The Sky Is Not Falling (Norwich ListServ)

It takes a lot longer to write these things than it does to read them, so believe me when I say I really hope this is the last time I post on this tower. 

Based on the January 29th memo by our town manager, the decision on Article 34 boils down to some fairly straightforward math.  All my figures below come from the table at the bottom of page 2 of that memo, so you may want to print out that page. 

"Yes" on Article 34 authorizes the Selectboard to raise $275,000 through bonds to build and own this tower. 

This amount is more than adequate to cover the tower development and construction costs -- an estimated $215,000 according to the town website memo. ($332,813 minus $117,813 = $215,000) 

The town also faces equipment and refitting costs for our fire, police and public works departments which we must pay for whether we build this tower or VTel builds it.  According to the same outline from the town website, these costs are estimated at about $196,000 total ($470,600 - $275,000). 

A year ago, the town received an AFG grant for around $50,000 to cover fire communications equipment. ($470,600 - $420,048)  The performance period for this grant was February 23, 2013, but our TM has secured a six-month extension to August 23rd and suggests a second six-month extension may be possible.

Last December we received an HSGP grant for about $87,000 to cover police communications equipment. ($420,048 - $332,813)  The "performance period" for this grant ends on June 30, 2013.  According to our TM, this deadline is set in stone and we simply lose the money if we haven't "performed" by that date.

If the town passes Article 34 and can retain both grants, the town still needs to come up with about $58,000 ($332,813 - $275,000) to cover equipment and refitting.

Now our TM insists we will lose the HSGP grant if Article 34 passes because we will fail to "perform" by June 30th.  Our TM thinks we can extend the AFG grant into 2014 so the risk of losing that grant is much lower. 

So, if Article 34 passes, and, as our TM insists, we'll lose the HSGP grant, we need to come up with an additional $145,048. ($420,048 - $275,000)

How?

Just last week, our TM asked the Selectboard to approve a lease-purchase agreement with Lake Sunapee Bank for $120,000 to cover these same costs.  Would Lake Sunapee Bank accept a $145,048 lease-purchase sum?   If so, between the bond and a tweak to the TM's proposed lease-purchase with Lake Sunapee Bank, we've covered the entire project. 

No second bond or Special Town Meeting necessary.

-    -    -

On the other hand, "No" on Article 34 means the town has no money available to build this tower, so we must rely on VTel to do it for us. 

If we retain the grants already awarded for fire and police equipment then the town must come up with $117,813 to cover these remaining equipment and refitting costs.  As designed, the proposed Lake Sunapee Bank lease-purchase would cover this amount. 

But what if VTel fails to "perform" by June 30th and we lose the HSGP grant anyway?  The town must then come up with about $206,000 ($117,813 + $87,000). 

Will Lake Sunapee Bank go for that?  In that case, we really might need a second bond or Special Town Meeting.

So it may all come down to whether VTel can "perform" by June 30th. 

Can they?

If VTel had filed their required 248A 45-day pre-application notice with the Public Service Board on March 1, they would be able to file the application itself on April 15th.  (30 VSA 248a (e))

Our Town Manager has estimated it will take five months from the date of application to get a 248A "Certificate of Public Good."  Even if this includes the 45-day pre-application notice, we're into August, well beyond the HSGP June 30th deadline.

Add to this Steve Flanders' 3/2/13 post stating, "[t]he board and town manager received valuable input on the specifics of the contract. As a result, the town manager is exploring some substantive changes to the proposed contract."

Will VTel would push forward with their 248A application while the contract is being renegotiated? 

So either way it looks like we won't be able to "perform" under the HSGP grant and will lose that $87,000 grant either way. 

What's a town to do?

Well, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, "that depends on how you define "performance.""

I have not seen the grant documents or any legal definition of the "performance deadline" so I can't say myself, but I have a hunch there's more flexibility there than our Town Manager is sharing.  Otherwise, I think he would concede that the HSGP grant is probably lost even if VTel builds this tower. 

Maybe we can buy all the equipment subject to this grant and only install the Hayes Hill portion before June 30th? 

Maybe we can buy it all and warehouse it? 

I just don't know. 

So, assuming the figures presented on the town website are accurate, and the HSGP grant deadline is set in stone, the town may need to come up with more than $200,000 to cover equipment if we sign the VTel agreement and only $150,000 more if we pass Article 34. 

Of course, passing Article 34 means more money from our pockets overall, but it should make clear that the differences between the two plans is nowhere near as dramatic or dire as some Article 34 opponents have suggested. 

If the town website numbers are to be believed, it all really boils down to whether we spend $215,000 to build this tower or have VTel build and own it. 

I think $215,000 is a reasonable and wise investment in core emergency services infrastructure for this town. 

I think $215,000 is a reasonable price to pay to make sure this infrastructure remains in our control and not in the hands of a for-profit company with very different priorities and interests than ours.  

I'm voting "YES" on Article 34 and hope you will too.

Lacking a Shared Sense of Urgency (Norwich ListServ)

This past week, proponents of the VTel deal have insisted that a decision by voters to build and own this tower ourselves may delay our emergency communications upgrade by a year or more. 

These claims simply ignore reality.

First of all, this talk of 24-30 months flatly contradicts our Town Manager's own timetable for building this tower ourselves, set out in his September 7, 2012 "Additional Communications Studies" memo to the Selectboard.   

On the second page of that memo, he clearly states that the permitting process would likely take five months and construction of the tower -- from "request for bids" to "project complete" -- would require another five months.  It's conceivable the bidding process (two months in his memo) could overlap the latter part of the permitting process, compressing a ten-month project into as little as eight, if that September 7th memo is to be believed.

Second, the assumption that VTel is on some fast track to build this tower doesn't hold up.  VTel is already more than five months behind the schedule our Town Manager announced last August.  The agreement he negotiated with VTel allows them two years from the date that agreement is signed to actually build this tower.  In fact, the agreement doesn't require VTel to build the tower at all.  After those two years, VTel can simply walk away without having built anything and without any repercussions.  On the other hand, once our TM signs this agreement, Norwich cannot terminate it, meaning we have no option but to wait patiently for VTel to make this tower -- among the many they are pursuing right now -- their top priority. 

VTel is a private commercial company looking to build out an ambitious multi-site wireless broadband network far beyond anything they have accomplished so far.  The assumption they somehow share our sense of urgency about this current emergency radio "gray out" -- with everything else they've got on their plate -- is simply naive.  I'm not suggesting they are bad people or even indifferent.  They're busy, they may be over their heads statewide, and they are in the business of making money, not of protecting the people of Norwich. 

Third, the VTel agreement allows them to unilaterally terminate the agreement if, after "commercially reasonable efforts" they feel this tower project isn't worth it to them.  That's a pretty subjective standard, so the agreement helpfully states that spending $40,000 "shall definitely constitute commercially reasonable efforts," meaning a lesser amount might too.  Why would VTel walk away from this tower project?  Ask the Windham County Sheriff.   Last week, VTel decided they preferred a hilltop site in Newfane to the tower they had agreed to build where the Sheriff planned to locate his narrowband antennas: 

"(VTel President Michel) Guité acknowledged that the change in plans represents "a little bit of a headache, because we went through the trouble of signing a contract with the sheriff.""

So I'd say it's time those supporting the VTel agreement stop trying to scare us with outlandish talk of year-long delays.  There's simply no factual basis to support their claim that VTel can or will build this tower faster than we can ourselves.  The facts actually suggest the opposite.

This is vital infrastructure and the need is urgent.  Why entrust it to a for profit who just last week left the Windham County Sheriff in the lurch on the eve of permitting?  Were his narrowbanding needs any less urgent than ours?

VTel is in the broadcast and tower rental business.  We are interested in public safety -- our safety.  Maybe this tower is too important to us to rely on VTel to get done?