Monday, April 7, 2014

Full speed ahead with biomass boiler, planning of elementary school project

Full speed ahead with biomass boiler, planning of elementary school project

Eryn Dion
News Staff Writer

TEMPLETON — Narragansett Regional School District received the go-ahead for two key projects at last week’s Special Town Meeting, where voters approved both a proposed biomass boiler system and the schematic and design phase of the Elementary School Building Project.

The first article allowed the school district to borrow $3.5 million for the purchase and installation of a woodchip-fired boiler as well as the construction of a woodchip storage facility adjacent to the existing boiler room at Narragansett Regional High School and Middle School.

Superintendent Ruth Miller said the district was not asking for a Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion or tax override to fund the project, and that payments on the 25-year loan will be covered through the annual fuel savings.


Last year, the school district spent $261,198 for oil to heat the middle and high school building. According to documents provided at the meeting, projected oil costs for fiscal year 2014 sat at about $350,000.

In contrast, the 1,220 tons of woodchips the district will burn each year will cost about $36,000.

Operations Project Manager Frank Kennedy explained that woodchips have a relatively stable projected cost compared to oil and that — while they may not always cost $30 per ton — oil would have to drop to about $0.96 per gallon before the school starts losing money.

“If you think oil will ever be $0.96, vote no,” said Board of Selectmen Vice Chairman Kenn Robinson in support of the article.

Ms. Miller previously said she hopes construction will be completed in time for the boilers to be used next winter.

Next up for Narragansett, was a $500,000 debt exclusion to pay for the schematic and design portion for a new elementary school.

As Ms. Miller explained, the Massachusetts School Building Authority had agreed to reimburse the town for 60 percent of the costs incurred — leaving the town to go out to bond for the remaining $200,000.

Interim Town Administrator Bob Markel confirmed the superintendent’s statements, saying that the building authority would send their reimbursements to the school district, which would then turn the payments over to the town to be applied toward future costs.

Ms. Miller also made it clear that, should the town vote against the article, it would lose the 60 percent reimbursement rate and the project would cost Templeton significantly more in the future.

The project saw an outpouring of support from residents, many of whom have children who will never attend the new school.

Mr. Robinson said he supported the article, saying the town has already spent considerable time and money on the new school and rejecting the article would be a waste.

“If we vote this down, we’ll have yet another project we’ve spent half-a-million, a million dollars on with nothing to show for it,” he said.

The measure was resoundingly approved, though it needs a second vote for final approval.

Timelines provided by the school have the project’s feasibility study completed and submitted to the state by June.

After the study is reviewed, the MSBA will decide is the site fits into the authority’s model school program, which could result in considerable savings for the town.

Ms. Miller said the district is currently looking to raise money to help offset the $200,000 and reduce the burden on Templeton. The question now moves to the ballot for the May 5 Town Election.




8 comments:

  1. well isnt phillipston part owner of this building and they have no say in the chip boiler ??? i would think that it would also have to get approved at there town meeting also!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phillipston town meeting approved the boiler 3 days before Templeton did so.

      Delete
    2. “If you think oil will ever be $0.96, vote no,” said Board of Selectmen Vice Chairman Kenn Robinson in support of the article.

      It's more complicated than oil versus chips. There is also the matter of repaying a $3.5 million loan. It's a very long payback, even by the numbers in the presentation provided.

      Delete
    3. If the school is paying (approx.) $250k per year for oil, which is already in the existing budgets, what's the difference if that same exact $250k goes to a new boiler plus chips?

      Let's do a thinking exercise here...let's pretend the boilers that are already installed at the NRMS/NRHS complex aren't nearing the end of their life and would work perfectly fine for the next 30 years. The school, for the next 30 years, would continue to budget $250k or more every year for fuel to run these existing boilers. Correct? And that same "fuel" budget would rise along with the cost of oil. Correct? Now let's pretend the wood chip boiler is in place. That same line item on the budget that used to say "fuel =$250k" now says "loan + wood chips = $250k".

      I'm failing to see the problem with this. In fact, that loan payment would stay the same and wood chips would fluctuate as does oil. If the price of oil goes up, which I'm sure we can all agree that it will, what difference does it make if the same exact money is paying for only oil or loan payment PLUS chips?

      Selectman Robinson was correct in his statements. Unless the price of fuel oil is going to plummet beyond imagination than it makes no difference whatsoever if the money is going to oil or wood chips PLUS loan payment.

      Just sayin...it's a no brainer.

      Delete
    4. It's hardly a no-brainer. It is very difficult to predict future events. That's why a long payback of a large loan is riskier. The calculations were so close, within $200, and the wood-chip burner came out on top. Because it had to be in order to get approval.

      Nobody can know for certain whether or not it will prove a good investment. The statement about 96 cent oil does not take into account the risk that something will go differently than planned. Right now, the US is the largest producer of natural gas in the world. Yet this winter, we read of natural gas & propane shortages and high prices within the US. Recently, Governor Patrick curtailed logging operations in the Quabbin reservoir. That caused a serious disruption for logging operators. Last year, the state prevented us from logging our property because they thought it may be habitat to wood turtles. In the end, they were looking at the wrong property, but we still could not log. Oh well, too bad.

      It's only a "no-brainer" if you believe that a complex operation like this can be predicted such that the cost of wood chips + loan is $200 cheaper than oil right now. I find that a remarkable coincidence, and am skeptical. We'll see, but in private industry such long paybacks are avoided because of the risky nature of predicting the future.

      Delete
  2. For informational purposes, the 60% may not be that good. October 2, 2013, Athol-Royalson building a new elementary school at 96,726 square feet with MSBA contributing 80% of costs or $27,651.00. Greenfield is building a new high school (April 3, 2013) a 66 million dollar project with MSBA contributing 80% of costs or 42 million dollars. Since Templeton taxpayers are being told there are new ways and procedures at MSBA, is there a way Templeton could get in on the 80% reimbursement formula? All of this information is on the MSBA web site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish that a better site had been found. The site at Crow Hill is undeveloped and maximizes future transportation costs. Was the Highway Dept. site considered?

      Delete
    2. For the life of me, I can not understand why the MSBA will only kick in 60% to the Town of Templeton. Maybe we are not broke enough?? Oh right, Driscoll will fix that, with Dana holding his hand. Light and Water meeting tonight. I wonder how high Driscoll will bounce this time??? Bev.

      Delete