November 14, 2006
Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
Po Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393
RE: Freedom of Information on PILOT for Cohocton and Prattsburgh windmill projects
Mr. Sherron,
The lack of required public disclosure and specifics on the PILOT scheme for the Cohocton and Prattsburgh projects has caused substantial distrust in the role of SCIDA in this process. Therefore, this FOIL submission is being made to document the discussions and formula arrangements for the proposed Ecogen and UPC windmill projects in both towns.
Since you have made a presentation to the Cohocton Town Board in executive session, Cohocton Wind Watch challenges the legitimacy of that meeting.
In order to substantiate the briefing you gave the Cohocton Town Board the following is being FOILED. If your organization has a specific procedure for Freedom of Information demands, please advise.
1 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by UPC to the Town of Cohocton and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
2 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by UPC to the Cohocton/Wayland School Board and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
3 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by UPC to the County of Steuben for the Cohocton project and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
4 What share of the UPC Cohocton PILOT will be retained by SCIDA and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
5 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by UPC to the Town of Prattsburgh and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
6 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by UPC to the Prattsburgh School Board and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
7 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by UPC to the County of Steuben County for the Prattsburgh project and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
8 What share of the UPC Prattsburgh PILOT will be retained by SCIDA and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
9 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by Ecogen to the Town of Prattsburgh and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
10 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by Ecogen to the Prattsburgh School Board and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
11 What is the exact total dollar payment to be made by Ecogen to the County of Steuben County for the Prattsburgh project and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
12 What share of the Ecogen Prattsburgh PILOT will be retained by SCIDA and the time frame upon which that sum is to be paid.
13 Any and all information on differences in the amount and terms of PILOT windmill programs as applied to separate towns in Steuben County.
http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46212
Note that the Clipper contract agreement with UPC for industrial 2.5MG turbines specifies the following:
“Clipper Windpower Plc signed a contract with a subsidiary of UPC Wind to deliver 50 2.5 megawatt (MW) Clipper Liberty wind turbines -- including their installation supervision -- and will provide operations and maintenance services for five years.”
Also a consultant for UPC represented that these exact Clipper units were intended for the Cohocton project.
Therefore, what is the basis or legal standing for SCIDA involvement with the UPC Cohocton project? Since employment for this UPC venture will be staffed by Clipper Windpower Plc out of state workers and certainly not local personnel, by what authority does SCIDA seek to negotiate a PILOT substitute for normal industrial tax assessment on the value of the project?
As you should be aware, another developer, Empire State Wind Energy, has announced their intention to pay full local tax rates on their project to all three municipal jurisdictions. It seems to be indefensible for SCIDA to withhold the specific amounts and terms for the PILOT arrangement. These facts are not confidential nor can they be legally concealed from the public.
Your Harris Beach attorneys would advise you accordingly. This FOIL is a right under federal law and these figures must be revealed, and should have been published, before the last public hearing on Cohocton Windmill Local Law #2.
Cohocton Wind Watch alleges collusion among you, UPC and the Cohocton Town Board. Since SCIDA owns property that is part of the UPC project, a distinct conflict of interest exists and any involvement from SCIDA in this scheme is certainly open to a challenged in court.
Segmentation violations exist and can be readily documented. The Nixon Peabody attorney for Ecogen acknowledged and virtually stipulated that this is a fact in oral arguments in the current Prattsburgh Article 78 proceedings. The Prattsburgh and Cohocton townships are part of one large interrelated development. The need for a PILOT government subsidy to build a project has not been proved. SCIDA does not posses the legitimate authority to connive a substitute tax subsidy when payment of full industrial tax rates is available to the townships, the school districts and the county.
Therefore, SCIDA is put on notice that you will be named in possible future legal actions that may be initiated to seek relief from unconstitutional abuses of public funds.
The details of the PILOT and the basis for the authority to circumvent legitimate local taxation jurisdictions are the core aspects of this FOIL demand. With no real permanent local employment coming out of these industrial windmill projects, SCIDA does not have the rightful authority to defraud local property owners out of the legitimate tax assessed revenue that would normally go to the municipalities.
Your prompt written response and FOIL information is essential.
Cordially,
Steve Trude – as President of Cohocton Wind Watch
No comments:
Post a Comment