For your information, I am posting the links to the various germain Council Meeting minutes below.
The date of each meeting is in the link as follows, year (2014) then month (07), then day (01).
As of now, the minutes from Aug. 5 or 12 are not yet posted.
http://www.ohara.pa.us/agenda/20140701ws.pdf
http://www.ohara.pa.us/agenda/20140715spws.pdf
http://www.ohara.pa.us/agenda/20140304ws.pdf
I will add links as they become available.
Tom Portante
NOTE: IF YOUR BROWSER DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY TAKE THE LINK TO THE PDF FILE, YOU CAN COPY AND PAST IT INTO YOUR WEB ADDRESS LINE.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
At the Council meeting on August 12th, there were many more people there that spoke in opposition to the new building. As the discussion went on, it was apparent that Council, while still listening to the citizen comments, was anxious to get on with the business at hand. However, a former councilman, Joe Fraunholtz, addressed Council by quoting from the Home Rule Charter that the process that was being used to further this issue appeared to be invalid. It is a very complicated issue that I don't fully understand, so I don't feel comfortable writing about it here. At tonight's regularly scheduled Republican Committee meeting I expect that we will thoroughly discuss it to see what the prospects are for the contracts to be let. Please come by at 7 PM at the Council chambers to see what is happening.
Tom Portante
Tom Portante
Sunday, August 10, 2014
As I expected, there were many more people speaking in support of Council committing the taxpayers to finishing the new building than opposed. Most said how great it will be to have the new Community Building, but only a few spoke to remind everyone of the taxpayer financing of it.
The CCA asked that Council provide a "loan" to finish funding. Of course no one reminded the Council that there is no actual loan to the CCA since the CCA is not actually spending any money. Council will just refinance their existing municipal bond and add another $1.5 million or so to it to provide the ready cash when it is needed for construction. Although CCA said they will continue to raise funds once the construction contract is signed, the O'Hara taxpayer is on the hook essentially forever. I hope that CCA puts forth maximum effort, but, as many people there said, there is no guarantee that CCA can or will raise enough money.
A poll of the Council shows that a clear majority (at least 5 members) are voting to go on with the project. Bob Smith waved around a piece of paper that he said was a summary of his campaign promises of his several elections. One item on it was his commitment for the new building.
When I quoted Huck Vogel from March 4, 2014 when he said that he would max out O'Hara's commitment at $2 million, he said he was standing by that commitment, but insisted that "this just a loan, not giving it to CCA." The problem is the Twp. is taking out the loan, not to give to CCA, but to put it toward the building. So I ask, "What is the difference?" The taxpayer is responsible for paying it back, not the CCA. So Council is obligating the tax payer for $2 million out of reserves and $1.5 million in new borrowing. I see no difference since the taxpayer pays it all if CCA fails to raise more cash.
Those people who called or emailed me should not bother to come to the next meeting since the majority of Council has committed to the full project, including all extras.
Tom Portante
The CCA asked that Council provide a "loan" to finish funding. Of course no one reminded the Council that there is no actual loan to the CCA since the CCA is not actually spending any money. Council will just refinance their existing municipal bond and add another $1.5 million or so to it to provide the ready cash when it is needed for construction. Although CCA said they will continue to raise funds once the construction contract is signed, the O'Hara taxpayer is on the hook essentially forever. I hope that CCA puts forth maximum effort, but, as many people there said, there is no guarantee that CCA can or will raise enough money.
A poll of the Council shows that a clear majority (at least 5 members) are voting to go on with the project. Bob Smith waved around a piece of paper that he said was a summary of his campaign promises of his several elections. One item on it was his commitment for the new building.
When I quoted Huck Vogel from March 4, 2014 when he said that he would max out O'Hara's commitment at $2 million, he said he was standing by that commitment, but insisted that "this just a loan, not giving it to CCA." The problem is the Twp. is taking out the loan, not to give to CCA, but to put it toward the building. So I ask, "What is the difference?" The taxpayer is responsible for paying it back, not the CCA. So Council is obligating the tax payer for $2 million out of reserves and $1.5 million in new borrowing. I see no difference since the taxpayer pays it all if CCA fails to raise more cash.
Those people who called or emailed me should not bother to come to the next meeting since the majority of Council has committed to the full project, including all extras.
Tom Portante
Monday, August 4, 2014
Tuesday August 5th is shaping up to be a very contentious O'Hara Council meeting. Several people who are in favor of Council spending the extra $1.3 million tax dollars have contacted me to tell me I am being mean and selfish. I do wish that we could build it with donated money, rather than saddling the taxpayers with not only the initial capital cost, but the long-term risk of ongoing costs. Unfortunately, the private fund-raising has not met the requirements to complete the building.
I have also had several calls or emails in support of my concerns that the Township is over committing the taxpayers to a building that we cannot support without a tax increase or spending our ready reserves on something that is nice to have, but not a requirement for core township services.
Again, please attend the council meeting on Tuesday, August 5th at 7 PM at the township building.
Tom Portante
I have also had several calls or emails in support of my concerns that the Township is over committing the taxpayers to a building that we cannot support without a tax increase or spending our ready reserves on something that is nice to have, but not a requirement for core township services.
Again, please attend the council meeting on Tuesday, August 5th at 7 PM at the township building.
Tom Portante
Friday, August 1, 2014
The latest news is that the final number looks like the CCA is short by
$1,344,419. This will raise the taxpayer's total amount to at least
$3,344,419. The CCA has indicated that they will ask for a loan from the
Township to bridge the difference. My concern is that there are no
assets within the CCA to repay the loan. They are not legally
accountable for repayment. If they go out of business, there is no way
to recover any money. In addition, a loan of this amount would require a
repayment over 10 years at 1% interest of $17,170 per month. For 20
years, the amount is still $12,544 per month. I don't see that this
operation can generate anywhere near enough cash flow to cover this
payment. The other issue is collateral for the loan. The only thing that
can be used is the building itself, but the building is already owned by
the Township. Therefore, if the loan is not repaid, the township cannot
repossess a building that it already owns.
$1,344,419. This will raise the taxpayer's total amount to at least
$3,344,419. The CCA has indicated that they will ask for a loan from the
Township to bridge the difference. My concern is that there are no
assets within the CCA to repay the loan. They are not legally
accountable for repayment. If they go out of business, there is no way
to recover any money. In addition, a loan of this amount would require a
repayment over 10 years at 1% interest of $17,170 per month. For 20
years, the amount is still $12,544 per month. I don't see that this
operation can generate anywhere near enough cash flow to cover this
payment. The other issue is collateral for the loan. The only thing that
can be used is the building itself, but the building is already owned by
the Township. Therefore, if the loan is not repaid, the township cannot
repossess a building that it already owns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)