Paying for Solar Panel Fiasco

As taken from the Official Statement the repayment schedule for the Solar Panel bonds is:

solar panel bond repayments

As it turned out:

The revenues generated by the Renewable Energy Projects are principally proceeds from the sale of SRECs and proceeds from the sale of electric energy to various governmental entities in the County. Under the Lease Agreement, the revenues generated are credited against the Company’s obligation to make the lease payments. Due principally to the drop in SREC prices since the time the Renewable Energy Bonds were issued, the Renewable Energy Projects are not currently generating revenues sufficient to satisfy the Company’s lease payment obligations under the Lease Agreement in full and, therefore, are not sufficient to pay the full amount of debt service on the Renewable Energy Bonds.
But with Tioga bankrupt who now is responsible for coming up with the money to make those bond payments?

In the same Material Event Notice dated October 19, 2015 from which the quote above was taken we have this explanation:
All debt service payments due from the time the Authority declared the Company in default under the Lease Agreement, through and including the April 15, 2015, interest payment, were paid by the Authority, in full when due, from a combination of accumulated revenues, other amounts held under the Renewable Energy Bonds bond resolution (the “Bond Resolution”), and funds provided by the Authority. The County was not required to make a payment under the County Guaranty. The County had appropriated in the 2015 budget sufficient monies to pay the entire $1,267,810.00 principal and interest payment on the Renewable Energy Bonds that was due on October 15, 2015 (as well as the $252,810.00 interest payment due on April 15, 2015 which did not require any payment under the County Guaranty). Pursuant to the County Guaranty, the County was required to pay an amount of $960,321.57 that, together with $261,212.57 of available monies on deposit in the Debt Service Fund and $46,275.86 of available monies on deposit in the Revenue Fund of the Bond Resolution, was sufficient to pay the principal of, and interest due on, the Renewable Energy Bonds on October 15, 2015. The County intends to appropriate sufficient monies in the 2016 budget to pay for all debt service due on the Renewable Energy Bonds in 2016.The Authority is exploring the feasibility of refinancing the Renewable Energy Bonds in an effort to structure debt service payments that more closely match revenues.
So what then is the plan for coming up with the money? Ordinance 775-2016 offers a clue which we will explore in the next blog on debt issues that came up at the last freeholder meeting.

4 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by steve on May 31, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    An amazing shell game–I would feel much more comfortable if they just took my money to Las Vegas or how about nj lottery tickets –The bankers win again—-(and the best I can get is point 3 percent)pay off credit with credit–or is it debt with credit? I Think i am Politically Correct Confused –P-C-C-


  2. Posted by ReadsLikeAMafiaBook on June 1, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    So Jonathan Williams, Esq. made promises to the Union County taxpayers as to how good this solar scam was (even though his shit firm Decotiis had a conflict IMO by promising all of its County clients the same bullshit) and now not only do the retard entities that joined up for the scam have to repay the bonds, but those towns/cities and whatnot who were smart enough not to join have to pay?

    There has to be something criminal here.

    No wonder Jonathan Williams, Esq. doesn’t come to Union County Freeholder meetings anymore telling the Freeholder-know-nothing puppets how good this deal is anymore.

    In fact, the UC freeloaders should be suing his firm, but alas, DeCotiis is a strong campaign contributor to the UC freeholder know-nothings.

    Any good lawyer (none of which are in Union County government) would offer up Jonathan William’s videos where he made pie-in-the-sky promises as Exhibit A for malpractice and conflict of interest, but no … campaign contributions trump all that … taxpayers be damned.

    Same shit with all the other failed projects DeCotiis was involved with.

    Campaign contributions gives the DeCotiis law firm IMMUNITY.


  3. […] means that when you add it all up and if the county has to make good on all guarantees (which in one case they are essentially doing with another likely) gross debt, based on the latest data available, […]


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: