Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Array topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warner voters defeat amended warrant to fund municipal solar array
Summary
On March 9, 2016, Warner voters rejected an amended warrant (Article 3) to raise $364,900 for a municipal solar array at the transfer station; the paper-ballot vote was 139–77, short of the two-thirds threshold required for passage. Supporters pointed to estimated long-term electric-cost savings; opponents and the ballot requirement left the measure short of the supermajority.
Moderator Ray Martin opened the March 9, 2016 Warner Annual Town Meeting and read Article 3, a warrant asking voters to raise funds and authorize bonding under RSA 33 to construct a municipal solar array on town land near the transfer station. The original article proposed $392,400; an amendment reduced the total to $364,900.
The warrant text read aloud noted, "It is estimated that the town will realize a net savings in the costs of electric power after loan payments starting in the first full year of power generation from the solar array," language the Moderator read as part of the article. Selectman Kathy Carson, who also serves on the Energy Committee, presented a cost breakdown and a Google Earth image of the proposed site; she told voters that an Eversource equipment charge included in the warrant would "likely be closer to $2,500 and not $30,000." Harmony Energy Works president George Harrock provided information about his company and responded to a citizen handout that had been available before the meeting.
Carson moved an amendment to reduce the project cost by $27,500; the assembly approved the amendment by voice vote and the Moderator said a paper-ballot vote would follow and remain open for one hour because the article required a two-thirds majority. When ballots were counted the amended Article 3 returned YES 139, NO 77. The Moderator announced the amended article failed to reach the two-thirds threshold required for passage.
A subsequent motion to reconsider the article was put to paper ballot (YES 77, NO 85) and failed. Voters then approved a motion restricting reconsideration on Article 3, meaning the article cannot be brought forward for another vote for seven days in a properly warned meeting.
The meeting record shows proponents emphasized expected long-term savings and cited available rebates and grant opportunities, while the need for a two-thirds threshold and the split in support prevented adoption at this session. No bond issuance or financing actions were authorized as a result of the failed vote. The Moderator then proceeded with the remaining warrant articles.
