The MRJs Jesse Buchanan already has his story about tonight's budget meeting online.
As for my thoughts on the budget, I have several concerns. But the central theme is taking a comprehensive approach to planning.
First, we're spending money on the pool. This makes no sense to me. We need to take a comprehensive approach. I'm tired of the footdragging.
Second, we're gonna shell out some big dollars related to energy efficiency improvements. And it's possible those improvements could be paid with a performance contract, not additional debt.
Furthermore, these energy efficiency projects are being done without rhyme or reason. Here's one example of something that should not be done for energy efficiency improvements:
That's $500,000 of your tax dollars that will be going to referendum, while being billed as "energy improvements." On the other hand, replacing windows for "envelope" reasons may make sense.
I look at "envelope" issues in two lights: energy improvements & operational / functional issues. Breaking it down, when I look at envelope issues... improvements fall in one of three categories:
1) energy improvements
2) operational / functional improvements
3) energy improvements & operational / functional improvementsFor instance, if a crank window doesn't crank... it must be replaced to function. And if it is stuck open, a new window would also reduce energy consumption. In different "envelope improvement" categories, we may need to replace asbestos tiles
(and get no energy improvements) or decide to replace a functioning boiler for simply energy efficiency reasons
(i.e. payback is worth it).
The good news for taxpayers is that I saw some headway being made tonight in this regard. Council members seemed to acknowledge that if we don't know the payback on this $500,000 window project... it may not be the best project to do. On the other hand, it was noted that some of Highland's windows don't operate properly.... so I think this "energy improvement" project has little to do with energy... and more to do with operations... but that was nothing, but a reframing of the case
(for window replacements) that was made for the first time tonight.
And though I recognize the need for replacing some windows... we're nowhere close to having our hands around these big issues. Instead... we just throw money at problems which do exist... but they may also total far less
(or far more) than $500,000. We don't know. So why are we sending this to referendum?
IMO, much of this capital budget
(Mixville pump station, school windows, CHS retrofit, etc.) should be put on hold. Then we should fast track a
comprehensive approach to potential energy efficiency improvements for our townwide infrastructure... and if it needs to go to referendum... heck... I'd consider doing a springtime referendum for work to begin on our schools next summer.
Unfortunately, that's not happening. Instead we have this piecemeal approach to energy issues. And we have no real idea about the benefit of these projects... I mean... what if the $500,000 on windows has a payback of 25 years
(likely), but another $500,000 project has a payback of 5 years? Then why the heck are we spending money on "energy efficient windows?" Or perhaps we should be spending $1,000,000? Who knows?!
We need to take a
comprehensive approach to our energy efficiency improvements
(including the pool). It doesn't even need to be done with a performance contract
(though I'm confident it would work well). We just need to know what gives us the most bang for our buck... set our priorities... then the Council can make a responsible decision about which projects to tackle.
Tim White