12-13-2007, 01:03 PM
Not to worry Rob.
It’s a good thing there’s a 4 hour time difference since I can make calls after work and get answers. It appears that this is a common issue because the two funds have two different purposes. When it was said that providing water heaters was not a good idea, that’s because the subject was the Royalty Fund which is used for relocation. Had it been mentioned that the reason for not thinking it was a good idea was because the Asset Fund was designed for that purpose, it would have clarified the issue.
Anyway, when PGV agreed to these funds, without any closed end agreement, it wasn’t a big “business” venture. It was a win-win at the time. But if the funds are being diverted from its original intention to other needs, wouldn’t a more profit oriented business look at it as some form of covert taxing structure? Let’s say a company wanted to open some form of operations where immediate community and residents would be impacted. A fund is set up to mitigate those issues. Once those issues are mitigated and no longer apply, why still contribute to a fund with no purpose? Even if there are strong community needs, if not based on the operation, should the business have to subsidize unrelated community needs beyond normal taxation? Just a thought.
It’s a good thing there’s a 4 hour time difference since I can make calls after work and get answers. It appears that this is a common issue because the two funds have two different purposes. When it was said that providing water heaters was not a good idea, that’s because the subject was the Royalty Fund which is used for relocation. Had it been mentioned that the reason for not thinking it was a good idea was because the Asset Fund was designed for that purpose, it would have clarified the issue.
Anyway, when PGV agreed to these funds, without any closed end agreement, it wasn’t a big “business” venture. It was a win-win at the time. But if the funds are being diverted from its original intention to other needs, wouldn’t a more profit oriented business look at it as some form of covert taxing structure? Let’s say a company wanted to open some form of operations where immediate community and residents would be impacted. A fund is set up to mitigate those issues. Once those issues are mitigated and no longer apply, why still contribute to a fund with no purpose? Even if there are strong community needs, if not based on the operation, should the business have to subsidize unrelated community needs beyond normal taxation? Just a thought.