Binghamton council rejects 20-year Siemens energy contract after months of debate

Council members voted 2–5 on Wednesday to reject Ordinance 25-40, an agreement that would have authorized a long-term energy performance contract and financing arrangement with Siemens Industry that included lighting and HVAC upgrades, window solar film, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Nut graf: The ordinance prompted a lengthy public and council discussion over months about whether the city should accept a bundled lease-financing package from Siemens, rebid portions of the work, or perform some upgrades in-house. Proponents said the contract captured available federal and state incentives and included a performance guarantee; opponents criticized the length and cost of the lease, potential weakened bidder protections for the 2023 procurement and cited a separate, ongoing investigation in Rensselaer County involving Siemens contracts as a reason for caution. Council discussion and rationale: Council members who opposed the ordinance spoke against locking the city into a 20-year lease and questioned portions of the cost-benefit analysis. Several members raised that the city could realize a large share of the projected savings from programmable thermostats and LED lighting through in-house work or local competitive bidding, rather than a single vendor contract. Members also expressed concern about the structure of the financing, noting that the lease schedule defers principal reduction for many years and that the city’s new “lowest responsible bidder” protections did not apply to a solicitation procured in 2023. Supporters said the contract packaged multiple upgrades—including vehicle-charging infrastructure—so the city could capture time-limited federal and state incentives and available financing. They said Siemens provided a performance guarantee linking projected energy-cost savings to the lease payments and that rebidding or a piecemeal in-house approach risked losing grant or tax-credit funding for electric vehicle chargers. The city’s director of planning and legal counsel answered questions about the prior bid process and safeguards; planning staff said Siemens had been the low bidder when the work was procured and that the company performed the initial facility analysis used to size the project. Vote and formal action: The council held a roll-call vote that resulted in two votes in favor and five against; the motion to adopt Ordinance 25-40 failed. Recorded votes were: Council member Madovetsky — aye; Council member Kavanaugh — aye; Council member Rathmell — no; Council member Hotchkiss — no; Council member Middleton — no; Council member Murray — no; Council President Dunton — no. Context and next steps: Council members debated whether to rebid the project, to separate the EV charger work from lighting and HVAC upgrades, or to pursue bonding later if financing conditions improved. Some members urged the city to evaluate internal maintenance capacity and possible phased or local-bid approaches; others argued rebidding would delay access to diminishing external funds for EV infrastructure. No new formal direction to staff was recorded at the meeting to restart procurement; the ordinance was not adopted. Ending: The defeat leaves the city without the Siemens package as presented. Council members said they may revisit energy-efficiency projects and EV infrastructure through other procurement approaches or future proposals, and stressed that capture of expiring incentives will depend on whichever path the council chooses next.