“The light plant manager shall not independently set or schedule PILOT payments,” the policy states. PILOT payments are not required under the new policy.
This issue has been the subject of much discussion between the board and Town Manager/Light Plant Manager Jennifer Constable, who presented a proposed formula at the August 21 meeting.
Other stipulations include that PILOT payments must be clearly documented as a one-time annual disbursement, “ensuring transparency in the amount and timing of any funds transferred to the town.”
The amount of any such PILOT payment would be determined after the light board reviews the financial position of the Hull Municipal Light Plant for that year – including review of audited year-ending December 31 financial statements, the annual financial report to the board, and after submitting all required returns to the Department of Public Utilities. This review would typically occur in the first quarter of the ensuing fiscal year. Any PILOT payment becomes part of the town’s operating budget.
Following its review, the board “may vote to make a PILOT for a given year, which payment, if approved shall be made as one lump-sum transfer for that year from unappropriated earned surplus,” the policy further states.
The word “surplus” means any amounts in excess of operating revenues recorded as unappropriated earned surplus after covering all operating expenses, debt service, required or determined reserves, such as the statutory depreciation fund, capital improvements, reliability projects, rate stabilization, emergency reserves, or paying down debt, and other HMLP expenses for the year.
Under this policy, the board would be required to vote in an open meeting on whether to make a PILOT payment, stating its reason either way – and if approved, the amount of such payment.
“Such payments shall be recorded as a transfer from HMLP to the town with appropriate documentation,” according to the policy. “If the board vote is in the negative, no PILOT payment shall be made.”
If approved by the light board at its next meeting, the policy would be effective immediately and would apply to the current fiscal year and all future years unless amended by the board.
The policy, if it passes, would supersede “any previous practices or arrangements that conflict with the intent of this vote – including, but not limited to, termination of any monthly PILOT payment practices.”
In addition, the light plant manager would be directed to implement any procedural changes necessary to comply with the intent of the vote, the policy concludes.
In other business…
ª Chair Tom Burns provided an update on an Open Meeting Law-related issue that surfaced during the board’s early August meeting.
At that time, Vice Chair Patrick Cannon raised a potential violation related to an op/ed that appeared in the July 31 edition of The Hull Times submitted by Burns and two other light board members – Dan Ciccariello and Jacob Vaillancourt – in support of carrying out the wishes of the 116 voters who supported the town meeting warrant article to change the light’s plant’s management structure by removing the town manager as light plant manager. Members Stephanie Landry and Patrick Cannon’s names were not on the letter. Vaillancourt proposed the town meeting warrant article as a citizens’ petition.
At that time, Town Manager Jennifer Constable also questioned the op/ed piece being signed by three of the five members, which constitutes a quorum. The submission was not discussed in open session and “is in fact a direct violation of the Open Meeting Law,” Constable said.
While no formal complaint was filed, Cannon’s and Constable’s concerns were taken seriously, followed by Burns and Vaillancourt completing the attorney general’s 90-minute Open Meeting Law training to address any perceived misgovernance, Burns confirmed in response to an inquiry from The Hull Times.
At the August 21 meeting, the board addressed the matter in open session to ensure transparency, with every board member given the opportunity to “sign” the op/ed or decline. The board voted unanimously to attach the op-ed and the August 21 discussion to the meeting minutes so the record would be clear.
The purpose was to take corrective action to ensure public disclosure and re-deliberation in open session, Vaillancourt told The Times in response to a follow-up inquiry.
There was no vote to adopt the op/ed as a board position, so it remained an individual letter, signed by Burns, Vaillancourt, and Ciccariello.
“The complaint didn’t go unheard,” Burns said at the meeting.
• The board talked about electrical capacity planning, which Cannon called “a gigantic problem for the light plant and its customers” based on Hull Wind I being taken down more than a year ago, Hull Wind II due to be taken down in the next couple of months, and the fact that the main feeder lines owned by National Grid that run through a heavily wooded area in Hingham were built in the 1930s and have not been properly maintained and upgraded, according to town officials.
Cannon also noted that the 21 new condominiums at the former Aquarium site and the Paragon Dunes/Wayfarer development on Nantasket Avenue – among other units elsewhere in town that have been converted – are all electric, which increases the demand.
“Electric car chargers and HVAC systems all add to the overall load, with capacity issues staring at us down the road,” Cannon said. “We need to find a way to solve this problem.”
Cannon noted that the electrical infrastructure under the light plant’s control “is doing great.”
At Ciccariello’s suggestion, and with his agreement, the board appointed Cannon the “point person” to investigate alternatives as part of a related electrical capacity planning task force and also appointed Vaillancourt – who offered to serve in this capacity “to pursue big picture strategy.”
A replay of the meeting will be available on demand on Hull Community Television’s website, www.hulltv.net.
