By Carol Britton Meyer
A lengthy discussion at the June 4 light board meeting revolved around the proposed joint municipal light plant/Department of Public Works facility at West Corner – which the board opposes – and who has authority to make capital and policy spending decisions for the light plant.
At its April meeting, the light board adopted a resolution requesting a written accounting of related grant activity, among other information, from Town Manager Jennifer Constable, who also serves as light plant manager and has been advancing planning and grant work connected with the combined-facility concept.
At last Thursday’s meeting – which was standing room only – Constable said that information was not available that night and would be addressed at a joint meeting of the light board and select board on June 10, with the town’s consultant, Weston and Sampson, attending.
The Times reached out to Constable for this story but did not receive a response by this week’s deadline.
During the April meeting, the majority of the board members supported the resolution – proposed by light board member Jake Vaillancourt – to withdraw the Hull Municipal Light Plant from the Coastal Zone Management grant to combine the light plant’s headquarters and the Department of Public Works into one building.
At that time, Vaillancourt outlined the intent of the resolution: to require either the withdrawal of HMLP from the existing grant scope or modification of the scope so that any grant-funded work supports HMLP facility needs at 15 Edgewater Road, including the board’s previously approved new four-bay garage, rather than relocation to West Corner.
Click here for more details about the combined light plant/DPW at West Corner
According to Vaillancourt at that time, the resolution gives the board leverage to negotiate either a change in scope, a withdrawal of HMLP from the project, or a smaller award, and that without such a formal communication, the board has effectively no leverage.
The resolution asks for a written accounting covering grants since 2022 tied to light plant property, operations, or the combined-facility concept; light plant resources committed to those grants; the scope of work and design-completion targets for the Phase 3 grant and any pending or submitted Phase 4 application; town communications with the Office of Coastal Zone Management, the state energy office, or other agencies that represented or implied light board support; and confirmation of any Phase 4 application submitted on or before March 27, 2026, including its amount, scope, and any representation of board support.
The light board’s underlying question is whether the light plant has been named as a participant or beneficiary in grant applications for the combined facility without the elected board’s authorization, given that the board opposes the project.
The board’s opposition is based in part on concerns that a new building would cost ratepayers more than refurbishing and expanding the current building.
Under a change in the town manager act approved in 1993, the town manager also serves as light plant manager. The board’s position is that capital and policy spending decisions belong to the elected board, while day-to-day operations and the town’s buildings are the manager’s and the town’s domain.
The point was made at the June 4 meeting that funding of the roughly $60 to $65 million combined-facility project would require a two-thirds debt authorization at a future town meeting.
In a unanimous vote last November, the light board approved funding a capital project for a permanent four-bay garage at 15 Edgewater Road, where the current light plant is located.
The board’s current position is an estimated cost of roughly $2 to 4 million and that this work could be financed through a low-cost municipal loan program without new debt charged to the town’s taxpayers.
Such a capital project would be designed to allow for solar orientation and complement the historic nature of the existing building.
At the June 4 meeting, the board voted unanimously to oppose erecting a temporary garage – as proposed by town management – on the grounds that it does not match the permanent four-bay garage approved in November.
In response to a second motion, the board directed the light plant manager to advance the design and cost estimate for a permanent garage and to look into renting off-site garage space, within Hull, as a short-term stopgap to house an incoming vehicle while the permanent garage is built.
Also at the June 4 meeting, light board counsel Nicholas Scobbo, of Ferriter Scobbo & Rodophele, urged the light board and select board to resolve their differences cooperatively for the benefit of the ratepayers, and that opening a dialogue makes more sense than spending public money while in disagreement.
Scobbo also advised that the light board’s Section 5 wording in the resolution went too far in directing Constable to produce records, but that the board may request the same information, including through a public records request. He noted that the 1993 framework governs until the law is changed.
It’s unclear whether the light board controls the decision to relocate the light plant. At the same time, the board’s position is that the capital spending decision is the board’s purview.
With regard to the passage of Article 40 at the recent town meeting, similar to last year’s Article 37 – which removes the town manager from the light plant manager role – the board voted last week 4 to 1 to reaffirm its support of Article 40. The home-rule petition would now go to the Legislature. The board also voted 4 to 1 to direct the light board chair and clerk to draft written testimony to the Legislature for the full board’s review at its next meeting. Commissioner Stephanie Landry was the only “no” vote.
The next regular light board meeting is scheduled for July 16.
