This is Mayor John Hollar’s report to the voters of Montpelier on the current status of the district heating plan. It’s being reposted with his permission.
Anyone who is concerned for the future of sustainable energy in the capital city is encourage to call the city councilors who voted against the project to ask them to support the project.
At its meeting on August 22, the Montpelier City Council voted 2-4 to withdraw from participation with the state in the district heat project. I was deeply disappointed in that vote. I want to share my thoughts on the project, including where things stand and where we go from here.
I have strongly supported the district heat project since its inception, although I have approached it from a practical perspective since becoming mayor in March. The project provides numerous environmental and societal benefits, but I believe it must stand on sound financial footing. I made clear to city staff in March that I would only support the project if we could demonstrate a solid economic case for continuing.
Since March, City Manager Bill Fraser and many other city staff have worked diligently to close a $1 million funding gap by expanding the customer base. As of last week, the city has received commitments from Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, the General Services Administration (Post Office building), the County government and several large private property owners. The school district has committed to including Union Elementary School. Each of these users have independently evaluated the economics of the project and have concluded that it would provide value. Many other users have expressed interest in the project and are likely to sign up if the city commits to moving forward.
As presented to the City Council, the project has a funding safety net $1,127,986, or 34.30%. Moreover, the city could segment the project to reduce costs if needed. These contingencies provide a substantial cushion in the event that project bids exceed current estimates. While all projects have risks, the likelihood that costs will exceed revenues appears to be extraordinarily small.
The benefits of the project are well-known and obvious:
It would allow our community to minimize its dependence on fossil fuels for heating;
It would provide an economical and stable source of heat for decades to come;
It would rely on a local fuel source, further minimizing environmental impacts and providing broader economic benefits.
The Council members who voted against the project have expressed three primary objections:
The economic risks to the city are too great, since we will not know our actual costs until we receive bids in November;
the city has not demonstrated an ability to maintain its existing infrastructure; and
the state has not been a good partner in the project.
I am working with these councilors and the state to address these concerns. I am hopeful that we will reach a solution that allows the project to go forward as planned.
For those wanting to learn more about this project, please visit the City’s web site, and read the City Manager’s excellent report to the council on August 22, 2012.
Thanks Jack for all the information and thanks to Mayor John Hollar for his clarifying letter.
I wish we had such a project in Burlington! This project appears to be farsighted and ecologically astute.
Mayor Hollar said,
As long as electrostatic precipitators and filters assure that no particulates escape into the environment, this project is a win-win for the business and residences who will be accessing this energy production.
I would also think it would draw more tourists to Montpelier to see a US State capitol heated in this way.
Why wouldn’t someone want this… unless they have invested in oil or like sending Americans off to war.
You would think in supposedly forward thinking Montpelier that obstructionists like Weiss, Golanka, Hooper and the other would be ousted for playing these kinds of games. Yet we keep voting them back in, and sometimes without opposition. How about some Montpelierites stepping up and challenging these obviously out-of-touch “representatives.” Word is Golanka was telling people he supported this project right up to the vote. If that’s the case, he should be the poster boy for failing to listen to his constituents. Vote him and the others OUT!
These 3 percenters will be the death of Montpelier moving forward.
…have struck again. If this were just stupidity, a public forum on it would have solved that. No public forum. A surprise thumbs-down vote. And once again, we in the ‘non-elite’ classes in Montpelier lose, not only some federal grant money, but, a project that would lift Montpelier out of its doldrums and maybe help improve our commercial tax income, thus relieving some burden on residential taxpayers.
It must be the case, by a vote like this and the give-a-shit behavior of Montpelier Alive that a certain group of residential property owners in this town have some kind of tax stabilization, so they don’t care if residential property taxes go up–theirs won’t. I wonder what the tax list would reveal? I wonder if there is a separate or ‘secret’ list?
This decision needs to be reversed and the pheasants of Montpelier need to ask: “What the Hell is going on?” They blow off this project yet consider spending money on tasers?
Yes, vote them out. I miss Nancy Sherman.