All board members were present except Kevin Brown and Randy Inman.

Ms. Nichols was asked in what form the town board could require wind turbine companies to pay for limiting and correcting damage to roads caused by turbine construction and maintenance, and to cover the cost of decommissioning of turbines.

She reported that there are three types of financing vehicles available. Requiring a company to pay a bond is the most traditional vehicle, and has been around the longest. Or, the company might be required to make a cash deposit with the county treasurer. Or, the town could receive a letter of credit (LOC) from the company. Most municipalities choose to request an LOC.

Ms. Nichols then mentioned that another option is a "sinking fund," which she thinks would work well for funding the decommissioning of turbines. In a sinking fund, each year the company pays a portion of the full amount required, like a security deposit. By the time the turbines are decommissioned, there is theoretically enough money in the account to pay the full cost. Ms. Nichols was then asked if there were other issues Nicole Franzese (director of planning for Delaware County) wanted her to speak about. She said she assumed that Glenn Nealis (who spoke at the July 10 workshop on behalf of the Delaware County Industrial Development Agency) had already spoken to the boards about title purchase taxes.

The boards were then allowed to ask questions.

Ms. Nichols was asked about how a town permit to a wind company to erect turbines would work. She said that if the company does not meet the terms the town establishes for the turbines, the town can revoke the company's permit. Either the building department can revoke the permit, or the board can ask the town court or the state supreme court to revoke the permit. She said that it is reasonable to have an expert hired, at the company's expense, to make sure the terms of the permit are being met--as one cannot expect a local code enforcement officer to have the knowledge required to assess such a project. Requirements about decommissioning should be included as part of the permit.

Ms. Nichols said that it is reasonable to require the company that is applying for a permit to include the municipality in its insurance policy to protect the town from liability related to the turbines. She said that the insurance policy should include a provision that requires that the town be notified if the company fails to make payment on its insurance policy.

A board member noted that it would not work to use a sinking fund to cover the cost of early road work and road damage, since there wouldn't yet be enough money in the fund to cover such early costs.

It was asked whether a letter of credit would protect the town against loss in the event of a change in the financial status of the applicant company. Ms. Nichols said that an LOC can have an escalator clause to tie it to the rising cost of living and that it can be reviewed periodically. She said an LOC would not be used to provide general funds for the project.

A board member asked how the cost of decommissioning would be covered if it turned out that decommissioning was much more expensive than anticipated because of some unforeseen environmental problem in taking the turbines down. Ms. Nichols advised the boards that the board should be prudent, but also reasonable, in determining how much money the company should be required to set aside for decommissioning. No one could have foreseen the future cost of removing asbestos when it was installed in schools, for example. She said she assumed that Mr. Nealis had spoken of PILOT vs. full taxation and its influence on tracking decommissioning over time.

Ms. Nichols said that if the town opts to give a wind company a "special use" permit, the permit can be reviewed by the planning board, the zoning board, the town board, or the town code enforcement officer at regular intervals established by the town. If the company is doing something wrong, the town can revoke their permit and take the company to court. The rules the company must abide by are established in the permit process.

The community was then allowed to ask questions.

A community member asked about the boundary line issue that was discussed at the July 10 workshop. Ms. Nichols said the law is that the municipal line is the tax line, unless there is any evidence to the contrary. There is no hard law that states this, but case law supports it, she said. The board was asked to provide better clarification on this issue.

A community member offered to help the boards in researching health problems associated with wind turbines.

It was asked if there is a precedence that requires more than the local boards to decide about wind turbines. Ms. Nichols briefly explained home rule, which tends to push land use issues down to the local level. She noted that New York is disposed against town meeting government as is practiced in Vermont.

It was asked if indeed the town could forbid wind turbine plants. Ms. Nichols replied: Not without reasonable grounds. There has to be some factual basis or technical basis for the ban.

It was asked if the town can forbid an outside agency to offer PILOT. Can the town forbid their part of the tax revenue to be reduced and instead be paid at full value? There was some confusion in clarifying the question for Ms. Nichols.

A community member asked how it would be determined whether our roads have the capacity to carry the heavy loads required for wind turbine construction and maintenance. Nicole replied that the County Department of Transportation has numbers that describe the capacity of the state roads. Any road with a span of over twenty feet is rated by the county.

It was asked about gore lots (triangular parcels of land) and who owns them and their legal status. Ms. Nichols said she’d need more specifics. The two tax parcel numbers on a crucial ridge will be given to Nicole Franzese for further research.

Email info@allianceforbovina.org. to sign up for email alerts and stay informed.