, taking the combined total dollar amounts over 75%, many more grants could have been approved. There was enough that even our project would have been able to receive the complete 75% funding. It appeared from the list that a lot of money went to States that have some close Congressional races coming up this November. I guess Carol Shea-Porter couldn't swing it, that is, if she was asked and tried.
     Now the first question is, "Was there something wrong with our request?"  The next question is, "What is the status of our NOAA 50% grant and what other additional grant requests have been submitted/been approved?"  The final question is, "Why didn't Mr. Chartrand or Mr. Dean answer Mr. Griset's question about the grant last Monday night?"  It is disturbing to think that the taxpayers are being kept in the dark given the importance of the issue.

Stop breaking the law.

    

     It seems like Selectman Chartrand just doesn’t get it. The law about public meetings is very clear, and last night, Dan decided to ignore it again.  The Board of Selectmen met for an early meeting with the intention of going on a field trip to visit the DPW. Chairperson Gilman was absent, so Vice-Chair Chartrand presided over the meeting. 

     When they finished with the regular meeting, Chartrand asked for a motion to adjourn the “business portion” (his words) of the meeting.  Nancy Belanger made the motion, but Don Clements was concerned about the legality of adjourning the "public sessions" and reconvening for a “work session.“ Chartrand ignored Clement's concerns and insisted that they adjourn because they were going to be late going to the DPW. He was more concerned about the time than about what was proper and legal. Chartrand called for a vote and declared the meeting adjourned, although it wasn’t clear who voted for or against adjournment.

     Frank Ferraro rose to offer some friendly advice supporting Clement's observation that the Board should keep the meeting open and just announce a move of the location. That way, the Board would not be violating the public notice law because there was no public notice for the “work session.” Chartrand thanked Ferraro and said that the TV was off and they would consider it the next time.  In other words, Chartrand was more concerned with the time than what the law required.

     Look, undoubtedly some will say this is no big deal and that this constitutes nitpicking.  This might be true if it was not a pattern of behavior we have witnessed.  This isn’t the first time that Chartrand has violated the public notice provisions of state law. He clearly has shown disdain for having to follow laws that he feels are too inconvenient.  Even when a two-term Selectman and past Board Chairman points out the law.  Perhaps Chartrand should take one of the courses offered by the LGC on the public’s right to know.   Residents rights are protected by law to ensure they are privy to all public meetings of this and other boards.  Even the recent simple act of attempting to move public comment to end of the Board of Selectman meeting has the appearances of discouraging public input.  When actions such as these are not challenged, the instigator is emboldened to continue.  And this seems to be the case with Chartrand.

Wasteful expenditure? Maybe

     The Town Manager reported that several of the Town air conditioning units have leaks.  He is bringing in a contractor to fix them.  Publius has learned that these units are fairly new.  It's reasonable to ask the question, "Has he contacted the original contractor to determine whether these leaks are covered by a warranty?"  Dean has built himself a reputation of wasting taxpayers' money by not thoroughly investigating an issue, so the question does seem fair and proper.

Fix the d... audio

     It is near impossible to hear public commenters one time and the next time there is such a loud crackling noise as to override their comments. There is plenty of time preceding meetings in the Nowak Room to adjust the mic and run a test.  When a member of the public advances on the mic they can be advised to speak into it.  And finally, why isn't audio being monitored in the control room to ensure its quality.  Let's give the viewing audience a break and allow them to hear clearly the proceedings.

Lack of transparency again

     Tonight was Dan Chartrand's maiden voyage as stand in for Julie Gilman.  The Board of Selectmen meeting convened at 5:45 p.m. As the board members were scheduled to visit the waste water treatment plant following his announced "truncated meeting."  It was never said why the visit, but it must have been terribly important as public comment was shut off at two points.
     The first occurred when a member of the public stood and asked for an update on the "Sandy" 75% grant for dam removal.  Chartrand's answer was we do not have time to answer the question as we have to go to the waste water treatment plant.  An interesting answer when he could have said, "We have heard nothing" and taken just his long in his response.  Do you think he is being less than forthright?  Well, the next time he shut off public input sheds some light on that.
     Town Manager Russell Dean gave his report and said he had negotiated a bond for the dam removal and another project.  The bond included the total amount of the dam removal as it should, but no mention was made about any offsetting grant money.  Why?  If you think there is the potential for bad news coming your way as a taxpayer, you just may be correct.  Stay tuned as we try to find out more.
     It should also be pointed out that, in Chartrand's rush to exit the meeting he cut short two others of the public.  Arthur ("The Mayor") said that some time had passed since Gilman urged Dean to move quickly to put together a plan for repairing/replacing sidewalks.  He asked for an update.  Chartrand would not give him an update and pushed it off to Gilman upon her return.  After an impassioned plea from a business owner to address the sidewalks, she got a thanks from Chartrand and again no indication that anything had or was being done to push forward corrective action.  Kind of interesting that when on the sidelines Chartrand tries to run the meeting, but when in the hot seat he passes it off.

What's the big deal anyway?

     After reading Frank Ferraro's letter to the editor in Friday's Exeter News-Letter some will ask, "Why is he making such a big deal over losing $500 in two years in the operation of the solar panel array at the DPW?"  First, it is not just $500, it was the spending of $115,000 for the panels and installation, too.  Some will then say, "It was not Exeter taxpayer money, it was a State grant."  Oh, that's much better.  We used money from taxpayers outside out town to fund our ill conceived boondoggle.  But, it doesn't end here.
     Taxpayers were told the units would save us $30,000 over ten years.  Well, we're $500 in the hole after two and projections based on Unitil electricity rates and our contract with the owner of the panels indicate it will only get worse.  Oh, you didn't know we don't own the panels?  That's right, but wait, we can purchase them for $6,000 after the first 10 years.  But it even gets better.
     One might ask, "What is the expected life of solar panels?"  Well, the industry uses 25 years.  So, let's see.  Oops, we will not, nor would we have at the oversold projected savings, ever see the original cost paid back in savings.  And, top this off by the fact that solar panels see a significant drop in performance over their life.
     And, who was (is) minding the store and checking invoices before making payments to the owner of the solar panels?  No one, else they would have caught errors in billing.  I guess the Town just runs on automatic.
     So, why is it such a big deal?  The taxpayers were mislead into spending money irresponsibly.  This was a "feel good" pet project of Julie Gilman.  Top this off by the stone walling that Town Manager, Russell Dean, did when presented with an RSA 91A request for documentation to evaluate the project to see if it's performance met the criteria given to taxpayers.  He obviously was concerned it did not since he was less than forthcoming in his response for invoices.
     We need more folks like Frank Ferraro to keep an eye on our Town government to make certain the taxpayers are getting a fair deal when their hard earned dollars are spent.

"Not invented here" syndrome.

     Once again we see an example of Town management ignoring good advice only to do it their way and let the taxpayer pay the tab.  In organizations cultures develop around leadership at the top.  Managers will often mimic their boss' actions or lack thereof.  Top management sets the priorities.  It is no different here in Exeter where the Town Manager demonstrates little if any innovation to find more efficient ways to run the town's affairs.  In fact, as pointed out in a previous posting, his apparent stubborn management style has resulted in unnecessary court and attorney costs.  We've also pointed out costly break time practices within the highway department.  Now another example has come to light.
     Folks may have noticed that the split rail fencing on Holland Way was in bad repair.  It was decided that it should be removed.  Last year when this came up, then-Selectman Frank Ferraro suggested that the Town offer the fence to landscapers or anyone that would be willing to take all of it at no cost to the Town (taxpayer).  The Town response? Let’s ignore a perfectly reasonable way to handle the matter and, instead, expend taxpayer money and have personnel from the Parks & Recreation Department do the job.
     The Board of Selectmen have often joined town management in this type of behavior ignoring input from talented outsiders.  Since we must pay the tab, it is high time they not only seriously consider and use this advice, they seek it.  In spite of their arrogant behavior, they do not have all the answers.

No recommendations needed thank you.

     Selectman Don Clement's reasonable and appropriate motion to form an Economic Development Director hiring committee was defeated 3-2.  No surprise that the triad who gives the Town Manager anything he wants voted as they did.  Clearly there was no downside to Clement's motion.  But, the Town Manager now maintains absolute control of the process.  While he says he will call on others who will assist in screening candidates will they be entirely objective?  Who will be the rep from the Board of Selectmen.  Certainly not Clement or Surman who favored a committee?
     At $80,000 to $85,000 per year, plus benefits and office and business expenses, this is not an inexpensive venture.  Sadly Gilman, Chartrand and Bellanger prefer a less transparent method of selecting the candidate best suited to the job and not easily influenced by those having their own personal agenda.  We'll leave it to the readers to decide who the latter are.
     By the way, Surman was correct in questioning and opposing the title "Administrator."  Along with her reading add this.  Administrator means carrying out someone else's directions.  So, who will provide this direction, the Town Manager or the Town Planner?  The candidate selected should have credentials far exceeding either of these individuals, so should be given wide freedom of movement.

Town Attorney Advice

     Someone commented on this blog that maybe it was time to find a new Town Attorney to provide better advice to the Town Manager.  His record, pointed out in an earlier posting, is not good and the Town (read that as taxpayers) have literally paid the price.  However, maybe it should be looked at from a different angle.
     Is it possible that the Town Manager is looking for a particular outcome and instructs the Town Attorney to find the language, or interpret the language in the RSAs in a manner that supports this outcome?  This seems plausible because the RSAs are pretty clear in the final analysis.
     Since the Town Manager is responsible to the Board of Selectmen, it is incumbent on them to provide the proper oversight to avoid these inexplicable legal expenses.  Perhaps they can be called upon to give him better counsel then his counselor.
     Oh, and by the way, the RSAs are not guidelines or suggestions, they are the law.     

Ferraro still engaged in looking out for Exeter residents.

     An article in the Exeter News-Letter reported that Kate Segal was recently named the principal of the Newfields Elementary School.  In discussing the process for replacing her on the Cooperative School Board, Superintendent Morgan said that the Exeter Board of Selectmen would pick Segal’s replacement.  That didn’t sound right to Frank Ferraro, so he did some research into the state laws (RSAs) on this issue and he shared the results with us.
Ferraro found that the RSA is very clear on this situation: if there are at least 2 remaining Co-op board members from the town with the vacancy, those members decide on the replacement.  He then emailed Morgan about this, including a copy of the RSA.  Morgan promptly replied that the SAU attorney said that the law changed effective July 2013 and that is why the Selectmen get to pick the replacement.
     Ferraro re-checked the RSA and found that the version he had sent Morgan had become effective August 2013. Ferraro emailed Morgan again confirming that the law says that the remaining 2 board members are supposed to pick the replacement. Morgan again thanked Ferraro and said that they would follow up on this.
     Monday night, the Town Manager reported to the Board of Selectmen that the SAU attorney and the Town’s attorney had determined that the remaining 2 Co-op board members are to pick the replacement.  No mention was made of Ferraro or his research that corrected the attorneys.
     Even though Ferraro is no longer a selectman, he is still looking out for us taxpayers.  Now I wonder if the SAU attorney and the Town attorney will refund the SAU and Town for the time they initially spent getting the wrong answer.