UCIA Scrambling For Cash

According to their 2015 schedule the next meeting of the Union County Improvement Authority (UCIA) commissioners is set for October 7 yet there is a need to have a special meeting  tomorrow to discuss:

Authorizing the issuance and sale of County Guaranteed Revenue Bonds, Oakwood plaza, Elizabeth, NJ

Then on the agenda for tonight’s freeholder meeting there is this resolution to be approved unanimously:

2015-800: Authorizing the County Manager to enter into a Shared Services Agreement by and between the County of Union and the Union County Improvement Authority for Architectural Services for Strategic Facility Planning Services.

which was discussed in executive session at last week’s agenda setting meeting.

Why the rush to have a special UCIA meeting tomorrow to get a bond issue to market and to have a Shared Services Agreement between the county and the UCIA in place (likely meaning the county will write a big check to the UCIA as reimbursement for architectural services on various projects but that question will be asked tonight – and not by the freeholders)?

October 15 is when the UCIA has to come up with about $500,000 to make the payment on those Solar Panel bonds to avoid an official default.

Within the latest county bond disclosure document there is a section (pages 22-23) titled ‘Lease Payment Default in County Guaranteed UCIA Renewable Energy Bond Issue’ which ends:

With respect to the upcoming October 15, 2015 principal and interest payment, the UCIA is exploring, and intends to undertake, a refinancing of the Renewable Energy Bonds to more closely match revenues with debt service. If it is determined that a refinancing is not possible, the UCIA intends to make the October 15, 2015 payment from a combination of accumulated revenues, other amounts held under the Bond Resolution, funds provided from the ABC distribution process, and funds provided by the UCIA.

The UCIA has advised the County that it is closely monitoring the situation and the UCIA intends to keep the County informed of all developments. The County makes no representations as to whether the Projects will be self-sufficient in the future.

The UCIA has advised that it intends to use funds available to it to cover any deficiency in debt service on the Renewable Energy Bonds. In the event that a deficiency in lease payments occurs, and funds are not available from any other source to cover such deficiency, the County may be required to make payments under its guaranty of the Renewable Energy Bonds. Such payments would not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the County.

 

4 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by bpaterson on September 24, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    the last paragraph is certainly interesting to read. The county is sitting on $18-23 million that the county govt hid inside their budget. They, possibly senator lesniak who as poltical boss of the area, controls the county so designated the powers put up FH Hudak as finance chair in charge of the budget process. Hudak was a good choice (for them) as he is totally clueless on any financial matters and the powers slid by all that extra hidden money in the budget. If only Hudak was to ask one simple question during the budget process: “The county supported Runnels operations with $15 million annually. Now that the county sold Runnels, we should see a savings of $15 million in the budget.” It would have been so simple, but Hudak was the dupe in the process and the taxpayers got screwed since the taxes then went up another $8 million.

    Back to the UCIA-the county gots the money, and the UCIA wants some of it. The q is how to go about transferring it from the county to the UCIA without the FHs admitting publicly that the bond is in default. Smartly, JB1 has focused on the above reso as the perfect vehicle, some vague resolution. It needs to be done now to get the money in the UCIA hand by October’s end deadline. In the past year to avoid the public admittance it was the transfer of monies by various studies. This scam is perpetrated on the UCIA end by ex-FH Sullivan who was embattled by the embezzlement pay scandal when he became director of the UCIA. Perfect. And sullivan is even a larger idiot than Hudak if you can believe that. Both are complicit in this corruption.

    So again the scam is on, and luckily thanks to the untiring investigative reporting of the watchdogs, the readers of this blog understand just how the county govt corruption is being secretly done.

    Its time to go to your local governing bodies and get them to hold back the county portion of tax since its not a county anymore but a criminal enterprise. Write letters to the authorities such as the NJOSC and your legislators.

    Reply

  2. I have a feeling UCIA needs money soon for the next FAILED solar project.

    At this time, those public entities in Union County who didn’t believe the DeCottis law firm that it wouldn’t pay any monies, which is a lie or malpractice, are they paying monies towards the failed solar project?

    Never mind the DeCottis law firm’s IMO, conflict of interest in representing various entities that would be competing against each other in the solar market.

    Reply

  3. Posted by SHKNY on September 25, 2015 at 9:07 am

    One possible explanation appeared in politickernj.com:

    “Sweeney explained that input was taken from the county officials to “get their direct input on challenges they face and identify actions that can be taken to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of county government.”

    Sweeney’s six proposals include:

    Expanded Cap Law to Control Spending Increases (S3168). Proposes a two percent limit on annual increases to how much of a county’s property tax levy is given to county independent agencies.

    Hotel Tax Dedicated to Tax Relief (S3169). Gives counties the ability to impose a one percent tax on hotel stays. According to Weinberg, who sponsored the bill, this will allow for visitors to the state to help fund county services.

    Government Accountability (S3170).
    Adds the County Superintendent of Elections to the list of officials subject to annual administrative code requirements.

    PILOT Transparency (S3019). Requires tax abatement agreements to be filed with the county finance officer and counsel.

    Court Security Paid by Court Users (S663). Levies a $5 increase in court fees for all criminal and domestic courts to pay for security.

    Court Security (S2200). Allows for all county sheriffs to appoint “class two” (part time) officers to perform security duties

    So it might be more difficult to move money around going forward. However, in all of this, nothing about pension or benefit liabilities; and nothing directly speaking to accumulated debt service.

    Reply

  4. […] (UCIA) has gotten about $30 million* from county taxpayers since 2004, lately to keep from defaulting on bonds from an inane solar panel scheme. That amount is headed higher with another deal going […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: