November 15, 2007
Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
Po Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393
SCIDA Board, Michael Doyle - Chairman, Philip Roche - Vice Chairman, George Connors - Secretary, Richard Weakland - Member, Michael Nisbet - Member, Douglas Malone - Member and John Sirianni – Member:
Attending the Wayland-Cohocton School Board meeting on 11/13/07 it was learned the board has not received a PILOT proposal to date for the Cohocton Wind Farm Projects. Since it is required by law, a taxing authority, involved is to receive the proposal 60 days before a public hearing to be held on the PILOT, it is questionable how you can be contemplating acceptance of the PILOT on 12/20/07. There is also a question of whether the notice of the public hearing in Cohocton on 8/23/07 was legal. It was portrayed to the public as an informational meeting not a public hearing. The proposal was not made public before the meeting which makes it difficult for concerned citizens to comment on something they have not seen to date. It would seem like at the very least a new hearing needs to be scheduled , providing the plan to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions sixty days prior, making it available to the public for comment and noticing the hearing in a legal and above board manner.
Additionally, does the IDA not take title to the project prior to construction if there is to be sales tax abatement for the project? Since construction in Cohocton and Dutch Hill are well underway is this not too late for these tax abatements to be granted? According to ORPS documents, any taxing jurisdiction can opt out of a PILOT prior to commencement of construction. Would the fact that construction was begun, without proper permits in place, and no signed PILOT agreement, make it is too late for a developer to be seeking such tax relief after the fact? Why does this developer appear to be receiving special treatment from your agency? There are also many questions as to who the real owner of the project is, since application and permit documents for the two projects are in a variety of entity names. Should this not be of concern to SCIDA and clarified for the public?
For projects where SCIDA has been the lead agency your culpability may be substantial. Also approval of the Cohocton PILOT subsidies, under these circumstances, may compound liability for SCIDA and enhance charges of malfeasance and gross negligence.
Cordially,
James Hall
cc: Andrew Cuomo – NYS Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer – NYS Governor
No comments:
Post a Comment