Brick Council Authorizes $34M in Solar Project Bonds
Bonds will not be repaid by taxpayers, however
The township council voted to authorize $34 million in bonds which will fund the construction of a solar field at the former French's Landfill site in the township's Herbertsville section.
Though the township will borrow the money, it will be paid back by Standard Alternative, LLC, the company that will redevelop the former federal Superfund site.
The council voted 6-1 in favor of the project, with Councilman Jim Fozman representing the sole 'no' vote.
Though the bond authorization allows for the bonds to be repaid over a period of up to 20 years, the redeveloper's agreement calls for the money to be repaid in 15 years or less.
Over those 15 years, Standard Alternative will own the solar array that is expected to be built at the site, but will pay annual lease payments to the township and provide the township will heavily discounted electricity.
After the 15 year lease ends, the township will take full control of the solar array and will be able to use the energy produced to fully cover the township and BTMUA's energy bills and generate additional revenue, officials have said.
The solar panels have a working life of between 20 and 30 years, according to Sam Faivus, president of Standard Alternative.
Some of the details of the deal – specifically, whether the town should share in the profits of the solar renewable energy certificates revenue generated by the site – are still being worked out. If the prices of the certificates, known as SRECs, rise significantly they could be worth millions of dollars.
But while the idea received broad council support, Fozman said the deal with Standard Alternative was not as good for the township as he would have hoped.
"Solar fields are good. There's nothing wrong with solar fields," said Fozman. "I didn't like the art of the deal."
Fozman said he was concerned that the SREC program would end in 15 years, just as the township would take full control of the array.
"I was looking for a better deal out of this whole thing," he said.
But Council President John Ducey said the governing body is working on a revised deal – the details of which can not yet be revealed due to ongoing negotiations – with Standard Alternative that could produce additional revenue for the township.
"The terms are better than what we had before Jan. 1," said Ducey, adding that an offer to share in potential SREC revenue is already on the table.
The landfill site, located off Sally Ike Road, is currently being capped.
The township has owned the site since the 1970s. The landfill itself had operated from the late 1940s to April 1979.
clamdigger
7:46 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
there is a list of 5 other businesses at the address listed for Standard.
1.is a smoke shop
2.a cleaner
3.a construction co.
4.a development co.
5.an architect
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?encType=1&where1=235+Hudson+St%2c+Hoboken%2c+NJ+07030&cp=40.739006~-74.029282&qpvt=235+Hudson+Street%2c+Suite+1Hoboken%2c+NJ+07030&FORM=MIRE#
up start companies like this are the result of Pres.Obama and his drive for upstart solar entities. Personally I would have chosen Trinity or another large established co whose name I can't reacll off the top of my head right now.
54321
11:58 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Worst comment ever. Its an office building in Hoboken! who gives a shit who their neighbors are?!?! Know it all d bag. Complaining just to complain. Shut up!
clamdigger
10:41 am on Sunday, April 1, 2012
yes you are right, it's a business suite,not a residential address as some people have posted.
BoomBoom13
9:24 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
who is paying to cap it? how long till the installation of solar panels start? Is this a union job?
brick strong
10:39 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Mayors uncle Vito's union ..
BW
9:41 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
""But Council President John Ducey said the governing body is working on a revised deal – the details of which can not yet be revealed due to ongoing negotiations – with Standard Alternative that could produce additional revenue for the township."""
WEEEEEEEEEE looks like we have another foodtown deal here. Nothing will get done or money change hands until the "negotiations" are finished...POLITICS AS USUAL IN BRICK
Mrgrumpass
4:48 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Did you actually think the new council members would be any different than their predecessors! They will promos you the world to get your vote than they count on you having a short memory for the next election. They have been in office nearly 1/3rd of a year and they have saved Bick how much? I will speak up for what is right as well as what is wrong with Brick town
John C
9:25 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
of course it is the same they are both redevelopment sites so the town could control what was built rather than let a developer run wild with the sites.
Jerseyclone
9:53 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
my house is going on the market--it sells i am out of at least brick if not nj. you can not give a contract of this magnitude to a lawyer to build. it is just stupid.
John C
9:25 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
bye see ya
brick strong
10:37 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Maybe they can put big trailer's along the fence with pretty pictures to make site not as much of an eye sore ?? this is another waste of tax payers money ..WHERE'S THE TAX CUTS THAT WERE PROMISED ?????
peaches
11:34 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
that's why the more tax money they get, the more they spend. tax and spend, tax and spend. they will never look out for the people. why should they. they keep getting voted back in, from stupid people with just their ideology the most important thing to them.
Sal Petoia
10:42 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Did someone really run the numbers on this? So ideally, in 20 years the panels may need to be replaced, maybe sooner since it is the solar people who are predicting the life span. What does Brick do then and what will the cost to the taxpayers? Sean is absolutely correct. This should have gone to a referendum with all the facts and figures presented to the public. I see another "Ice Palace" deal here. Maybe the "StopOverSpending" group should be reactivated for this one, too.
Sal Petoia
11:51 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Council members: How about an ordinance that requires any bonding over $2 million be approved by the residents by referendum? Exceptions would be bonafide emergencies. The Republicans tried to force the Ice Palace down our throats until it was blocked by the SOS campaign. Hope the Democrats don't follow their example!
IGGY
4:54 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Also......there is a maintance issue to think about.....cleaning of panels ect.
John C
9:27 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
yeah Sal the Financial Advisors for the town, come on now you know how this works. and the info has been on the patch and repeated at ever town meeting and article on the topic
John C
9:28 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
enough with the referendum nonsense for every darn project....nothing will ever get done. Vote for the candidates that you think will make the best decisions for the town
brick strong
10:34 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Hey John C..A referendum is the only way the tax payers get a say on what we agree or disagree on how they spend our money..And as far as putting the right people in office we have tried over the years and continue to get screwed no matter party we talk about ..Its all B.S. AND WHAT CAN I DO FOR ME ..NOT FOR THE PEOPLE OF BRICKTOWN ..
Sal Petoia
8:58 am on Friday, March 30, 2012
Sure, John C, you got yours but the hell with those of us who have to foot the bill. What's wrong with letting the people decide by referendum? After all, it's their money, right? Maybe you believe just because somebody wins an election that they are endowed with a magical ability to spend money wisely. Frankly, the track record of elected officials hasn't been too good. I will trust the will of the people before I trust any elected politician!
George
12:45 pm on Sunday, April 1, 2012
I agree with you Sal this bonding issue sounds too good to be true.
BW
11:56 am on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Sal, while I am all for that, it would be very difficult this time. Steve and his band of clowns pass an ordinance right after the OIP debacle saying we now have to get a "permit" from townhall and a letter from the property owner to collect signatures in front of the stores like last time.
And you know they would hold up the permit until the 20 days was passed before issuing a permit.
Sal Petoia
12:13 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
BW: Somehow that doesn't "sound" legal, especially trying to block the people's will by holding any permits. Flys in the face of the Optional Municipal Charter Law which gives people the right to petition under the provisions of Initiative and Referendum. Can any legal types verify?
BW
12:15 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Sal I totally agree. But as you know he has the law changed to benefit himself. Remember the election sign ordinance? He had it changed so he could have his signs up longer.
Vince Latchford
12:23 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I'm skeptical of this deal. It sounds like a middleman/slaesman is the main party to the contract. The big company who is actually building it has the deep pockets, but no obligation if problems develop.
Actually, I'm curious about a number of things happening in Brick. I've been here 40 years and permits to sell liquor were very restricted. Now we have two gigantic liquor stores going up within months. Is there a new Town policy?
Tonight the Planning Board will hear an application for some company to construct seven (7) "Wind Turbines" off Old Hooper avenue behind the Harbor Freight tool store, and pretty much no one in Brick even knows that the Planning Board may grant both preliminary and final approval for this project at 7PM tonight at Town Hall.
No publicity, no public discussion nobody even knows it's happening and we either wind up with a wind farm in the middle of town, or the company gets approval, and then when the public raises a stink, sues the Town for millions for "Financial Hardship". What the H... is happening in Brick????
CShorShell
1:17 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Vince - That's a scary concept if they are actually considering putting wind turbines off Old Hooper. I read an article a number of months ago, and for the life of me I can't remember where this happened, but basically a wind turbine farm went up somewhere resulting in a MAJOR lawsuit from the residents that lived by it, because the turbines caused this flapping sound that was very disturbing AND there was a serious sun glare problem with the sun bouncing off the blades. I am the last person to advocate suing over diminishing quality of life, BUT this scenario had me thinking that these people had every right to sue. Not good. Not good at all. Those things belong off shore somewhere, not in the middle of a town. Enough with all this GREEN SHIT!!! It's complete hogwash!
rose.
12:12 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Brick is failing time to move cannot pay any more
peaches
11:36 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
me too Rose. i would leave tomorrow if i could.
Joseph Lamb
12:55 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
When Sam Faivus was asked about the warranties for Inverters and what the cost was for Inverters, Sam said that Standard Alternative purchased extended warranties on the Inverters but he couldn't recall the cost of the Inverters even though his comment was that the Inverters were a major expense.
Inverters are generally warranted for 5-7 years. How do you not have a general idea of the cost when it's your business and it's expensive?
CShorShell
1:25 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Agreed! And how do you go to a meeting without those numbers in hand when you know that's the first question someone is going to ask?!
John C
9:31 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
I guess he should have made up a number just like you do with alll the crazy numbers you make up and pull out of the air Joe.
CShorShell
1:26 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Skeptical....definitely skeptical about this whole thing.
NP
2:10 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Check out the SREC prices March 2011 $640 vs March 2012 $145. They are nose diving.
Mrgrumpass
4:34 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Councilman Fozman’s wife Vera must have sent him sent him orders via Blackberry how to vote, I see him looking down during council meetings, I’m sorry Jim did I let the lady cat out of the bag?
Seen Enough
7:57 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Now remember, the new council told us during the previous meeting they don't like being unfairly singled out no matter what their campaign platform was. Please don't pick on them.
What a town first Wolf napping during BOE meetings now this....
none of yobusiness
6:27 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I have a idea. How about we have our mayor and council get on some bicycles like they had on Gilligans Isle. At least i'll feel like im getting my monies worth out of them then. Were at it gather up the BTMUA and get tell them to start pedaling.
Chief Wahoo
6:35 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
i hope we all can agree, there is NO difference between Republicants and Demorats
peaches
11:40 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
In this state your right, CHIEF WAHOO
Kevin Koch
8:41 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
It seems as though every time I read the Patch it's being reported about how Brick is spending more and more money every damn day. I am so sick of hearing about Traders Cove, The Ice Palace, Foodtown, French's Landfill, now the friggin solar panels. You, our elected officials are reading this very post. How can you, our councilman and women, our neighbors, consciously continue to spend money we don't have. Bond this, bond that. How about BONDING MY ASS for the future of our town! Stop spending, and START CUTTING OUR FRIGGIN TAXES, AS YOU PROMISED..................... Everyone on here is telling you this. Open your ears and do it for the love of GOD!!!!!!
Jim
5:52 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Amen brother.
George
8:01 pm on Friday, March 30, 2012
This deal doesn't pass the sniff test
Kevin Koch
8:45 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Definitively time for another referendum... Joe Lamb, let's rock..
Kevin Koch
8:47 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
And shouldn't the council be worrying about how to save our Public Works Department rather than solar panels? So far out of touch it's friggin pathetic.
peaches
11:42 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
WATER BILL IS GOING UP AGAIN. THEY TELL YOU TO CONSERVE , THEN WHEN THE REVENUE GETS LOW . THEY RAISE PRICES. WHAT THE HELL DO THEY WANT FROM US PEOPLE??? BLOOD NEXT????
johny9179
11:22 pm on Friday, March 30, 2012
what ever happened to the resivour saving us all kinds of money. its just a glorified jogging track/dog walking track
johny9179
11:17 pm on Friday, March 30, 2012
I purchased my house in 2009 and my taxes are put into my payments. in the 2 plus years my monthly payments have gone up over $275 per month due to increased taxes.At this rate it will not be feesible to stay. Also, we continue to put solar panels up and in return were suppose to save money. I hope councilman know its not illegal to lower taxes.
Sal Petoia
8:26 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Johnny9179: It was never intended that the reservoir would save money. Its purpose was to protect the residents by providing water during a prolonged drought. Remember the water rationing days? Further, if the reservoir wasn't built there were plans to develop the land for residential use, so if you consider the impact of more school kids and services being avoided, the reservoir does in a way save us money. Plus, it's a great place to walk around and get some exercise. Go and enjoy it!
Reality
8:36 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Sal - I don't think most of us on here necessarily expect(ed) the reservoir would save money. What we are questioning is the FACT that ONLY BTMUA customers actually pay for the upkeep/staffing at the site. In these tough economic times, many BTMUA customers can no longer afford to subsidize luxuries - especially for others who are not sharing in the financial burden. We are looking for our govnerment entities to cut back, rather than expand, and to cost us less, not more.
ABy the way, I do agree with previous posters that we need to start cutting from the top at the BTMUA.
Sal Petoia
11:51 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Realty: My post is only in defense of the reservoir. One day water will be a very important a commodity. Who ever thought that people would be willing to pay over a dollar for a bottle of water? But they do. The reservoir gives Brick residents an edge over surrounding communities when a lack of rainfall requires limits on consumption and water rationing. So, a "luxury" it is not. It's insurance that provides uninterrupted service to all of us. Of course... I'm somewhat biased, having served as a commissioner when the reservoir was being planned and built. But I do agree that there are many areas where savings can be implemented or where poor decisions, both at the MUA and at the township, have caused the expenditure of more money than was necessary. I opposed the acquisition of the Ice Palace purchase and chaired the SOS campaign to let the people decide the issue. I am in agreement with many on this site who have doubts about spending $34 million for the solar panels. Maybe it's a good deal, but without more facts, I am not yet convinced. What is troubling is that this deal was pretty much done under the Republican controlled council. I would have expected the newly elected Dems to have put a hold on it until they thoroughly researched it, unless it was too far "down the road" for them to have blocked it. My take is that when it comes to elections, we need a wider field of candidates, and we'll only get that under a non-partisan form of government.
RedHeadTaxpayer
10:03 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Standard Alternative's facebook page says it was founded in 2011. Do you think it's wise to hand 34 million dollars over to a company with no track record?
Sal Petoia
10:08 am on Sunday, April 1, 2012
LBL: You are so far off with your insinuations. Let me enlighten you. The reservoir came in under budget and on schedule. $2 million was saved in the excavation process. Your Republican friends were ready to award a contract for that amount, but I and others argued that all of that soil was a saleable commodity that a contractor would make even more money by selling it. One Republican commissioner complained that if we had to go out again with bids we would lose three months on the schedule. Those of us opposed to spending $2 million won out, and our engineer was successful in finding a source for the soil. Monmouth County Reclamation Commission agreed to remove the soil at no cost to the BTMUA so that they could use it to cap their landfill in Tinton Falls. $2 million, my "friend"… $2 million!!! Saved! Would you like to complain about that? No "thanks" necessary…. we were just doing the job we were appointed to do.
George
4:32 pm on Sunday, April 1, 2012
There are way too many unanswered questions with this 34 million dollar bond issue.