UCUA Bailout Ordinance

One freeholder described the Union County Utilities Authority (UCUA) as finding itself in “a very precarious way” which is likely the driving force behind this bailout of an ordinance from tonight’s freeholder meeting:

771-2016 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE UNION COUNTY DISTRICT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO MODIFY THE UNION COUNTY DISTRICTSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN BY MODIFYING THE FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION COUNTY UNTILITIES AUTHORITY (UCUA) AND COVANTA UNION, LLC (COVANTA) BY EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-TWO (22) YEARS FROM DECEMBER 15, 2031 TO DECEMBER 15, 2053, RESULTING IN SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS TO THE UCUA THROUGH THE ELIMINATION OF THE WASTE DELIVERY OBLIGATION FOR 100,000 TONS ANNUALLY FROM GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY OF UNION.

Here’s something you don’t see every millenium:
.

.
Two freeholders voting no on an ordinance and they will explain later. For now here is the public portion on this ordinance with Q & As:
.

.
follow-up questions in open comment time:
.

.
freeholder explanations of no votes:
.

.
Next we will review all the paperwork we have on this so you can see for yourself the real story behind this ordinance but, before that, here is the Cranford football team being presented something:
.

Advertisements

2 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by bpaterson on February 19, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Although, I never got to finish the dialogue on the UCUA extension ordinance before it was approved, the issue I touched upon was that back in 2011, the UCUA was obligated for chasing another 100,000 tons waste from outside union county. Back then, all agreed meeting that extra waste obligation may not happen and what I read from the 2/2011 economic analysis report was that the UCUA was ok in that a $2.5 million was in the Covanta lease payment to UCUA that would cover that shortfall. This I read into the record. however, back then the county government for no reason what so all decided to take that $2 mill excess for their own county operations, the irony is that the county sends no waste to the incinerator directly yet took the benefit of the $2 million. The following years the UCUA couldn’t meet its obligation of the extra 100,000 tons waste and so ended up paying Covanta the shortage monies of $2 mill/year. The shortfall was then covered only by UCUA reserve surplus. it is used up. So instead of the county returning the ill-gotten $2mill/year the UCUA is forced to extend a lease out to year 2053 which as I noted, no one in the room will even be around by then. They mortgaged the future ratepayers. This is completely absurd. They cut me off at 5 minutes on a dire issue that needed to be explained to them to understand the fiasco, but the county is making the extra $2mill for nothing so why should they care.

    Reply

  2. Posted by Rich Fortunato on February 19, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Filtering out the big portion of Freeholder Estrada’s statement which consisted of defending his right to vote no, it seemed as if he might actually have disagreed with the ordinance. Surprising. It was a little tough to figure out what specifically he objected to though, at least to me. He ought to have been a bit more specific as to his concerns.

    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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: