At this past Tuesday's meeting of the Belmont Light Board, the man squarely in the very hot seat was Belmont Municipal Light Department's General Manager Tim Richardson.

The head of the town's electrical utility is the subject of serious accusations of mismanagement and stonewalling information on a nearly 20 percent increase in the cost of the 115 kV transmission substation the BMLD has fought long to bring online.

While he did make a brief statement at the beginning of the meeting and protested some of the allegations made against him, Richardson was never provided an opportunity to provide some of the rational behind the sudden jump in the price tag of a project.

And since the meeting, Richardson and the BMLD have yet to make a comment on the allegations by the Department's independent Advisory Board and blunt criticism from the three-member Light Board (made up of the Board of Selectmen).

Now, a memo written by Richardson in early September to the Advisory Board was released by the Belmont Board of Selectmen's office, giving a first glimpse at Richardson's explanation of the cost overrun as well as his defense of the team set to build the substation.

What is missing in this memo and would first be revealed in a Sept. 13 BMLD meeting was that Richardson had known of two major recalculations totaling $7 million in June, but did not tell the Advisory Board of those increases until that meeting.

Read the memo, located on this web page.

In the memo – referencing the "Recent 115kV Cost Impact" – sent after the Sept. 8 meeting of the Advisory Board but before his meeting with the independent group on Sept. 13, Richardson acknowledged that unspecific cost increases was going to ratchet up the total cost for the new substation to $47 million.

That would be a $9 million increase from the long accepted price tag of $38 million the BMLD announced in June when it selected the Purecoat North location on Hittinger.

"Hopefully Town Meeting members will be open to understanding the recent changes and the relative economics of the proposals," said Richardson of the cost increase.

He said the price hike was due to a better comprehensive analysis of routing costs, a revised design requirement from NStar for the cable system, and, what is becoming the most contentious increase, "an underestimation" by substation consultant CEG, Inc. of the number of cables required to supply the substation.

While Richardson did not reveal in the Sept. 8 memo how much each revision increased the project's cost, at Tuesday's Light Board meeting, Ashley Brown, chairman of the Advisory Board, said the consultant's "mistake" added $5 million to the substation's bottom line. He also said the NStar changes came in at $2 million.

Richardson's memo said the engineering estimates CEG would use to determine the material and labor costs by "analyzing similar construction projects" and "through informal quotes to vendors."

Brown and the Advisory Board later discovered that the genesis of the engineering mistake occurred when CEG used a vendor's construction cost estimate that inserted the incorrect number of cables, using one rather than the three required for the job according to Nstar's own specifications.

Richardson said during a June review of the project did CEG discovered its mistake after an Nstar engineer "commented that BMLD's transmission cable component costs appeared low" on the project spreadsheet.

And while Richardson voiced his concern that CEG's error – one which the MLAB's Brown said was on the level of "electrical engineering 101" – would hurt BMLD's efforts and impact on the process, "(H)owever, unfortunate this calculation error is, I must emphasize that I have the utmost respect for the quality and accuracy of CEG's work, and the project is best served by moving forward on the project with CEG."

That unwavering support for the Hopedale, Mass. firm is not shared with others. Tuesday, Brown suggested that the firm be "fired" for two glaring errors in its due diligence of the project.

Brown said accepting the calculations of a vendor apparently without seeking more information from additional suppliers or outside sources "is just inexcusable for a firm dealing with this complex project."

In addition to accepting an incorrect amount, Selectman and Light Board member Ralph Jones said for the error to be caught after an initial $38 million cost estimate was made public in June, "shows that they failed on quality control."

Ralph said it should be standard procedure for spreadsheets to be reviewed to find just these sorts of "miscalculations."

Yet in his memo, Richardson dismiss accusations made by some Advisory Board members "that there is a lack of oversight for BMLD's project team" – which Richardson notes that some Board members called "all of Tim's friend – and that is the likely cause of the estimating error."

Richardson noted that each company retained by BMLD "all have significant experience in transmission projects."

"Since the engineering and cost analysis impacts each area of expertise, we all have reviewed cost estimates and question their relevance and accuracy," said Richardson, a claim that Jones on Tuesday found without merit.

"It was a real blunder on (CEG's) part not to have know about the error," said Jones.

Yet Richardson appears willing to defend the substation's project team's professionalism at the expense of the substation.

"I have found (the project team) to be professional and knowledgeable in their area of expertise. If the board feels that this is not the case, then we should discuss the wisdom of proceeding with this project at this time," said Richardson.