1. There are approximately 1500 landowners in the Town and Village of Cohocton. 15 of these landowners, or approximately 1%, are slated to receive wind turbines on their property. This issue is NOT about the other 99% of landowners coveting the money that these 15 landowners might receive from the installation of these wind turbines. What the 1% might receive from the lease of their property is of no business of ours.
2. What is our business, is to see if the Town Board is doing their very best to protect the interest off all taxpayers. This issue IS about what all 100% of the taxpayers might lose out of their own pocket, their Town’s natural beauty and the natural balance of nature from the placement of these turbines.
3. We as a group have sought answers to our questions from the Town Planning Board to some concerns we have about the management of this Wind Turbine project.
4. If, when we went to the Town Board to inquire about this issue, they could have shown us with transparency what decisions they have made and why and convinced us that they were looking out for our best interest as taxpayers, we would have gone home and left this issue alone.
5. We did not find this to be the case.
6. We wonder why we have had such resistance from the Board when we try to get answers to our questions.
7. This is arguably the largest financial decision any Town Board has had to make since the inception of our Town.
8. So far, the Town Board expects us to accept reports that are paid for by the wind turbine company (UPC) to answer our questions relative to the economic, environmental and safety issues we are concerned about.
9. We are looking for reports based on solid fact, not biased sales pitches.
10. The Town Board has turned over a large part of this projects management to the Steuben County Industrial Development Association (IDA).
11. We are concerned about the future performance of the IDA based on the passed failures of ventures they have managed in the past.
12. We have obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act that clearly show that UPC had an active role in forming the terms of the new Zoning Law.
13. This changed zoning law that has been promoted as a protection for us, in my opinion was an effort to remove our previous zoning law that would have restricted this turbine program, and replace it with its current form that allows these wind turbines in our Town.
14. The new Zoning Law now allows towers at a height of 500 feet and noise levels that are totally unacceptable for a rural community.
15. The entire subject of a wind farm coming into a community such as ours is riddled with conflicting information. One only has to go onto the internet and research this subject and you will find thousands of pages of information supporting these programs and as many to strongly oppose them.
16. There are reports offered by those that are in favor of wind turbines that go on and on with song after song of how wonderful they are and on the opposite side of the spectrum there are those that are opposed that sing a totally different song.
17. One must look deeply into this subject to peel back the layers of confusion surrounding this issue.
18. There are always at least two sides to each story.
19. One needs to ask the question, “How will this affect me?”
20. One area that is of great interest to me is the economic impact that we as home and land owners will experience from the introduction of these 400 foot turbines.
21. I specifically asked two Town Board members why they were committed to these wind turbines. One told me, “I am committed to these wind turbines being on these hills by the end of next fall”.
22. I asked why and he said “for the revenue”. The other member confirmed this to be his reason also. I asked well... “How much revenue?” They both said, “We don’t know”.
23. Now, I know that a good businessman does not make a commitment to any supposed money making project until he understands the numbers, yet both these Board Members were committed to these wind turbines being on these hills by the end of the Fall of 2007 without being able to and/or willing to explain to me the money.
24. Later, UPC announced the first proposed income number for Cohocton to be in the “range” of $660,000 by letter to the taxpayers in April 11th. UPC declared in their letter that they were using a number they got from the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency.
I went to this agency to confirm the number and was told the following:
25. The $660,000 in P.I.L.O.T. (payment in lieu of taxes) funds that Cohocton Town, Steuben County and the School may receive from this PILOT is a reduced amount that UPC would pay rather than the amount that would normally be due from the landowner if these towers were taxed as an asset to the property they sit on.
26. I am told that every dollar that the school receives from this PILOT program reduces the State Aid by the same amount so this will not reduce our school taxes.
Here are the separate factors that combine to produce the formula used by UPC/IDA in their projection:
27. A 2MW turbine has a potential output of 2 Megawatts per hour
28. UPC/IDA assumes an actual output of 30% capacity because the wind does not blow all the time.
29. A Megawatt is 1000 kilowatts
30. UPC/IDA used .04 to represent what a kilowatt of wind generated electricity can be sold for on the electrical grid
Let’s look and see if UPC is giving us a fair shake:
31. A 2MW wind turbine reduced to assumed actual production of 30% = 600 kilowatts average output per hour x .04 per kilowatt = $24 per hour x 24 hours in a day = $576 a day x 365 days per year = $210,240 per year, per wind turbine.
32. $210,240 per year, per wind turbine x 60 of these 400 foot tall wind turbines in Phase 1 & Phase 2 of the Cohocton wind turbine project = $12,614,400 in gross revenue for UPC per year.
33. If the life of this current program is 20 years, UPC is in line for $252,288,000 of revenue from the sale of electricity at today’s prices.
34. The proposed $660,000 in total PILOT payments by UPC to Cohocton Town, Steuben County and the School ÷ $12,614,400 = only 5% of gross revenue expensed by UPC in PILOT funds.
35. 95% of the revenue remains in the hands of a foreign based privately held Corporation that does not sell its stock on the American Stock Exchange and they will not be transparent as to who their investors are, nor where the money is going.
36. Just for example sake, let’s assume we will be lucky enough to get 1/3 of the PILOT money. This would be 1.7% of UPC’s gross revenue. (1/3 of 5% = 1.7%)
37. 220,000 ÷ 1500 taxpayers = only 147.00 per taxpayer per year.
What does it all mean?
38. If UPC put 220,000 in our General Fund every year as a supposed gain to us, what will we be losing that could offset the gain of this possible 220,000?
39. I would like to propose a formula as an example.
40. According to the Cohocton Assessors Office, the current market value of all Real Property in the Town of Cohocton is $107,194,020
41. This number is admittedly low and the Town is in the process of a revaluation to correct the problem, but for our purposes, let’s take this low number.
42. What loss could we experience? In Appendix F, on page 20 of the Environmental Impact Statement provided to the Town by UPC, they point to their own “in-house” study of the visual impact on our viewscape from the placement of these turbines.
43. Below is an excerpt from the UPC/Environmental Impact Study available to you on line at http://upcgroup.org/cohoctonwind/
Visual Impact Assessment Rating
An in-house panel of three registered landscape architects (LA) evaluated the visual impact of the proposed project, as described in the Methodology section of this report. Utilizing 11 x 17-inch digital color prints of the selected representative viewpoints described above, the rating panel members evaluated the before and after views, assigning each view quantitative visual contrast ratings on a scale of 1 (completely compatible) to 5 (strong contrast). Each panel member’s ratings were averaged to get an overall score for each viewpoint, and these scores were then compiled as a composite average for each viewpoint. Copies of the completed rating forms are included in Appendix D, and the results of this process are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Visual Contrast Rating
Viewpoint # LA 1 LA 2 LA 3 Composite
Score
VP 11 1.00 2.25 1.00 1.42
VP 57 1.50 2.75 2.75 2.33
VP 68 1.50 2.00 1.75 1.75
VP 74 1.13 1.63 1.00 1.25
VP 94 2.13 2.00 1.25 1.79
VP 110 3.25 3.00 3.75 3.3
VP 130 2.88 2.25 2.75 2.63
VP 154 1.00 3.75 1.00 1.92
VP 160 1.75 2.25 1.50 1.83
VP 178 1.63 2.63 1.50 1.92
Average 1.78 2.45 1.83 2.02
Based on a scale of 1 (completely compatible) to 5 (strong visual contrast).
44. UPC declares that on an impact scale of 1-5 (1 being completely compatible and 5 being in strong contrasts) their own assessment of the impact is a 2.02!
45. Now 2 sounds like a low number, but a closer look shows that 2 is 40% of 5, the maximum.
46. From this, would one be wrong in assuming that we will experience a 40% change in the beauty that surrounds us?
47. If Cohocton has less “curbside appeal” what will that do to the market value of this 107 million plus in Real Property that we have?
48. As a local Real Estate Agent said, “I never had anyone call me asking to buy a house next to a wind turbine”.
49. There are credible reports available to us that show a documented change in property value after the turbines are up, with a loss of up to 80% depending on your proximity to these wind turbines.
50. We have received no report from the Town Planning Board showing where property value is guaranteed to go up.
51. Because the Town is not slowing down to measure this possible change, we have to take as close a look as possible in the time given and offer you some estimates to look at.
52. Using the data supplied by UPC, if they suggest a 40% change in appearance of our viewscape and we take a simple number of only a 5% loss to the real property value in the Town of Cohocton as a result of this 40% change, we can apply the following formula for an estimate.
53. 5% of 107,194,020 = 5,359,701 in property value loss to the landholders in the Town of Cohocton.
54. If UPC only puts back 220,000 a year into the general fund of the Town (and remember, this money does not go into your pocket directly to compensate you for your loss, but into the Town General Fund that currently has no provision for the controlled expenditure of this supposed money).
55. Based on this analysis, (5, 359,701 in Real property loss ÷ 220,000 income from UPC = 24.4 years) it will take 24.4 years just to pay back the $5,359,701.00 loss suffered and when it is paid back, it will not go into your pocket!
56. The current program for these wind turbines is scheduled to end in 20 years, leaving an unpaid deficit of almost $1,000.000.00 that UPC will owe us in lost Real Property Value according to this analysis.
57. A question that needs to be answered is; What if these turbines come and my land does not appreciate in value at the rate that it would if the turbines were not here, who is going to reimburse you for this loss?
58. Are you making money or losing money?
59. Is the Town of Cohocton taking your property value and selling it for a loss?
60. Are you getting paid back?
61. Does this amount to a loss to you?
What needs to be done?
62. Come to the Thursday May 25th Public Hearing here at the school at 7 PM sponsored by the Town and bring your written unanswered questions and objections in letter form and submit them to the Town Board at that time. Make sure you get a dated receipt when you turn your letter into the Town Board. This is a very important step if and when you may need to take legal action later to recover your losses from the installation of these wind towers.
Although we have done our very best at researching this issue in the time allowed, this analysis is only meant to promote constructive thinking for new and better ideas of creating financial benefit to the taxpayers and Town of Cohocton. Because we found out about this issue so late and the Town Board is closing the door so quickly on our opportunity to object to this project severely limiting our research time, I/we make no guarantee that all the facts contained herein are accurate. Each recipient of this information is cautioned to do their own research and come to their own conclusions about this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment