Elementary school generator issue sparks debate at Shaftsbury meeting

SHAFTSBURY -- A Shaftsbury electrician called into question the process used to acquire bids on the installation of a generator at the elementary school during the Shaftsbury Select Boards meeting on Monday.

Ben Hulett submitted a letter to the board prior to the meeting, in which he questioned whether the towns purchasing policy had been followed, and asked for various details about the project, including what town department was responsible for the generator, what, if any, grants the town received to help pay for the generator, and what specifications were given to those who did bid on the project.

"Let me state clearly once again that I do not think anything underhanded or illegal was done on purpose," Hulett wrote in the letter, "but happened due to inexperience, lack of knowledge of the formal bidding process, and lack on continuity in the Town of Shaftsbury Leadership."

Select board chairman Tim Scoggins invited Hulett to the meeting to express his concerns to the board in person, and attempted to give some background on the situation. "The school was able to obtain, from the [Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union], an emergency generator, essentially surplus, essentially free," said Scoggins, "Our school board jumped at the chance to get it, because they recognized that Shaftsbury Elementary is designated as an emergency shelter for this area.

Scoggins went on to say that the board had budgeted approximately $15,000, or roughly half of the estimated cost to install the generator, with the hope that the school would pick up the other half of the bill, although they did not secure an official commitment from the school. "It didnt work out that way," said Scoggins.

"The actual cost is more like $23,000 to $25,000," clarified town manager David Kiernan, who started at that position just before the end of fiscal year 2014, when the budgeted funds, which had not yet been used, were about to expire. "Of the $12,000 that was budgeted last year, only $9,100 was spent. The rest did remain in the general fund, as there was nothing to spend it on. At the time, we had no anticipation that we would get any money to finish this project, so the intent was, we have this voter-approved money at this stage right now, we have proposals to do the work, lets take the lowest one, and lets buy the parts before the price goes up."

"What the select board has been led to believe," said Scoggins to Hulett, "is that you were asked to contribute a quote toward this project, as were Myers and Carpenter, and that that quote was not received." Hulett said that he had never been solicited for a quote. Scoggins responded that the bidding process had been handled by the school, not the town, but that the policy only specified that three bids must be sought, which, to his knowledge, was done.

"The fact that it happened was regrettable, but I dont think that theres anything we can do about it at this point. You should have been involved, we thought you were involved, and if you werent involved, we apologize for that."

Hulett then asked Scoggins, "Have you informed Green Mountain Power that this is an emergency shelter? Because they will work to provide power there, like they do at the hospital."

"So youre suggesting that we should not even be putting a generator at the school," asked Scoggins.

More here:
Elementary school generator issue sparks debate at Shaftsbury meeting