City officials found a good use for an unused plot next to the
sewer plant in contracting for a small solar farm to power the
facility and offer back cost savings to taxpayers. But it now
appears as though they didn’t do nearly enough homework
– they did almost none – and that leaders jumped on board with
ClearSpot Energy without adequately surveying other options.
City officials found a good use for an unused plot next to the sewer plant in contracting for a small solar farm to power the facility and offer back cost savings to taxpayers. But it now appears as though they didn’t do nearly enough homework – they did almost none – and that leaders jumped on board with ClearSpot Energy without adequately surveying other options.
ClearSpot signed on with the city two weeks ago to provide an estimated 60 percent of the wastewater plant’s power over the next 30 years while saving taxpayers, according to current federal projections on energy costs, up to $10.4 million in that time.
It sounds on the surface like a great deal, and it might be, but a potential competitor’s criticism of the process last week brought to light that city officials neglected to perform a thorough analysis – in house or through hiring of an outside consultant – of the company’s technical projections, or to ensure the partnership carries as little risk as possible.
City Manager Clint Quilter in an interview with the Free Lance Editorial Board not only confirmed Hollister officials basically merely trusted the legitimacy of ClearSpot’s estimates – which will determine how much savings or cost taxpayers realize – but that they also neglected to require safeguards in the event the company goes under or there is a disaster requiring cleanup at the plant.
And as local solar developer Ignacio Velazquez pointed out, the city did so while barring any other competitors, such as his company, from offering the same service.
As a whole, it turns out as city officials had an apparently bold idea fall into their laps, they failed toward performing the due diligence necessary before deciding whether such an endeavor makes sense for citizens.
The last time council members jumped on board with such a grand sales pitch, they ended up with stacks upon stacks of leftover rally T-shirts and a mountain of debt. They clearly didn’t learn their lesson.
At minimum, there should have been an in-depth examination, in the form of an official report, from a qualified analyst with expertise in such work. How can council members make an accurate judgment without an objective analysis? They can’t and they didn’t.
Council members and city staff members also missed the boat by disregarding the need to insure against the possibility – through a surety bond or other means – that this relative upstart might fold or walk from the project in the next three decades.
What happens, in theory, if the company folds or walks. Mayor Victor Gomez’s response to that question says it all: “Wow,” he told the Free Lance, “that’s a good question.”
Finally, legal or not, the city should have allowed for an open bidding process on this project, especially when a local businessman expressed interest in doing so and indicated he could do the same work for much less money. What is wrong with at least listening to other offers? What is wrong with finding out whether taxpayers could get a better deal from someone else?
Nothing. In fact, those questions fall into the realm of fundamental responsibility that council members decided to brush aside in favor of convenience, in favor of disregarding due process.
