Friday, January 18, 2008

SCIDA Public Hearing on UPC Cohocton PILOT January 18, 2008 Letter by Judith Hall

January 18, 2008

Steuben County IDA
7234 Route 54 North
PO Box 393
Bath, NY 14810-0393

RE: SCIDA Public Hearing on UPC Cohocton wind Projects

Dear SCIDA Board, the purpose of this hearing is unclear to the public. Once again how does one comment on something not yet seen. What is the reason for the shroud of secrecy for all the PILOT proposals in Steuben County? This is the second hearing for Cohocton, what was the problem with the first and why is this different? There is still no PILOT available to see and there are still no SCIDA board members present. There are however 3 law suits pending on the Special Use Permits granted for the projects. There are also turbines erected and foundations poured all over Cohocton. Why would CPP be eligible for a project all ready well under way? Should SCIDA not have taken possession before construction began? Are you not putting Steuben County taxpayers in severe jeopardy by taking possession of a project having been started before proper permits were issued, no official oversight, no certified turbines that have major problems with gears and blades, no bonds in place, and no PILOT prior to construction?

In the SCIDA’s objectives from your website you state: “a major issue is the need to reduce electric costs in the region, and this is expected to be a priority in the next few years.” Are you aware wind energy is more expensive? Further part of your mission statement is “mission advance the job opportunities, general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of Steuben and to improve their standard of living”. The currently proposed wind projects do not meet these goals. A family owned diner provides more employment then UPC proposes, yet they do not get a tax break.

UPC in their various foreign entity forms and names is not a reputable company. Across the nation (Vermont, Oregon, NY, New Hampshire) their story is repeated. Construction and activities occur prior to proper permits being in place. You have accepted applications for financial assistance for the Cohocton and Prattsburgh projects that are incomplete and contain false statements. If as stated in their application Canandaigua Power Partners was willing to pay a minimum of $2.9 million, why would you not hold them to at least that figure? In the Dutch Hill application they stated they would pay at least $1.5 million. That adds up to $4.4 million a year the way math is done outside of Steuben County!! Again why would SCIDA accept less then an amount they agreed to in writing?

Who are the owners of the various LLC’s, what assets do they own? Why is information and data obtained through publically funded grants allowed to be kept confidential? Has it been proven to anyone’s satisfaction that Cohocton has the wind to support this project? Is the project as proposed viable, will it actually provide any significant amount of electricity?

The Cohocton projects do not appear to fit the requirements for financial help from SCIDA. What permanent employment is being created? Why if the amount of power to be sold to the grid is what they portray can they not afford to pay full industrial taxes on the project? Where is the proven need for the additional electric supply in Steuben County and more important Cohocton, your concern was about the cost of that electric not the need for additional production?

Before Steuben County sacrifices its one non replaceable resource, the pristine hill tops, where is the proof wind farms in upstate NY will produce reliable electricity? You can now obtain real data from Maple Ridge, Fenner, Madison, Wethersfield and Steel Winds. Please take a hard look at this data before rushing to spend more of our tax dollars on useless projects. For profit foreign LLCs should pay full taxes on an industrial project from which by their own projections they will be making millions each year, while you the SCIDA propose to have the already overburdened taxpayers of Steuben County pay higher utility bills and foot the tax burden for these foreigners companies besides.

Judith Hall

No comments: