Comments on: Muniland Absurdity of the Year Award Bridges, budgets, bonds Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:29:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: josephdinella Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:31:03 +0000 In fact, the $650,000 is not the bridge loan but is authorized by borough ordinance 1480 (in 2010), which can seen on the town’s website. This money, purposed for completion of Buildings 3 & 4 at the Lumberyard, yet was never even washed through Lumberyard Redevelopment, LLC. The Purchase Order and Invoice for this expenditure indicate that the vendor is the Borough of Collingswood General Current Account.

The bridge loan, authorized by Resolution 2009-10, went to Lumberyard Redevelopment, LLC, which gave the money back in December of the same year so that the Borough could square its books. The invoices for these four purchase orders, totaling $1.3 million, read “Additional Funds per the Subordinate Mortgage Modification Agreement” and similar wording. There’s no evidence of materials purchased or work or services performed. The money never went back out from the borough to the project.

Another of the later bond ordinances for this project, Ordinance 1486, has invoices that detail construction loan interest and property tax payments. Definitely not the kind of stuff you want a municipality to borrow money for. That’s probably why Moody’s made such a harsh downgrade.

When the slick marketing is peeled away and the facts are evident, the borough position becomes much less tenable.