Stamford New York on the Web

May 2008
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

VILLAGE BOARD MEETING, OCTOBER 16, 2007 7:00 PM

By webmaster | January 15, 2008

village-board-minutes-oct-16-2007.pdf

Topics: Village Board Minutes | 1 Comment »

January 4, 2008

By mayor | January 15, 2008

January 4, 2008

Editor

The Mountain Eagle

Stamford, NY

Dear Editor,

I believe the time has come to shed some light on the matter of the Stamford Village Board of Trustee’s decision not to sign an agreement with Moresville Energy, LLC, granting a 750’ setback for IWT tower placement on the slopes of Mt. Utsayantha.

It is evident that various individuals (who actually were not at the meeting, during any portion of the meeting) have mischaracterized completely not only the board’s action but also the agreement itself. Once facts have been brought to light, it is hoped that understanding may follow.

First of all, the village board did discuss all items on the agenda appropriately, including parks. The agenda had “Parks” listed on it. Tree spraying for caterpillars in the spring was discussed. The board unintentionally was sidetracked by another discussion (not uncommon in any board meeting), and the item regarding Moresville was picked up at the end of the meeting.

Every bit on the agenda was discussed in open session. Even though a related story had appeared in a previous October 2007 issue of The Mountain Eagle, no questions or requests for information on the Moresville proposal to the village were asked.

The board addressed the Moresville agreement in open session instead of going into an executive session, where the public and your reporter would have been excluded. The board voted in open session.

The board has no control over when folks show up for village meetings or when they leave. Fortunately, the reporter for our local paper stayed, so she could report accurately on the entire meeting.

This turbine setback matter actually was old business, having been introduced on October 16th to the board. At that meeting, again, there were no concerns voiced, or subsequent discussions asked for, by the public in attendance. There have been no later requests for more information.

In studying the actual contract, proposed by Moresville Energy, the board found several critical items, which are not consistent either with open government or with the best interests of the village.

The village board was not pleased with the mandatory confidentiality clause, the vagueness of some of the terms, and the fact that the Mt. Utsayantha road most likely would not be further improved by Moresville, after construction of the turbines.

The Town of Stamford Local Law #1 of 2007 (the turbine siting law) requires a turbine setback no closer than 1000 feet from an adjoining property line. Moresville wants to cut the setback footage to 750 feet from the village’s property line on Mt. Utsayantha. In order to accomplish this, the village board was asked to sign an agreement allowing Moresville a shorter setback, so that Moresville could seek a variance from the Town of Stamford’s law. Moresville is not entitled to this shorter setback.

The first red flag the board spotted was that the letter agreement (outlining the terms of compensation for the setback) required a mandatory confidentiality clause.

Quoting the clause:

“By acknowledging this letter agreement below, the Owner (village) agrees that this letter agreement: (i) is confidential and the terms of which shall not be disclosed to any non-immediate family member of the Owner; (ii) constitutes a binding agreement between the Owner (including heirs, successors and assigns) and the Grantee (Moresville); (iii) shall be supplemental to and shall not amend or replace any of the terms or conditions of the Setback Easement; and, (iv) represents the complete and entire agreement between the Parties regarding the Owner’s full compensation under the Setback Easement.”

The annual participation fee is $5000, with a one-time only turbine placement fee of $1000.

This annual fee shall start on the operation date (earliest date upon which the blades have been attached to a qualifying turbine) and shall end on the removal date (the date that the towers are uninstalled for all qualifying turbines).

Note: No real calendar dates are specified in this agreement so the village board has no clue as to the term length. 20 years is a specious guess.

If the village board had signed Moresville’s agreement, with the mandatory confidentiality clause, no public individual would have been allowed to know the terms that the village board agreed to. However, in order for the village to be paid its annual fees, the confidentiality agreement has to be signed.

Do the residents of the village agree that signing this secret agreement with Moresville would be acceptable, and a true demonstration of open government? What can one deduce from a company that sends this sort of contract to the village board as a first “good faith” effort?

The actual setback easement agreement itself contains language that allows Moresville Energy to do much more than just site wind turbines within 750’ of the village’s property line on the mountain.

An “Exhibit B” describes the area in which the village would authorize Moresville Energy to install wind power facilities:

All areas located within one thousand (1000’) feet of the property boundary;

All areas located within twenty-five hundred (2,500’) of residences that are not within the property, but not less than seventeen hundred (1,700’) feet.

THEN, under “Recitals,” the setback easement agreement specifies that:

The village consents to allow Moresville Energy to install wind power facilities within the area(s) specified in Exhibit B, whether or not such installation would result in the wind power facilities being closer to any residences or other habitable structures on the property than would otherwise be allowed by the setback requirement of the applicable law;(Town of Stamford Local Law No. 1 of 2007)

The village consents to allow Moresville Energy to install wind power facilities within the area(s) specified in Exhibit B, whether or not such installation would result in the wind power facilities being closer to the nearest boundary of the property than would otherwise be allowed by the setback requirements of the applicable law.

Owner (village) represents, warrants and covenants that Owner is the sole owner of the property and has the unrestricted right and authority to execute this Easement Agreement and that the person signing on behalf of Owner is authorized to do so. No other person has any rights which could affect the rights of Moresville Energy to carry out this Easement Agreement;

The covenants of Owner set forth in this Easement Agreement shall be appurtenant to the property, shall run with the land, and shall be enforceable at law or in equity by Moresville Energy and the transferees, successors and assigns of Moresville Energy.

The board felt that allowing possible unforeseen impacts on neighboring private properties, due to Recitals #1 & #2, was not ethical.

This setback easement is PERMANENT, and once granted cannot be terminated without the consent of the town boards of Stamford and Roxbury. The village board did not think being locked into such a legally binding instrument was healthy for the village’s interests.

Upon further review, the board found that the road use agreement is not exactly as portrayed in the street gossip.

Moresville Energy only agrees to, “following the completion of construction, Moresville Energy agrees to repair and reconstruct the roadways to at least the condition that existed prior to the commencement of the project.” In fact, every paragraph pertaining to road reconstruction contains the same language about restoration to a prior condition. The village would be extremely fortunate if it got more than the minimum restoration of the road, but there is absolutely no guarantee. There is no means for the village to ensure more, either.

Additionally, the agreement states that, “any underground cable may be abandoned in place and no further remediation is required.” One believes that these cables would be the abandoned electrical transmission lines, which are about the thickness of a man’s wrist.

The village may have been the recipient of $5,000.00 per year in the secret letter agreement, but who knows for how long? I reiterate: Nowhere, in any of the agreements that Moresville Energy has asked the village to sign, has an EXACT number of years for the project been specified.

The village board truly respects and appreciates the enormous amount of foundation & state money, public donations, energy, volunteer and paid labor that have been invested in our beautiful mountaintop. We intend to keep that restoration going, because an increasing number of people now visit the park. It remains an historic site.

250’ may not seem like a lot of distance to some, but it means that the park will be 250’ further away from any noise, flicker, and strobe lights blinking at 20 flashes per minute on every other tower. (The light flashing information comes from an installation & operation manual from TWR Lighting, which Moresville supplied to the village.)

Incidentally, the existing transmission towers on the top of the mountain earn the village approximately $14,000 per year. Anyone who has worked on a village budget during the past five years knows for a fact that this revenue goes straight into the general fund to balance the village’s annual budget.

If the village were to remove this $14,000 from the general fund and dedicate it fully to mountaintop maintenance, village taxes would have to be increased substantially to replace the $14,000. A more financially sound idea would be to put aside $1000 per year, into a dedicated mountaintop fund, and let it grow.

In closing, I would point out that, in the road use agreement, which covers the road restoration, Moresville Energy has a 30-day termination clause, in case Moresville files a petition of bankruptcy.

Unsigned copies of the Moresville agreements are available at the village hall, if anyone would like to examine them.

Anne P. Slatin

Mayor

Topics: Letters to The Mountain Eagle | No Comments »

Village of Stamford 2008 Election Information

By webmaster | December 30, 2007

Election Date: March 18, 2008 Noon – 9:00 p.m.

Positions: Two (2) Trustee positions, both 2-year terms.

November 19, 2007: First day to accept application for absentee ballot.
If application for Absentee Ballot is not completely filled out it will be returned. It is imperative that the reason for your absence and dates of your absence be stated.

March 7, 2008: Last day to register with County Board of Elections, to be eligible to vote in Village Election - 3 Gallant Avenue, Delhi, NY 13753-1095 - PHONE (607) 746-2315

March 11, 2008: Last day to receive application for absentee ballot by mail.

March 17, 2008: Last day to receive application for absentee ballot in person to be hand delivered to voter.

Note: There is no Registration Day in the Village. All registration is done by mail or in person at the County Board of Elections.

Voting Location: All voting to take place at the Village Fire Hall, downstairs, entrance on Churchill Avenue. [Map]

village-absentee-ballot-application.pdf
village-voter-registration-voteform.pdf
village-of-stamford-2008-election-notice.pdf

Topics: Village Elections | No Comments »