Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Contracts Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City council rejects proposed Siemens energy contract after extended debate
Summary
After hours of discussion and public comment, the Binghamton City Council voted 5-2 to reject Ordinance O25-17, which would have authorized a multi‑year energy performance and equipment contract with Siemens Industry. Council members cited process concerns, potential long-term costs and unclear scope for EV chargers and specialty technologies.
The Binghamton City Council on March 12 declined to authorize a multi‑year energy performance contract with Siemens Industry, rejecting Ordinance O25‑17 after an extended discussion that included public comment and detailed scrutiny of the contract scope.
Council member Kavanaugh moved to pass Ordinance O25‑17, an ordinance to authorize an agreement with Siemens Industry. The motion failed following a roll-call vote. Council members expressed a mix of support for standard energy upgrades and concern about process, long-term fiscal commitments and specific technical elements of the proposal.
The ordinance would have authorized a comprehensive performance contract covering lighting upgrades, programmable thermostats, weatherization, HVAC and pump work, and an EV charging rollout. Speakers and council members questioned whether parts of the scope had been properly inspected or competitively procured, and whether the city might be locked into proprietary equipment and outside labor rates for up to 20 years.
Mike Dervay, a resident who said he is retired from city purchasing, urged the council during public comment to require competitive proposals before approving a roughly $4 million contract. “To approve a $4,000,000 contract ... without having apples‑for‑apples proposals” left local vendors and prevailing‑wage implications unclear, he said.
Council members who opposed the ordinance echoed that concern. Council member Hotchkiss said the city had been “left out of the first process,” and urged restarting a more inclusive procurement process. Council member Murray said he had reviewed the contract extensively and raised technical questions about scope items such as ductwork inspections and needlepoint bipolar ionization, noting Siemens’ disclaimer that it “does not warranty” the efficacy of that technology within the facility improvement measures.
Supporters of the contract pointed to common municipal use of energy performance contracts and the immediate energy‑saving potential of standard upgrades such as LED lighting. One council member warned that restarting the procurement could risk losing state or federal incentives tied to EV charging deployment. “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” a supporter said, noting the cost of continuing to run older, less efficient systems.
Council members also debated financing mechanics. Some said the leasing structure spread costs without showing them on the city’s general obligation debt tables; others recommended direct bonding or piecemeal projects targeted by priority and with competitive bids.
After discussion, the ordinance vote failed. The motion to adopt Ordinance O25‑17 was moved by Council member Kavanaugh and seconded (second not specified in the record). The roll call recorded the following votes: Council member Kavanaugh — Aye; Council member Madovetsky — Aye; Council member Hotchkiss — No; Council member Middleton — No; Council member Murray — No; Council member Rathbone/Rathmell — No. The clerk announced, “That is 2‑5,” and the ordinance did not pass.
Council members asked that, if the city pursues efficiency upgrades, staff return with clearer scope, documentation of inspections, competitive procurement options and specifically identified funding or grant dependencies for EV chargers and other incentives.
The council did not adopt the Siemens agreement and left open the possibility of restarting the process with greater council involvement and clearer procurement steps.
