Sunday, August 24, 2008

Performance contracting and the majority's affinity for truthiness

On August 30, 2007, in relation to the possibilities of conserving energy and saving money, the Council majority promised to consider performance contracts:Now one year later (August 12, 2008) in relation to the Council majority's promise to consider performance contracting, we were told:

So when I addressed the intellectual dishonesty of the majority at Thursday's capital budget meeting (in post's on Thursday and yesterday), I was quite serious.

And to understand the significance of performance contracts... keep in mind the dollar value of our upcoming energy-related capital projects. Between only the schools and sewer plant, our five year capital budget probably has between $10,000,000 and $20,000,000 proposed for energy-efficiency improvements. Furthermore, if we could avoid a cash outlay for these projects and get them done today (so we begin conserving energy today), wouldn't that be best?

Tim White

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Judging by Hall's response, not what was said, but how it was said, there will be no performance contracting during this councils' term. Good try though, Tim, to find alternatives to spending.

Anonymous said...

It is embarassing that this town has elected officials like Ecke and Hall. Ecke has facial expressions that remind me of a 10 year old who doesn't get his way. Hall just doesn't want to be bothered.
Performance contracting is not only a way to help pay for projects, but it is also a way of saving the environment by using less energy.
Perhaps these people don't understand it and you need to explain performance contracting to them. Or, they have friends in the business who they want to do the projects themselves and don't care about energy consumption.
Either way, it is embarassing.

Anonymous said...

maybe P C is a good idea but you have to take your idea and make it easily understandable, workable, answer the J Knott objection..sell it and not just insult those who question it...

Anonymous said...

It would be one thing if they were questioning it, that's not what they are doing. It appears that they didn't even want to open up a discussion.
It's hard to sell something if they don't want to listen!

Anonymous said...

New Thinking Needed

Performance contracting could make a dent in town expenses. Especially if the town were driven to be efficient. It is clear in watching just the ongoing pool debacle that efficient operation of facilities and activities takes a back seat to the special needs of certain town groups. Some how an image of cats and dogs fighting comes to mind!

I thought the state was pretty amazing when it signed up to electrically heat the UCONN Medical center. I was amazed when they chased the power company for failed promises concerning heating costs back in the mid-1980’s. But here in Cheshire we are working overtime to make the state’s belated attempt to unload really dumb building electric heat appear to be generations ahead of our political thinking in this town. So far in 2009 we will still heat schools with electricity.

Bring on performance contracting for all our municipal facilities, complete with initial evaluations by outside firms with real expertise, on the current state of our heating and cooling plants. What we find could be quite valuable in improving the interior environment and in taming ongoing expenses.

tim white said...

maybe P C is a good idea but you have to take your idea and make it easily understandable, workable, answer the J Knott objection..sell it and not just insult those who question it

fair enough, but here's my version of events:

Aug 30 2007 - majority promises to consider PC, specifically to consider the $1.9million heating retrofit at CHS.

Dec 17 2007 - majority has first (and only) meeting to consider PC. Majority requests additional info on PC (from Energy Comm), to be followed by further discussion

Jan 2008 - Energy Chair emails sample PC contract to Budget Chair

March 11 2008 - Council votes to move forward with contractor for $1.9m CHS heating retrofit. I opposed the motion because it had not included serious consideration of PC. I was told that I brought this idea up "too late" in the process.

May 2008 - Energy Chair resends sample PC to Budget Chair

June 1 2008 - I post this to my blog

June 2 2008 - I post this this to my blog

Aug 23 2008 - I post this this to my blog.

I respect your opinion that I'm not being fair with the majority (though I disagree). But can you agree with me that there are times when you have to call somebody out? And we just have different threshholds?

Anonymous said...

March 11 2008 - Council votes to move forward with contractor for $1.9m CHS heating retrofit.

Did I miss something? Who is the contractor doing this CHS job?

tim white said...

I think it was a vote for the architect.

Is it Salomone??