Quantcast
Channel: Sussex County
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2949

Morris freeholders defend $33M solar project after sheriff's criticisms

$
0
0

With 13 of the 30 planned solar installations unbuilt in Morris, the county is in the process of deciding which of the remaining facilities would work financially

MORRIS COUNTY -- The Morris County freeholders are defending their continuing work on the bailed-out solar project after a public campaign in opposition by Sheriff Edward Rochford.

The freeholders issued a statement Tuesday responding to robo-calls placed over the weekend by the sheriff, urging residents to attend a Monday night meeting by the Morris County Improvement Authority, which answered public questions about the status of the project.

County officials had planned to say which projects would be built, and which ones wouldn't, but delayed that decision to a future meeting pending a final analysis of the projects' financial "viability."

Of the 30 projects initially planned in Morris for school, municipal and county buildings, 13 remain unbuilt.


RELATED: Morris freeholders vote 4-3 to bail out $88M solar project

Rochford made the calls to 10,000 residents on behalf of the New Jersey Taxpayers Association, according to the freeholders.

According to the freeholders, Rochford told residents the board is talking about building more solar projects, even though the current ones are losing millions of dollars. Rochford urged residents to attend the Monday meeting.

Rochford has criticized the freeholders for continuing to pursue the $33.1 million project that required a $7 million payment to settle lawsuits that resulted from a dispute between the main contractor and the developer over cost overruns. The $33.1 bond issue in 2011 represents the county's share of an $88 million project that also involves Sussex and Somerset counties.

In March, the three counties approved a total $21 million bailout to settle lawsuits after an arbitrator awarded $66.3 million to the contractor, MasTec, which had sued the developer, SunLight General, which went into default.

Rochford and his aides, in past interviews, have pointed out that while the freeholders apparently have millions to spend on solar, they say they can't afford to pay the raises he negotiated for his officers on grounds they exceeded the state's 2 percent cap. Those contracts for 2015-2017 remain unresolved.

Rochford, who did not attend Monday's meeting, declined requests for comment afterwards.

Responding for the county, Freeholder David Scapicchio said in a statement, "Contrary to what Sheriff Rochford was telling people, the goal of our current solar or renewable energy project review is to minimize future potential exposure for our taxpayers, to help reimburse them for past losses and to ensure that any future steps we take are fiscally sound."


MORE: Financial feud between contractor and developer delays project

"I'm not sure what expertise Sheriff Rochford can offer on solar issues," Scapicchio added. "The sheriff's calls were odd -- like his behavior in the past year -- but he probably did us a favor to invite people to come out and be part of the discussion."

Another freeholder, John Krickus said, "While the solar program bonds were issued in 2010 and 2011 by a prior freeholder board, we have a fiduciary responsibility to Morris County taxpayers regardless of our prior misgivings. Our primary focus now is damage control, minimizing the losses the county may incur."

The county is now undertaking a process to determine the financial viability of moving ahead with the unbuilt sites. Work on the projects ground to a halt in 2013 amid the litigation.

The freeholders, in their statement, said they will get a final report "in the near future" from the improvement authority and the board's "build-no build committee" and will then announce which of the unbuilt projects will be constructed.

As for the effect of Rochford's robo-calls, county spokesman Larry Ragonese said they "didn't have any real major impact."

At the Monday meeting, Ragonese said, about 25 members of the public attended, but nearly all of them were "regulars" who frequently attend freeholder meetings and tend to question county spending items, particularly for the solar project.

Ragonese said there were just "three or four people" there who don't normally attend the meetings.

Ben Horowitz may be reached at bhorowitz@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @HorowitzBen. Find NJ.com on Facebook. 

Gallery preview 

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2949

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images