He told the crowd of bankers, private equity folks and the like that the ongoing credit crisis was killing solar panel and other green energy projects. So the news about our own city project wasn't surprising.
But the problems surrounding EyeOn sound a little more extensive. From the Daily News article:
We'll see how this plays out, but this certainly doesn't instill one with a great deal of faith going forward. Isn't the city supposed to be part of a long-term partnership with this company? If I recall correctly, they're not just installing the solar panels. They're also going to be selling us energy for the foreseeable future and maintaining the panels if I remember correctly.Beyond the financing hurdles, EyeOn, an upstart company from out of state with few clients to its credit, could be facing other problems, as well.
Boulder County records show the building owned by EyeOn owner and President Alex Kramarchuk — the company's official address, according to the Colorado Secretary of State's Web site — is slated for foreclosure due to mortgage default. It's the fifth time Kramarchuk's residential property has been threatened with foreclosure for nonpayment since 1996. Kramarchuk did not return a call for comment yesterday.
From an earlier article:
In exchange, the city will agree to purchase back energy created from the panels from EyeOn at a cost of 14 cents per kilowatt, escalating 4 percent per year for the next 20 years, until it can purchase the system back and reap the 34 percent cost savings themselves.But the article leaves me with a few questions:
1. Was the commercial bank--probably Morgan Stanley, according to the mayor--going to invest in the project or was it merely providing financing. Big difference. If it was the former I'd say the deal could be in big trouble. If it's the latter there may be a sniff of hope, but not much.
2. Have we given any money to EyeOn? If so can we get it back?
3. Who filed the complaint with the ethics commission? Check the last graph.
1 comment:
Tom,
Sorry, haven't had time to check your posts lately, but I wanted to comment on the article. I find it appaling that Mayor Moak and the city did not conduct enough due diligence to see who was funding the deal. Did they take a look at EyeOn's financials? The principal owner's finances and credit history? Conduct a financial analysis that showed funding commitments? Appears they did not.
The fact that the mayor has no clue who the backing investors are shows that he did not conduct a thorough review. If the city has paid EyeOn one dime, odds are very slim we'll get it back. Quite frankly, I'm flabergasted.
Post a Comment