Friday, May 23, 2014

General Manager Driscoll scapegoats Julie Farrell for his own incompetence.

General Manager Driscoll scapegoats Julie Farrell for his own incompetence.



What? 

If this vote were so critical to TMLWP, why didn't anyone from the department speak in favor of the warrant article? Where were the commissioners? Where was the general manager?

My opinion... supported by FACTS !!!


Julie Farrell


Bulletin from the Division of Local Services


FROM: Gerard D. Perry, Director of Accounts
DATE: March 2014
SUBJECT: FY2015 Budget Issues and Other Related Matters
2014-03B
FY2015 BUDGET ISSUES AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS
 
 
___________________________________________________________________________

This Bulletin addresses several issues that cities, towns, regional school and other districts should consider for FY2015 revenue and expenditure budgeting and other related matters.
 

New or modified information from last year’s letter

Energy PILOTs 

Communities receiving “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOTs) pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c. 59, §38H(b) must follow the requirements spelled out in IGR 98-403 for tax agreements regarding power plants of generation and wholesale generation companies, which include solar generation facilities that provide electricity to the grid. Note Part I. C. which indicates that:

Agreements should fix values or formulas for determining values (rather than fixing tax payments). These values should be representative of the future full and fair cash values of the plant for the term of the agreement and payments resulting from them will be treated as property taxes for Proposition 21⁄2 and tax classification purposes. The payments are subject to the municipality’s levy limit, and the values will be used to calculate its levy ceiling and minimum residential factor. (emphasis added) 

For FY2015 forward, communities will not be allowed to place a negotiated dollar amount as part of PILOT estimated receipts on page 3 of the Tax Rate Recapitulation form. The negotiated payments must be translated into assessed value and applied as indicated in the Guideline.

For more detailed information on the matter, please contact the Bureau of Local Assessment.

 

 *****************************************************

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Gardner cuts ribbon on solar project 

 Scott Sargent, left, and Chris Anderson of Borrego Solar Systems discuss the recently completed West Street solar project with Gardner Planning Director Trevor Beauregard, second from left, and Building Inspector Jeffrey Cooke. (T&G Staff/GEORGE BARNES)

By George Barnes TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
gbarnes@telegram.com

GARDNER — At no cost other than a loan of land, the city will soon reap benefits from two solar projects.

On Tuesday, officials from Borrego Solar and Greenwood Energy Projects and city officials toured the recently completed 2.5-megawatt solar project on city land off West Street behind Wildwood Cemetery and held a ribbon-cutting ceremony marking the completion of the project.

In a few more days the city is expecting to do it over again with a ribbon-cutting ceremony at another solar project off Mill Street on land owned by the Gardner Redevelopment Authority.

The project on West Street is only waiting for final connections to be made with National Grid before it can go online and begin generating power.

Mayor Mark P. Hawke said the project will save the city $165,000 in electricity costs per year over the lifetime of the project, which is expected to be between 20 and 25 years. The city will also receive $60,000 per year in lease payments and an annual payment in lieu of taxes based on power generation, which the mayor said would be about $21,000.

The mayor said the money will help the city keep up with expenses.

"Every year it gets tougher and tougher to fund services and balance budgets," he said."If you want your road repaired, it's going to happen because of this. If you don't want police laid off, it's going to happen because of this."

The project was designed and built by Borrego Solar Systems and financed by Soltage Greenwood, a joint venture of Soltage LLC and Greenwood Energy. With its 8,474-panel ground-mounted system, it will produce 2.5 megawatts of power.

Dennis Loria, senior vice president of product development for Greenwood Energy, said the power produced would be enough to power 290 homes in one year.

Scott Sargent of Borrego Solar Systems said Massachusetts is promoting developing projects throughout the state, rather than concentrating a few very large projects in a single area. He said the effect is more and more solar development and more power available during the peak months. He said this is the first year there will be adequate power to avoid brownouts.

"Massachusetts is one of the top two or three states in the country in the amount of solar and the rates of solar development," he said.

Borrego is a leading developer of solar systems. Mr. Sargent said the Gardner project is in the mid-range of projects it has been working on.

Mr. Loria said the business has come a long way since he first got into it. In the early 1980s he was involved with what was one of the largest solar projects in the state at the time, a 100-kilowatt system. It was built the same time National Grid installed a pilot solar project in Gardner on City Hall, Mount Wachusett Community College and private homes. The power being generated by the West Street project dwarfs those projects.

The solar development is designed to withstand the rigors of New England weather. Chris Anderson, chief technology officer for Borrego, said the south-facing panels are 30 inches off the ground and should easily shed snow.

City Councilor Ronald F. Cormier said he is pleased with the project and looking forward to others.

"I think this is terrific," he said. "It's quiet, non-polluting and frankly, unobtrusive."

Mr. Cormier, who is also a member of the Gardner Redevelopment Authority, said a project on authority land off Mill Street is set to open and the authority is also looking at installing a wind turbine at its industrial park on Suffolk Lane.

City Planning Coordinator Trevor Beauregard said the 1-MW project on Mill Street being developed by Boston Community Capital Solar will net the city a payment in lieu of taxes of about $17,500 and the Redevelopment Authority, a quasi-municipal agency, $17,750 in annual lease payments. Power benefits for that project will go to several nonprofit organizations and businesses.

Mr. Beauregard said Borrego has also identified other pieces of property in the city that would be good for solar development. The company also owns more land on West Street, but does not expect to expand that project in the near future.

Contact George Barnes at george.barnes@telegram.com. Follow him on Twitter @georgebarnesTG 


13 comments:

  1. WOW looking at the prices they in Gardner are getting for smaller projects it clear the people working on our {Templetons} behalf are needing to pull their heads out of the sand. When the Select board voted on this i could smell a problem with the amount and questioned it then. My thought was why should we jump at the first thing as this industry will be around for some time. Templeton needs solar but not through the TMLWP. We need to put solar on the E.T. Town hall roof when it's done. That works for the whole town and saves us on utilities. The High school roof and also put up a solar field like gardner has for the town to use and make money for the town not just TMLWP. We are only now offered the Net Metering in the new rates and not a word has been told about it. Was this deal being slipped under our nose knowing the new rules would be comming out? Why were we only getting the amount we were. Did MMWEC have their hands in this like the General manager says? A quick call to MMWEC could provide a little information about that. Like in the past they are willing to share and offer information when asked about things. After all they are part of our State's Government. Anyone can see the General manager has a problem with the Town,Selectboard,Advisory,Treasurer,Accountant,Highway,Braver Auditors the list goes on and on. Was he not at the meeting so he wouldn't be put on the spot? I had many questions for him and was against this proposal when we were told about it at the BOS meeting. I was not for it then and not now. We should be able to do our own solar by now if they can we should be able also. Our ability to grow our TMLWP is being held back by poor management deals and lack of community invovlement. People still think the windmill is power being made for the school. The fact is the lease agreement is for only 5,000. per year. No power deal no discount, the high school light bill is between 175 thousand dollars and 200 thousand dollars per year. The profit on the school power use for the TMLWP is more than that 5,000. lease deal. Owe i almost forgot the TMLWP pays the town nothing for the PILOT on the windmill.
    But they did just Purchase a new truck or 3.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems like there is a lot of misplaced anger in this letter. It is always best to put a letter like this away for a while before making the decision on whether to send such a letter or not. Had Mr. Driscoll been at the meeting he could have explained the article himself. As a Manager, if he was not available to be at the meeting perhaps someone else in his department could have supported this article. It is in poor taste to attack an elected official who is trying to look out for the best interest of the town. Perhaps an apology should be considered if the situation warrants such an apology.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just to show how bad a deal this was goin to be for us rate payers.
    Gardner was to get 17,500.00 for a 1 mw field.
    Tempelton was 3 mw for 16,902.00 total income for 20 years 338,000.00
    Size @3 x= 52,500.00 for 20 years should be more like 1,050,000.00 not like John Driscoll calls a great deal at 338,000.00. These amounts are eye poping and there should be an investigation done about this by an independant auditor for how the amounts could be so far off if the MMWEC did the cost extensive analysis our Employee Driscoll writes about.
    It's your guess what the rest of that money would be paying for. Iknow the lawyer gets 375.00 per hour and he admits blowing 7,320.00 on him and the team he hires to do the work for him .If our town did this project like Gardner we would have a better idea of how we should make out not how the TMLWP tells us we will make out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The contract for the solar project that the BOS signed back in Sept. 2013 was negotiated under different rules. The contract did not involve the Assessors and it should have. If the Assessors had been involved in the process, there may have been a different outcome at town meeting.

    The DOR issued its advisory in March 2014 on how to deal with Energy PILOTS:

    Communities receiving “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOTs) pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c. 59, §38H(b) MUST follow the requirements spelled out in IGR 98-403 for tax agreements regarding power plants of generation and wholesale generation companies, which include solar generation facilities that provide electricity to the grid. Note Part I. C. which indicates that:

    Agreements should fix values or formulas for determining values (rather than fixing tax payments). These values should be representative of the future full and fair cash values of the plant for the term of the agreement and payments resulting from them will be treated as property taxes for Proposition 21⁄2 and tax classification purposes. The payments are subject to the municipality’s levy limit, and the values will be used to calculate its levy ceiling and minimum residential factor. (emphasis added)

    For FY2015 forward, communities will not be allowed to place a negotiated dollar amount as part of PILOT estimated receipts on page 3 of the Tax Rate Recapitulation form. The negotiated payments must be translated into assessed value and applied as indicated in the Guideline.

    If Town Meeting had voted in the affirmative for the Article 19 - Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Solar Energy Facility, it would have placed the town in a bad situation with the DOR. The money from the solar PILOT would be NOT be placed on the tax recap form. The town would receive the money, but not be able to use it (appropriate it at town meeting).

    Templeton is trying to untangle is financial record keeping. At this point the bureau of land assessment should be contacted and asked to review the contract with Ten K. The solar project is a great project. The town has to follow the rules set forth by the DOR. These rules were not created by Julie Farrell.

    Issues like the solar pilot payment will continue to arise when we have two or three separate government entities in one town. Each entity following different rules and not communicating with each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Driscoll crying about the Light Department's legal bills, should tell him one thing...Run his meetings like the rest of the town's departments do "Legally". Now wouldn't that be a different concept. It was pretty clear that the people who attended the Town Meeting, were not happy with the numbers the agreement with this solar facility had produced. In my opinion, it is the job of every selectman to watch out for the town. Mrs. Farrell was doing her job !! She did not break any arms to get people to vote one way or the other. The attack on Ms. Andrews is way out of line, as she was providing information to the selectmen. It is clear that Mr. Driscoll has a serious problem in dealing with the people he should be working with. Pete is right about one thing, Mr. Driscoll should have put this letter away, until he was able to give this letter some thought. Bev.

      Delete
  6. For the sake of the TMLWP commission and the plant itself the fact are looking bad for them to be able to explain this issue and not to mention the south main cost to thaw 1 pipe for 1 customer in the tens of thousands added to our cost of plant operations. When will the public realize the department for what it really is and thats all for them and crums for Templeton. The General Manager has put this out here on his own for the public to read in the papers. The fact anyone can take out a calculator and figure this out is obviously not what he did before this letter. I hope the commissioners are embarrassed and have a word or two with him in executive session about how he addresses the state rep and town officials via the gardner news. If not i guess we can hope for the best and cross our fingers we don't have a broke TMLWP checkbook also. They will have many questions the next meeting and i invite the people who wonder about them to show up. Come and see the way they talk about our town and the people who vote for the important things we decide for our towns future. If this was so important why did he not go? Is it because he doesn't work for us?
    Maybe he shouldn't!
    With so many long term contracts were not allowed to see the future can be very fuzzy for our town and the once crown jewel TMLWP.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The old Temple stuarts land would be a great spot for the town to put a solar field like gardner has and the town could lease the land from the owner or take it for back taxes and develop it for the towns power neeeds.Enter a deal with the TMLWP and sell them the power at a low rate and the town can recover some of the lack of PILOT money they are failing to pay us.This site is good for little else and no houses near by. A great use and with the taxes owed it could be just the thing Templeton need for the financial woes the town now has. I would think MMWEC should be able to sort this one out and get the town money badly needed,from a deal for the town to reap the profits from for us all to share. One would have thought our own TMLWP would have been doing this type of thing all along?
    Owe but they have to help "their"light bill to be lowered at the plant on Bridge street only!
    MMWEC helped them a long time ago with that project and our team put it up.
    So this is nothing new,just other management in charge and doing things not in the favor of our town but just the TMLWP checkbook!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Would it make sense to use the cemetery as a solar park? These tasteful panels go great just about anywhere!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know, Dana was at all three sessions of the Town Meeting. Why didn't he explain the rationalization for such a low number, for the solar facility on Farnsworth Road? More than likely he has no clue how Driscoll figured those numbers. Dave, don't forget to ask when the Light and Water Commissioners voted to send a letter of complaint about Bud. to the BOS. They did not do it at any meeting I attended. I would just hate to think these people held a illegal meeting !! Maybe I should give Mr. Driscoll a copy of the open meeting law, so he does not waste anymore of the Light Companies money. Bev.

      Delete
  9. Two things should be considered, what would the figure be if it was based on property taxes? And if it would be based on property tax of both land and personal property, remember that solar facilities have a shelf life which means part of that project will certainly be reduced in value over time by way of depreciation. That could result in less taxes, also the valuation of the land could go up or down, depending. So far I have re-read two IGR and I have found the words "should" but no where have I yet found the word "must". Again the initial agreement was discussed and voted in public at a BOS meeting. My biggest concern is if Ten K energy decides to leave as my understanding is Ten k was waiting for the town meeting vote so construction could begin. Perhaps some of the detractors here could find out if Ten K bought the land or leased the land and if leased, what is the arrangement for property taxes on the land. What is the value of the land for taxation?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jeff it was my understanding the land was to be leased and the total tax /pilot payment and land tax 25 acres combined would be 16609. for 20 years. But with no one at the town meeting to answer questions who knows what the light dept was getting us into. Why is the gardner amounts so high and we get crums?

    ReplyDelete
  11. As we read this letter we have to wonder if the General manager is using the calculator correctly. We have been shown numbers that don't add up in the past and now we are able to compare with the gardner deal. One can only imagine who else is getting much better amounts. With the light dept. still at odds with anything the town tries to do the people will be sure to get more and more frustrated and begin to call for action against them. The time has come for the assessors dept to evaluate the net worth as assessed and begin to see how Templetons options could be changed if the plants value was cashed in and we invested in a new school. With the national grid here we could have a much greater rebate and grant opertunities we now are barred from being a municipal electric. The cost versus benefit has tipped the scale the other way and time has only cost us more every day we do nothing. Without a video on TV for us to watch we have no idea to know what they did and when they did it. What they vote on or when they voted on it. Look at you bill and ask people you know in other towns around us how the bills compare.Do they have better rates and are they treated well by the providers? The times of the old stories and slam talk our TMLW commissioners do to the other providers is proof they are not able to compete as they should. Not fully funding the retirement accounts will only push our bill higher and higher after the point they have used the surplus like the town has we will be all left again with a empty promise and also bank account.
    If this sound like another bad dream your wrong it's Templeton in living color !!! with the great deal we have now why are our bills so high? Is it because to run that department we us up all the great deal money we get to just pay the budget at their disposal. Demand a total assess value of the plant and demand a fair shake like the other providers give their customers and pay taxes and pay shareholder profits.Unlike the TMLWP they take take take your taxes,profits,and give little in return.Chapter 164 laws has a section that allows for the sale of light plants and the co-ops formed to allow the control of the power distribution to be changed to better serve the towns needs and limit future requiremnets from te MMWEC standards we no longer can afford being so small of a light department. Some times the little ones have a hard time playing ball with the big boys and don't want to admit it.

    ReplyDelete