Windfarm funfacts... a little more sunshine

[srkruzich]

    Enel is going to make money, that's what they're in business to do. What the people here need to decide is what to do with the PILOT money. A community involved with a similar project, I can't recall where, invested the money rather than spend it. Then used the money that was returned by the investment for projects. Sort of a county IRA I  guess. This money the county is getting will not be and endless fountain of fortune. What do those of you who are smart investors think?

THeres not a whole lot your going to do with the small amount that is being generated.   When you count the reduction of taxes on private owners land tax, your losing that tax to begin with and the only thing that the payments The windfarm are making is going to replace what you lose. So your essentially back to square one.  Kinda hard to do any investment when like Patriot said your running 1 million in the hole on a 2 million a year tax reciept. 

[readyaimduck]

What do those of you who are smart investors think?

smart enough to know you evaded my question.   

[Patriot]

        I believe the lease payments are made quarterly , $21.00/acre. There are ONE Time payments for each turbine, $2000. There are annual payments to those who have infrastructure such as sub stations , O&M buildings that are more or less permanent. There are quartely payments once operational of $4500 /megawatt units.

TradeWind Energy, on their website, in numerous press articles, and in supporting documents to the TVA has said they will be contributing some $3 million per year to the local economy through PILOT payments and lease payments to approximately 15 landowners.  The well documented PILOT payments average to about $1 million per year.  That would leave $2 million for lease payments to leaseholders.  With a stated project size of around 14000 acres and your figures of $21/A/quarter, that leaves something over $800,000 unaccounted for.  Who's figures are correct?  I think I'll stick with TradeWind's.

http://www.tradewindenergy.com/Project.aspx?id=238

The amounts and, generally, the details of leaseholder information are really improper fodder for public discussion.  In fact, the entire matter of leaseholders and monies they receive would normally be an entirely private matter were it not for one unique aspect of the Caney River project. Of true public concern, in my thinking, should be the ethical questions that arise from the involvement of an elected official in the direct negotiations with the developer for placement of the project (and project elements) in Elk County and the fact that, in the end, the outcome was that some 30% of the turbines and virtually all of the infrastructure mentioned ends up being placed on land owned and/or controlled, directly or indirectly, by that same elected official and/or the official's close family (or business entities owned/controlled by the same).  This information, if accurate, coupled with information that the elected official never recused from a vote or negotiation in the matter, reeks in my opinion, of a potential abuse of power and stands clearly in an ethical grey area.

Let's leave the private matters in private hands an look only at the intersection of public trust where it meets with private interests.  Perhaps you could share your views on these issues.

[Patriot]

    Does it matter who the landowners are?

Not usually.  Though the Caney River project may have some extenuating circumstances.  See my previous post. 

   Know this, PILOT is letting the company off cheap...

I'm not so sure.  The next closest payment I have heard about is something like $165,000/yr to Butler County.  The payment to Elk County starts at around $900,000/year, increasing by 2%/yr for some 20 years.  No small change.  Unless Enel received a lump subsidy of some $20 mil and are paying the PILOT with funds received as subsidies paid for by taxpayers on the national level.  Why are they willing to pay this much... solely property tax offsets on increase to commercial land use rates?  I'm not so sure.[/quote]

...but no different a scenario than large cities trying to lure manufacturing in by giving them a break.

I disagree.  A manufacturing facility will generally produce local employment of something greater than a 3 to 6 long term jobs.  Which employees will subsequently contribute to that local economy.  As will the facility itself, through local purchases of of utilities, supplies and possibly fuel, etc.

What is more important to the county as a whole, this windfall needs to be used , or invested , wisely; because it will go away and not come back . It will be like those who win the lottery and two years later are broke ,or in debt.

     This is not a new perpetual source of revenue. It is temporary.

In that we agree entirely.

[Diane Amberg]

I'm still thinking about your investment potential. Investing that kind of money is hard now...want to be fairly conservative because it's public money, right?. Interest rates stink. I'll think about it for awhile.

[Wilma]

Patriot, you are stating that an elected official was instrumental in bringing the wind farm project to Elk County.  Who, other than  elected officials do you think would be the proper person to do this negotiating?

You also state that a public official is invested in the land involved as such and should not be voting on the issues, but is voting on the issues.  In your opinion, this is unethical.  Probably it is unethical, if it is true.  But have you notified any of the proper authorities that there might be something unethical going on with the wind farm project?

In your opinion, is there another site in Elk County that would be as appropriate as the Caney Valley site for this project.  Was this project diverted from another site of equal or more appropriate nature?  How is a public official to blame because her family happens to own the land that the wind farm project selected?

It just happens that another landowner owns as much as the family you are talking about and another one owns almost as much.  And the percentage is, according to my figures, 26%, not 30%.  Three different entities own 68% of the land involved.  Now, being just an old woman, my figures may not be as accurate as a college educated mathematician's would be, but I think it is close enough to make my point.

HAVE YOU REPORTED YOUR SUPICIONS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES?

[readyaimduck]

Wima:  who do you suggest would be the one to handle this?
Please don't say the comissioners as that would  be like " the chicken asking the fox, who is stealing our eggs?"
IF, IF that is the case.

[Patriot]

HAVE YOU REPORTED YOUR SUPICIONS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES?

If you, or any of the dozens of other readers of this thread, are voters and/or taxpayers in Elk County, Kansas, then I guess the answer would be yes.  They've been informed.  Citizens who don't visit here will have to get information elsewhere.

[Janet Harrington]

Wima:  who do you suggest would be the one to handle this?
Please don't say the comissioners as that would  be like " the chicken asking the fox, who is stealing our eggs?"
IF, IF that is the case.

On the thread about the Elk Konnected handout or something like that, I wrote who the appropriate agency would be to report what someone keeps hinting is not ethical and that is the Kansas Attorney General's Office, headed by our "homeboy" (southeast Kansas homeboy), none other than Derek Schmidt. Gotta love that guy.

[Wilma]

There are state offices that investigate when a county is involved.  I think that someone posted something that had Tim Norton's name attached to it as to something about county commissioners.  I don't remember where I saw it, but Tim Norton is a Sedgwick County County Commissioner, has been for many years.  If you can't think of anyone else to contact I am sure he could tell you what to do.

What concerns me is how was this done without legal counsel seeing to it that no one involved had a conflict of interest?  Enel would have had legal counsel.  A company like that can't operate without it.  I am sure that any of the big entities that own the land would have had counsel before signing any leases.  Wouldn't the counsel for these families have seen to it that there was no conflict of interest?