From the Eagle Tribune;
Atkinson gets $23K energy grant
By Bryan Deyermond bdeyermond@eagletribune.com
ATKINSON — The town's municipal buildings are going green.
Atkinson received $23,900 from the federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, which is designed to help promote the newest methods of energy efficiency and conservation.
Michelle Veasey, chairwoman of the Atkinson Energy Committee, said the grant will help residents make more informed choices on potential energy upgrades for town buildings.
"Our ultimate goal is to become as energy efficient as possible," Veasey said.
The best way to do that is to find out how to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
The money will go toward full-scale evaluations of town buildings to see how energy usage can be improved. The project would take close to a year to complete so building use could be evaluated during all seasons.
"This will really allow us to create a road map for the future," Veasey said.
Once the evaluations are complete, the town will be able to make changes, such as retrofitting lights and building improvements.
"There will be some low-hanging fruit that we can go after right away," Veasey said. "Then, we can start working with department heads and selectmen to go after bigger ticket items."
Selectman Bill Bennett said the studies will show the town how to improve energy efficiency.
"It will point out areas where we can make changes that would reduce energy use," Bennett said. "If those changes can be done economically, that will save us money."
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
ARTICLE SUBMISSION, PLEASE:
NH's Right to Know law needs to be strengthened.
By: Mark Acciard
It has been my experience that NH largely "gets it right" when drafting laws. They usually strike the appropriate balance between protecting a State interest, and intrusive overreach. The problem usually lies with interpretation and enforcement. It is in this that the RTK law has issues.
First, The definitions of what is allowable in a non-public meeting need to be tightened up.
For example; RSA91-A:3,II. Lists the reasons that a body can go into a non-public session. One of the most abused is the legal discussion. This was intended to protect against the premature disclosure of legal maneuverings during a lawsuit, or land purchase or sale. It is currently used for anything remotely to do with a question to be asked of legal counsel. That is wrong.
Another abused portion of this law is the "personnel reason". This is supposed to be only for discussions evaluating new hires, discussing promotions or discipline. It is currently used for anything remotely to do with an employee, including citizen complaints, and the action, or lack thereof resulting from those complaints, this is more properly a matter of public disclosure.
Then you have the simple "request for information". This is supposed to be answered within 5 days, and a time frame given as to when the information will be produced. Yet Atkinson routinely places exorbitant charges upon the production of information, which purportedly are based upon the cost of; paper, ink, copier usage, employee time for getting material, copying it and refiling it. This makes it not only cost prohibitive to obtain information, but when the town refuses to produce it, the resident is forced to either forego the material requested, or file a petition for injunctive relief in Superior Court. Filing fee is $175.00 and it usually takes about 1 year out of your life to get to a hearing.
These conditions and procedures stand in contravention of NH Constitution Article 8, which states;
"Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted."
I believe a better system would be one in which if the Town or School District refuses you information which you believe you are entitled to, you ave the same right to file for Court Review of the disclosure of said material, HOWEVER, The filing fee would be waived until the review is decided. If the petitioner prevails and the municipality is forced to produce the material, they must pay the filing fee, and a fine at that time. If the municipality prevails, and the request was NOT subject to disclosure, then the petitioner must pay the filing fee.
Also other than the ACTUAL COST of producing a copy( and this does not include an employee's time unless there is some arcane research needed to find it) the Town must not make the requesting of information cost prohibitive to the public as that is merely an indirect restriction of rights.
I welcome any thoughts and discussion on this issue.
Thank you for your time.
Please post the above as a submission article.
There are very serious right to know requests outstanding for months in Atkinson. And the APD refuses to supply police reports to the public. All of which are unlawful and need to be exposed on this bog and in court.
I can see it now. Phil CON-sentino will get a hold of the grant money, buy equipment and hide in a closet so it will get no use. Remember the Communication Grant? He hid the equipment and then put forth a 800K warrent article for a new tower in the middle of the town. Public saftey was his arguement, but the article was turned down by the voters thank goodness.
Later it came out he hid the equipment and after another committee was formed, it was found that with that equipment and fifteen thousand dollars his problem would have been fixed.
Voters want to save money, get rid of CON-sentino. It would be like hitting the mega bucks.
mo
I can see it now. Phil CON-sentino will get a hold of the grant money, buy equipment and hide in a closet so it will get no use. Remember the Communication Grant? He hid the equipment and then put forth a 800K warrent article for a new tower in the middle of the town. Public saftey was his arguement, but the article was turned down by the voters thank goodness.
Later it came out he hid the equipment and after another committee was formed, it was found that with that equipment and fifteen thousand dollars his problem would have been fixed.
Voters want to save money, get rid of CON-sentino. It would be like hitting the mega bucks.
mo
Post a Comment