 |
Electromagnetic signals from cell phones can change your brainwaves and behavior. But don’t break out the aluminum foil head shield just yet.
|
PACE Programs finance energy efficiency, water conservation, and seismic strengthening improvements.
According to PACE LITERATURE – WE are eligible to over “90” energy improvements
__________________________________________________________
From the PACE website:
PACE Program finance energy efficiency, water conservation, and seismic strengthening improvements.
We are told through a competitive solicitation our County or city chose two administrators for energy financing programs to operate its Residential Clean Energy Financing.
We are told that choosing two administrators for the Clean Energy Financing creates competition and gives homeowners more choices. Of course, this is NOT true! All Green Energy Financing schemes, to lower our green house gas emissions, are CONTROLLED by the International Banksters.
NOTE: Clean Energy Financing enhances home values AND triggers a property value INCREASE that you will pay on your annual property tax bill. Your property will be reassessed after implementing Green Energy REQUIREMENTS.
The Pace Energy Loan is billed to you on your property tax bill, on a separate line item. and the holders of PACE bonds have the right to foreclose against the property if your payment fails behind by 60 days. However, it is unlikely that “one” missed PACE assessment will trigger a judicial foreclosure and threaten the participant with the loss of their home.
In July 2010, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a statement that PACE programs present safety and soundness concerns to the mortgage portfolios held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The concerns were related directly to the priority lien status of the PACE assessments and the associated right of a PACE bondholder to initiate a foreclosure proceeding for non-payment of the PACE assessment and be first in line to receive any payment resulting from the foreclosure process. Despite these objections, several PACE programs continued to operate throughout the country and have not encountered problems with the FHFA. In response to the FHFA objections, the County has developed the County-wide, County-managed, consumer and lender-friendly residential PACE Program that includes a number of measures to mitigate the potential risks associated with FHFA objections, including a substantial amount of disclosures to property owners on the risks associated with entering into a PACE assessment contract. More information can be found at the following LA County website in the August 12, 2014 and March 3, 2015 Board of Supervisors meetings.
__________________________________________________________
PACE Program to finance energy efficiency, water conservation, and seismic strengthening improvements.
California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) and CleanFund will coordinate with the Tax Collector’s Office for the inclusion of the tax levy and repayment for the subject property’s tax bill.
There are many PACE administrators operating throughout the state. Below is a table showing the PACE programs operating in Sonoma County and additional programs operating outside of the County.
Your County authorizing Multiple actions related to Sonoma County Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing Marketplace, Golden State Finance Authority, and Ygrene Energy Fund.
3/17/2015 – Resolution to add the FigTree Financing PACE program to the Marketplace and authorize the California Enterprise Development Authority to conduct contractual assessment proceedings and levy contractual assessments within the unincorporated territory of the County.
10/21/2014 – Multiple actions to create Sonoma County Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing Marketplace, including the addition of CaliforniaFIRST and HERO PACE financing to the Marketplace; joining the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) JPA; and authorizing WRCOG and the California Statewide Communities Development Authority to accept applications from property owners, conduct contractual assessment proceedings, and levy contractual assessments within the unincorporated territory of the County.
3rd Party PACE Administrator
Renew Financial Ygrene Renovate America Dividend (formerly Figtree Financing)
PACE Funding Counterpointe SRE Clean Fund Petros PACE Finance Energy Efficient Equity
Blue Flame Energy Finance LLC Structured Finance Associates OnPACE Energy
Twain Financial Samas Commercial PACE Equity
PACE Programs – (search for more energy related loans offered in the U.S. by the International Bankers)
Sonoma County Energy Independence Program CaliforniaFIRST Ygrene
HERO Dividend (formerly Figtree Financing) E3 PACE
BluePACE Structured Finance
|
Waste Water: Orange County’s pioneering wastewater recycling system embarks on major expansion – Orange County Register
EXCERPT:
The program runs treated wastewater through an
In an effort to turn local wastewater into a valuable and potentially drinkable commodity, Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District are moving ahead with a deal that would allow the city to build a salt-removal plant in the Baylands and then ship its treated wastewater south for usage throughout the county.
The deal, which the City Council discussed and largely endorsed on Sept. 23, could advance on Nov. 18, when the council is scheduled to approve the terms of the agreement between the city, Valley Water and the city of Mountain View. If approved, it would commit the city to shipping effluent to Valley Water for 63 years, while also giving both Palo Alto and Mountain View the option of buying water from the water district, which serves most of Santa Clara County.
Today, Palo Alto is one of about two dozen Peninsula cities that get their potable water from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, which operates the Hetch Hetchy system and gets its water from the Tuolomne River in Yosemite National Park. While that isn’t expected to change, the agreement with Valley Water would give the city a backup source of both potable and non-potable water from the south.
The deal would allow the city to significantly curtail how much wastewater it dumps into the bay. Today, the wastewater plant discharges about 96% of its output into the bay and treats the remaining 4%, which is then used to irrigate golf courses in Palo Alto and Mountain View.
By reducing the salt content in the wastewater, the city will be able to address anxieties from irrigators about the impact of recycled water on sensitive trees and plants, including redwood trees. In doing so, it will be able to immediately hook up 60 new commercial customers in Mountain View to the distribution system.
For the city, the agreement with the water district represents both a short-term opportunity to expand usage of recycled water and a long-term opportunity to further purify the water and make it potable. According to a new report from the Utilities Department, the salt-removal plant will provide “the first step toward small-scale potable water production for direct or indirect potable reuse in Palo Alto, all of which would displace imported Tuolumne River water.” In other words, wastewater could ultimately become drinking water in Palo Alto.
While the deal only calls for a small salt-removal plant, the new report notes that Palo Alto and Valley Water are also currently “assessing the feasibility of constructing a large purification facility in Palo Alto.”
“If Valley Water determines that Palo Alto is the best location for a regional purified water facility, Palo Alto will support and cooperate with those efforts at the local, state and federal levels, subject to environmental review and absent new extenuating circumstances,” the report states.
The proposed partnership has picked up some momentum since the council’s September discussion. Last week, representatives from both the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had submitted letters supporting the proposed partnership.
David Smith, assistant director for the EPA’s Water Division, called water reuse “one of the nation’s most promising opportunities to support communities and the economy by bolstering safe and reliable water supplies.” Expanding water reuse through the proposed partnership, he wrote, would keep a significant amount of wastewater from being discharged to San Francisco Bay. The discharges of water into the bay, he noted, have created “freshwater marsh conditions” and reduced habitat for endangered species such as the Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse.
“Projects that come out of the proposed partnership are expected to decrease these freshwater inputs and restore the more historical salinity regime while providing a more sustainable and reliable water supply for Santa Clara County,” Smith wrote in the Nov. 4 letter.
Thomas Mumley, assistant executive officer at the Water Board, similarly touted the environmental benefits of the proposed partnership and called the project “an important step toward expanding water reuse and moving towards a regional water reuse system.”
Reusing treated wastewater rather than discharging it into the Bay will “reduce further loading of nutrients and other pollutants to the Bay, while reducing reliance on external sources of drinking water,” Mumley wrote.
“There are obvious win-wins in your and our interests in sustainable and reliable water supply and protection of San Francisco Bay,” Mumley wrote.
Under the proposed terms, Valley Water would provide about $16 million for the new $20-million plant, which would be built at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, a facility in the Palo Alto Baylands that serves Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University and the East Palo Alto Sanitation District. About half of the treated wastewater would then be transferred to Valley Water for use south of Mountain View. The district would pay $1 million to the jurisdictions that commit the effluent to the treatment plant, with the exact amount based on each city’s (or agency’s) share of wastewater.
Palo Alto would have 13 years to construct the salt-removal plant. If it chooses not to move ahead with the facility, the $16 million from Valley Water may be used for other water reuse and related programs, according to the report. During this 13-year “option period,” Valley Water would provide $200,000 annually to be shared by the partners in the regional wastewater facility (of that amount, $100,000 would be shared by the two biggest partners, Palo Alto and Mountain View).
Under the new “water supply” option, Palo Alto and Mountain View will be able to notify Valley Water that they need more water and the district will have four years to respond with a proposal. If the proposal is accepted, the district will have 10 years to deliver the water. If it’s rejected, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will be able to make another request five years later.
At the Sept. 23 discussion, Councilman Tom DuBois noted that the city’s effluent is currently a “waste product.” The agreement with Valley Water starts to put a value on it, he said. He also indicated his support for a future plant that would make wastewater potable.
“Personally, I’d like to see the large plant end up in Palo Alto,” DuBois said at the Sept. 23 study session.
Other council members also signaled support for the proposed partnership, with Councilwoman Alison Cormack lauding the prospect of reducing discharges of wastewater into the Bay. Mayor Eric Filseth noted, however, that if the city agrees to the deal, Palo Alto basically forfeits its right to build its own large-scale potable water project for 76 years (which includes the 13 years that Valley Water has to construct the plant and the 63-year term of the supply agreement).
“Essentially, we’re selling a 76-year option for $1 million a year,” Filseth asked. “Is that a good deal for Palo Alto? That’s the question.”
Read more “WATER CONTAMINATION a PLAN: TOILET ? TO TAP ?the PLANS for ALL . . .”
https://2ubii.com/watch/learn-how-the-elite-are-escaping-5g-cancer_BQXBajC7y4FwYKZ.html
Energy efficiency is important for a lot of homeowners – not just to reduce environmental impact but also to decrease the cost of utilities.
But any major home renovation to achieve greater energy efficiency is going to be expensive. You may not have a lump of cash lying around, andadditional financingon top of your current mortgage may seem like a daunting and dangerous burden.
Enter the PACE loan.
Property-assessed clean energy programs, first implemented in the U.S. in California in 2008, are a form of financing that allow property owners to fundenergy-efficientretrofit projects at no upfront cost to them. Instead, an assessment is placed on the property and appears as an increase to property taxes until the loan is repaid as many as 30 years down the line.
The Good
PACE financing programs, first allowed by state legislatures and then adopted by local municipalities with third-party PACE programs to provide the funding for improvements, have grown nationwide over recent years. As of January 2016, PACE legislation has been authorized in 33 states and the District of Columbia, and 17 of those have active PACE programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. However, most of these programs are specific to commercial real estate, with residential programs rare on a national scale but still fairly common in states like Florida and California.
Homeowners living in jurisdictions with PACE programming are able to fund upgrades like duct replacement,solar panel installation, new insulation and even impact-resistant windows in hurricane-prone areas. In commercial real estate, PACE projects are much larger, with improved air circulation,heating and cooling, and alternative energy sources costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Launched in July 2015, the Show Me PACE program in Missouri focuses on PACE financing for commercial, agricultural, industrial, nonprofit and multifamily properties. Just over a year after opening for business, $10 million worth of projects have been completed under the program, says Josh Campbell, executive director of the Missouri Energy Initiative and president of the Show Me PACE board of directors.
“For a commercial property, that money they save as a business, they are much more likely to put that directly back into that business, making them stronger and much more likely to be happy with where they’re at, and more likely to stay at the property longer,” Campbell says.
Missouri requires the financial benefit of improvements made under a PACE project to outweigh the cost of the work itself, and the project must be approved by a third-party lender for an existing loan on the property.
The Bad
A property assessment automatically becomes the first lien for any property, which means in the case of default orforeclosure,all missed payments on that property assessment must be paid before the mortgage can be paid back. Prior to guidance from the Federal Housing Administration in July, repayment of entire PACE loans took priority over paying back the property’s mortgage.
Therein lies the problem: Mortgage lenders aren’t able to recover as many of their losses in the incidence of foreclosure, all for a loan that didn’t require underwriting or credit approval. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac won’t back mortgages with existing PACE assessments unless first-lien status is given to the FHA loan. Campbell notes Missouri clarified PACE programs’ first-lien status to only account for that year’s assessment status if a property goes into default. But not all states have defined the lien in the same way, leaving lenders at risk.
In June, the Federal Housing Financial Agency testified to the California legislature regarding PACE financing.
“The financing concept is simple – if a residential property has to lose 90 percent of its value before a PACE lender incurs a loss, the investor has a very attractive investment opportunity,” Alfred M. Pollard, general counsel to FHFA, said in his statement to the California legislature. “However, that opportunity comes at the expense of existing lien holders, who unexpectedly bear a new risk of loss, and, in some instances, to the disadvantage of consumers.”
California’s acceptance of PACE programs in many municipalities throughout the state was initially met with excitement from real estate professionals, explains Alex Creel, vice president of governmental affairs for the California Association of Realtors. But concern quickly took over when programs implemented didn’t appear to clearly explain the potential for difficulty in future sale of the property,refinancingand mortgage lending deals, Creel says.
When selling a home just a few years after completing a PACE project on the house, you could find yourself having to pay off the entire assessment before you can close a deal, Creel says.
In his testimony to California legislators, Pollard echoed the concern about homeowners understanding the costs: “PACE programs in many, but not all, instances are administered by third parties that do not follow the same consumer protection requirements applicable to residential mortgage lenders.”
Your Options
Both the FHFA and CAR stress that affordable solutions to energy-efficient renovations in homes as well as commercial real estate are important – and necessary – to reduce negative human impact on the environment. But the current PACE system creates more short-term problems for homeowners and mortgage lenders that wouldn’t exist otherwise.
For energy-efficient retrofitting, the FHFA recommends more traditional lending options, some even designed to finance energy efficiency, that operate similar to a second mortgage.
Ahome equity line of creditis one recommended alternative to PACE financing. This option is well-suited for home improvements that save money through reduced utility costs and add value to the property in the long run. As with any form of borrowing, homeowners should approach the process cautiously and carefully weigh the loan amount with a solid plan to repay it.
And while residential PACE programs may not be as informative as they could be, that doesn’t mean all PACE financing opportunities aren’t worthwhile. As Campbell notes, Missouri requirements for PACE financing have helped foster positive outcomes for not just the property owners receiving funding but also for the lenders already involved in the property, as those requirements encourage conversation and negotiation so both sides feel confident about a project.
A California state law that goes into effect in January 2017 requires PACE lenders to provide borrowers with disclosure information about the loan they’re taking on – similar to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure forms now required for all mortgages issued nationwide.
Creel says this law, which as a bill was sponsored by CAR, will help homeowners understand what they’re getting into when they sign on forPACE financing and be prepared for obstacles in the event they want to refinance or sell their home.
But even then, Creel says it won’t completely solve future problems: “A lot of times people don’t read what they sign, unfortunately.”
Corrected on Dec. 16, 2016:A previous version of this story incorrectly stated how much of a PACE loan must be paid back in the event of default.In default or foreclosure, the arrearages on a PACE loan must be paid back before the property’s mortgage can be repaid.
Corrected on Dec. 16, 2016: A previous version of this story incorrectly described Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s relation to mortgages. Both associations purchase mortgages from lenders.