Morrisville Borough Council delays vote on approval of streetlights
Advance Correspondent
Morrisville Borough Council has delayed the vote on an ordinance to formally approve a $1.25-million financing package to replace more than 600 streetlights with state-of-the-art LED lamps.
Because the ordinance was not properly advertised as required by state law, the Aug. 19 scheduled vote had to be postponed until Aug. 26 at 7:00 p.m., when borough council will officially reconvene to decide the matter.
In July, council had voted 5-3 to approve the financing from TD Bank to pay for the 17-year contract already signed with Johnson Controls, Inc., the company that will perform the streetlight replacement and energy upgrade in Morrisville.
Council members Eileen Dreisbach, Todd Sanford and Debbie Smith had voted against the financing package last month. All three have repeatedly opposed the project, and are expected also to vote against it at the Aug. 26 meeting.
Even though the contract with the firm is already signed, under state law, an ordinance is required in order to technically fund the project so that it can get underway.
The borough would borrow the money from TD Bank at a 2.99-percent interest rate.
According to Bates, Morrisville would save $307,000 in energy costs over the length of the contract. If the project is approved, every streetlight in Morrisville would be replaced with the same LED lamps and wattage, something which Council President Nancy Sherlock has said “will make the town very attractive and uniform.”
Currently, the borough pays about $120,000 a year in electricity to keep the streetlights on, a cost would be reduced to around $70,000 annually with high-energy efficient lighting which is guaranteed to last 30 years.
Besides the electric costs, Morrisville spends around $25,000 each year to maintain the streetlights and replace the existing bulbs.
However, there is some issue whether the mayor can technically veto the ordinance, or whether her authority does not extend to financial matters, such as funding this contract.
If Ledger does veto the project, six of the eight council members then would be needed to vote for an override. Overturning a possible veto could be an uphill battle given that both the financing package and preparing an ordinance to pay for the Johnson Controls contract both were approved by only a 5-3 margin.
In February, council had voted 5-3 to formally approve the contract with Johnson Controls, but not motion was made at the time of how to pay for it.
The borough manager had prepared loan options from five different lending institutions, including TD Bank and Green Partners, LLC, a private investment firm which underwrites energy-saving projects.
According to Bates, he decided recommend that borough council accept the TD Bank offer because there were some “sticking points” to the Green Partners package which prevented the borough from going to settlement on that loan in late June.
In addition to the LED streetlights, Johnson Controls would replace windows and insulation in the 64-year-old borough hall, as well as new heating and air conditioning installed. Electronic sensors would also be placed in the municipal building, as well as the library and garage.
The cable-TV system that broadcasts council meetings also would be modernized.
In other news, council was updated on the issue of the now-shuttered community pool on Delmorr Avenue of which the borough has agreed to assumed ownership.
The borough manager announced that Bucks County Common Pleas Court has appointed attorney Catherine Ann Porter as the receiver for the site. Porter is also Langhorne borough solicitor.
According to Bates, settlement will be scheduled in the next two to three months, after which the borough finally will assume ownership of the property.
“Council has said it will not decide what to do with the pool until they own it,” Bates explained.
In February, council had voted 5-3 to formally approve the contract with Johnson Controls, but not motion was made at the time of how to pay for it.
The borough manager had prepared loan options from five different lending institutions, including TD Bank and Green Partners, LLC, a private investment firm which underwrites energy-saving projects.
According to Bates, he decided recommend that borough council accept the TD Bank offer because there were some “sticking points” to the Green Partners package which prevented the borough from going to settlement on that loan in late June.
In addition to the LED streetlights, Johnson Controls would replace windows and insulation in the 64-year-old borough hall, as well as new heating and air conditioning installed. Electronic sensors would also be placed in the municipal building, as well as the library and garage.
The cable-TV system that broadcasts council meetings also would be modernized.
In other news, council was updated on the issue of the now-shuttered community pool on Delmorr Avenue of which the borough has agreed to assumed ownership.
The borough manager announced that Bucks County Common Pleas Court has appointed attorney Catherine Ann Porter as the receiver for the site. Porter is also Langhorne borough solicitor.
According to Bates, settlement will be scheduled in the next two to three months, after which the borough finally will assume ownership of the property.
“Council has said it will not decide what to do with the pool until they own it,” Bates explained.
The community pool has been a headache for borough leaders ever since it closed and the borough agreed to take over ownership.
In other action, council approved the planning commission’s recommendations concerning the subdivision and lot line plans for the expansion of the Morrisville Fire Department headquarters on North Pennsylvania Avenue.
At issue were impervious surface and open space ratios for the parcel, which is zoned R-2A residential.
In an 8-0 vote, council also proclaimed September as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month in Morrisville and endorsed the “Turn the Town Teal” campaign, in which teal-colored ribbons are placed on trees and other structures in the borough.
In other action, council approved the planning commission’s recommendations concerning the subdivision and lot line plans for the expansion of the Morrisville Fire Department headquarters on North Pennsylvania Avenue.
At issue were impervious surface and open space ratios for the parcel, which is zoned R-2A residential.
In an 8-0 vote, council also proclaimed September as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month in Morrisville and endorsed the “Turn the Town Teal” campaign, in which teal-colored ribbons are placed on trees and other structures in the borough.
26 comments:
The article says that according to Bates, Morrisville would save $307,000 in energy costs over the length of the contract.
The article says it's a 17 year contract.
That equates to about $18,000/yr in savings ($307,000/17 = $18,059).
The article goes on to say that currently, the borough pays about $120,000 a year in electricity to keep the streetlights on, a cost would be reduced to around $70,000 annually.
That equates to about $50,000/yr in savings.
I know it's just a newspaper article, but I'm trying to understand the difference in the savings numbers. I don't mean it as a gotcha moment. I like the concept of the project, but don't know the details.
Can anyone shed some light on this, so to speak?
The article doesn't give nearly enough background info for anyone to know what it's trying to say. The math simply doesn't work in the article because Bates it talking about the huge savings in regards to the streetlights alone. Once you factor in the other improvements such as a new furnace, HVAC, etc you come up with a new bottom line of savings which is different than the streetlight savings alone, that is what is listed in the article.
I had to do some digging myself to find out why the vote was postponed. The manager relied on the solicitor to ensure advertising properly. The length of the advertisement wasn't enough time, so the vote is being postponed until this coming Monday evening.
Both the original loan and the currently proposed loan are with TD Bank. Basically they are the same loan with the difference in them being that the interest rate is now higher so the savings is less.
Bates had originally found the best loan deal with TD Bank, but Victor Cicero sided with the obstructionists and they voted the loan down, leaving it in the hands of the mayor who, of course, voted against it. Cicero and crew made excuses as to why they didn't want that original loan and Bates had to find another loan.
Now, months later, it seems we are back with the original loan because Cicero is now comfortable with it.
I'm all for this project. It seems as though the forward thinking involved in getting something like this in our borough is very difficult for some.
It's unfortunate the loan wasn't passed the first time because this time the savings is far less than it would have been with the original loan. Also, the project would be completed by now and we would be benefiting from the savings already vs still trying to get council and the mayor to cooperate with each other long enough to let it happen.
Thanks. That's helpful.
And the same three people who always vote No, voted NO. Did they give any reasons? NO. Can we please not vote for these losers again? The problems and embarrassment these people create should prevent them from ever being seen in public again, but somehow they get re-elected. We can do better.
Council needs six votes to override a mayor's veto. Even if Cicero does decide to do the right thing (finally) the mayor can still veto the vote and it can fail. Debbie Smith said she had voted no because she didn't feel that she had all the information. I do believe that everyone had the same info and she was just using it as an excuse. Even if she really felt that she didn't have all the info at the time, that was several months ago and she has had plenty of time to obtain whatever information she felt she needed.
It's really sad that now Cicero feels that he can vote for the same loan that he voted against several months ago.
I'll give him credit for coming around after further reflection.
" Debbie Smith said she had voted no because she didn't feel that she had all the information."
This same lame excuse gets trotted out over and over again. If you are so inept that you never have all the information, then you shouldn't hold the post. Do the right thing and resign so somebody who will have all the information, or at least enough to make an informed decision, can fulfill the duties with some level of competence.
These people don't want to lead. They want to feel important when in fact they are impotent.
tired of hearing ciceros name come up all the time for gods sake move on and maybe something will get done
As Council Pres, Nancy Sherlock would normally be the spokesperson, no? Is Vic Cicero subbing b/c he's council VP and she's unavailable?
I heard that Mrs. Sherlock has been ill. Fred Kerner is VP. Who is running the show? that would be Vic.
Really, they forgot to advertise it? How can these people forget a very common and basic step. What else did they forget to do?
How about getting rid of the hold harmless cause and forcing the borough to go through arbitration instead of the courts for defective workmanship and products! I guess the lawsuits from Council Rock scared our contractor and doesn't want to have to pay out to the taxpayers for defective work.
Who are "these people"?
Does these questions and allegations come up at the council meetings or do you just blab it out on this blog?
Typos and all are understandable, but come on, at least try.
To anyone who thinks this blog has any real impact on anything happening, you are sadly deluded.
To anyone who think s speaking up at meetings will create change, you are also deluded.
If you want change, run for the seats, make a real case for the change and through force of your will and the strength of your arguments, bring it about. Be prepared to be attacked, villified, slandered, threatened and pilloried. But if you persevere, you can make it happen.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will sit in the peanut gallery and throw popcorn.
It's ridiculous that there are some on council who have continually voted no to free upgrades to the town over and over again and there is a person on whining about an advertisement. Nice agenda. It's my understanding that Bates was relying on the solicitor as he should and it was the solicitor who dropped the ball. At least try to get the facts straight before dragging someone through the mud.
It is ridiculous. Now you know if you want something, you have to see it through, even the simple details. Don't assume anything other than someone's going to drop the ball.
You also need a veto proof majority.That requires olive branches.
Olive branches? Are you crazy? Do you have any idea how soft they are? A 2 by 4 will do a much better job.
Re-Bar for the win
I wish that all of you that have questions or comments on our NO votes with either call us for an honest explanation or come out to our meetings so we can responde. Please don't hide under the Anonomous posts!
Wish all you want. Even if people don't come out, you owe it to the public, your constituents, to explain your votes in detail at the meetings. With facts and logic, not rumor and innuendo. You've not done a good job of that. You've done a good job playing petty politics, creating doubt, making things sound sneaky and sleazy, a sure fire rip-off to taxpayers. The main problem is I don't believe what you say anymore. I think even if you were provided fine answers to your questions, you still wouldn't accept them. You've poisoned the well so much, I don't want to drink from it. How do you overcome that? You can slag me for hiding behind anon posts, but these are serious issues and I'm not joking.
People lead busy lives and can't make the meetings. That doesn't mean they don't care. People want to think things are in good hands with their elected officials. This whole sordid drama over and over again makes people think things are in bad hands. That pisses people off. Maybe not enough to oust you from office, but that doesn't mean they're happy with you. More like disillusioned and digusted. Is that what you really want, pissed off disgusted apathetic people who have given up on you as their supposed leaders?
I have stated my reasoning over and over again in public meetings. I don't know where else you would expect me to explain this. I guess, not to you personally, as you don't want anyone to know who you are. I stated above, if anyone would like to hear my truthful explanation, call me. I guess you haven't seen the recent meetings on cable. I explain any No vote that I make. I want people to know the reason for my vote. I do not hide anything. You probably don't live in the First Ward, so you wouldn't be voting for or against me anyway. Not that this would matter to me.You can't please everyone! This will be my last post on this site. I just thought I would add a little clarification, if anyone was interested. However, this seems like a one sided site. My phone number is on the cable channel as well as the phone book.
Is this your reasoning in a nutshell?
Eileen Dreisbach · Morrisville High School
I feel that the reporter should have gotten both sides of this vote. This article only has councilman Rivella and manager Mr Bates, both of which are in favor of this. They are also associated with the IBEW (electrical union)269, of which will more than likely be involved with this project! I have no problem with unions, but I do have a problem with the way this who contract transpired. When the contract was put on the agenda, and voted on, council did not even receive a copy to look at. However, the motion was passed and the contract was approved. An incomplete copy of the contract was in our packet of information, the Friday after the vote. I don't understand how anyone can vote on a contract they never saw, or had a chance to read. Shame on them!! I did not vote for this contract, and neither did two other council members. Why would we vote for a loan for 1.4 million dollars?
Yesterday at 4:30pm
Debby Smith says in her letter to the paper the contract has been withheld for 18 mos. Dreisbach says above incomplete copies were provided. Who's telling the truth?Who are we to believe? How do you know there are problems with the contract if you don't have it? If you do have it, why are you saying you don't?
Post a Comment