Share:
Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda
Senate of Pennsylvania
Session of 2013 - 2014
Regular Session
MEMORANDUM
| Posted: | December 12, 2012 11:54 AM |
|---|---|
| From: | Senator Mike Folmer |
| To: | All Senate members |
| Subject: | Municipal Reforms |
| As one of the Senators representing Dauphin County, I am troubled by the information received during the Senate Local Government Committee hearings on debts incurred by the Harrisburg incinerator. For this reason, I plan to introduce legislation to address various flaws and weaknesses that resulted in the many issues facing the City of Harrisburg and Dauphin County – which could eventually also negatively impact other municipalities and counties. These bills are listed below. Additionally, as the General Assembly works to finalize the state budget for 2013 – 2014, I will also be seeking state appropriations to finish or otherwise complement the forensic audit of the Harrisburg Authority – with subpoena power. This request will be addressed separately. For now, please note the findings of the forensic audit (which did not have subpoena power): “. . . the [Harrisburg] Authority, the City and the County took strained positions on state law regarding municipal debt financing and other issues to allow the retrofit and related financings to proceed.” The report adds: “It is evident that most, if not all, of the parties involved with the [project] knew or should have known that, at a minimum, there was substantial risk that the [incinerator] would not generate revenue sufficient to service the debt being issued, but they proceeded with the retrofit projects and their financings anyway.” The citizens of Harrisburg, Dauphin County, and the Commonwealth deserve better answers as to why these actions were taken. A more comprehensive audit – with subpoena power – would offer better explanations than those received to date. |
Document #1
Introduced as SB292
| Description: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
Document #2
Introduced as SB293
| Description: |
“Taken individually, many of the swaps do not make sense as a means of managing interest costs and/or protecting against rising interest rates. Collectively, the number of swap transactions alone raises questions regarding their relationship to a plan to manage interest rate risk or costs. Further, some of the swaps were inconsistent with each other and with principles of interest rate management. One swap reversed another that had just been entered into a short time earlier. In several instances, it appears the professional advisors were encouraging the Authority to take actions primarily aimed at raising short-term funds irrespective of whether the transaction was prudent or risk was being increased." [emphasis added] |
|
|---|---|---|
Document #3
Introduced as SB294
| Description: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
Document #4
Introduced as SB295
| Description: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
Document #5
Introduced as SB296
| Description: |
|
|
|---|---|---|