Truth be told, the Daily News was kind with the headline. It could have easily read, "No Bid Solar Deal Would have Cost the City Thousands."
You may recall the mayor rushed through a controversial, no-bid process to secure a deal with a vendor EyeOn. The agreement fell through when EyeOn lost its investors.
At the time, the mayor said we shouldn't expect any real savings from the EyeOn deal. Now, it sounds like we'll save hundreds of thousands over the life of this new contract.
Bottom line, the new deal is better than the old deal. And, by my reading, the city still will receive the precious rebate that drove the mayor to bypass the no-bid deal at the start.
Looks like things worked out of the best.
The school committee still needs to vote on the arrangement at its Feb. 23 meeting.
3 comments:
Based on the published prices, this definitely looks like we will get a better deal than the no-bid fiasco. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the state Ethics Commission played a role in convincing the Mayor that he had to go with competitive bidding once the EyeOn deal fell through.
Given the history of this project (at best, consisting of a apparent lack of common sense and due-diligence by some with the obligation and responsibility to spend our limited tax dollars efficiently) I am still concerned that the legal contract and all the details have not been properly vetted.
For example, when Triton finally did its due-diligence and backed out of the solar deal last fall, The Daily News reported the following...
"Of particular concern to Forget, and to members of Newbury's finance committee who looked over the contract, is provision 6.4 in the contract, which Forget says allows EyeOn to change the negotiated rate for energy should the financial benefit not be as attractive for EyeOn down the road.
"They had the ability to change our rate at any point, if any applicable law changes," said Forget. "That was something that we couldn't' agree to."
Newburyport has a nearly identical provision in its final negotiated contract with EyeOn, and concern over that issue came up before the Newburyport school committee voted on the matter. Mayor John Moak at that time said the provision would be rewritten to ensure Newburyport was only exposed to this liability through the construction phase of the project. But Moak signed the final execution copy one week later, with the provision intact."
Given that, I am not comforted by Mayor Moaks words in today's article...
"Moak said he's had conversations with some members of the School Committee, and he says they indicated if all things in the contract are equal, they'll vote yes.
"We have to get that same write-off again," Moak said. "I've spoken with the School Committee and as long as the contract has the safety factors that the last one did, and there's been no changes to that."
A very good question. If such a provision exists it should be stricken.
The final EyeOn contract also required the city (assuming it did not buy the panels at the unknown future cost) to pay half the cost of removal at the end of the 20 year contract. Why agree to this? If necessary or somehow beneficial to agree to this, at least try to estimate and capture that possible cost in any calculation of claimed savings.
Also, how many tax dollars were spent already on the roofs to prepare for the panel installation? How about legal expenses since last summer? How about future legal expenses (and/or the more likely settlement costs) related to the section 6.4 problem posted above?
I'm sure the School Committee members will be ready to ask all of these questions and more at Monday's meeting. Stay tuned.
Post a Comment