At the Select Board Meeting of December 18, 2007, Don McCauley, President, Minuteman Wind LLC gave a presentation on the estimate of property taxes that would be paid to the Town. Mr. McCauley cautioned the Board and those in attendance in presentation was a concept and would need a bylaw to know total costs.
Below is the letter Mr. McCauley provided to those in attendance.
"You have asked Minuteman Wind LLC to provide you with an estimate of the property taxes that would be paid by Minuteman once it begins operation of its proposed wind powered electric generating plant on West Hill off of Harwood Road.
This letter and the accompanying model will, we hope, provide information for the Board of Selectmen regarding the complex issues concerning property taxation for electric generating plants. We stress that this letter is only a discussion of the issues. The actual determination of valuation will depend on multiple factors, many of which Minuteman Wind will only be able to determine as it proceeds with detailed project design and implementation.
Property Taxes
Under the Electric Restructuring Act adopted by Massachusetts in 1997, electric generating plants are to be valued for property tax purposes based on market valuation, the same process used for other commercial and residential properties. This valuation is difficult for electric plants, however, because there is a limited history of comparable projects on which to develop the market valuation. In the absence of such a market, we are advised that assessors look primarily to the cash flow of the project to develop an estimate of value.
The accompanying model gives an overview of the cash flow of the project. It is a very simplified overview, but because of its simplicity perhaps it will provide a better view of the drivers of valuation. The project will have two principal sources of revenues: electricity sales and renewable energy certificate sales. The project will not have fuel costs, but will have various other operating expenses, including rent, insurance, planned maintenance, reserves for unscheduled maintenance, and administrative costs.
These revenues less operating expenses result in the net operating revenues (also referred to as cash available for debt service) for the project. This is the cash flow that will be used by assessors in valuing the project for property tax purposes. Critical issues in determining value will be the determination of the appropriate discount rate.
The model assumes prices of $.06/kwh for electric energy and $.04/kwh for RECs. It also assumes a discount rate of 12.5%. Based on these numbers, the project’s value will be approximately $22,000,000. This value will stay relatively constant until the last years of the project when the value will decline. At a tax rate of $10 per $1000, this would result in property taxes of approximately $220,000 per year. While these are ball park figures for planning, actual numbers will not be determined until Minuteman is able to proceed with the detailed planning of the project, assuming of course that the Town’s zoning bylaw is amended to allow Minuteman to proceed with a special permit application.
The projected value of approximately $22,000,000 is comparable to the expected cost of construction, so that a cost based approach will yield a comparable valuation. Again, these numbers are rough estimates and are based on estimates developed earlier in the project process. The cost of turbines is escalating significantly, and there are many costs, such as road improvements, which need much more definition.
Since the project represents new growth in property value for Savoy, it would increase the tax base of the town and increase permitted revenues under Proposition 2 1/2. The increased revenues could also be able to be used by the town to reduce the overall tax rate.
PILOT Agreements
As an alternative to property tax assessment and collection, towns are permitted to enter into long term PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreements with electric generating plants. A PILOT agreement would specify the amount payable to the Town each year, which would be comparable to the property tax amount and could include an agreed escalator. It would avoid potential disputes as to valuation and save the town the additional periodic cost of engaging an expert to complete a property valuation of the electric generating plant. It would also avoid volatility in tax revenue as market prices for electricity and RECs change over time. Minuteman strongly believes that a PILOT agreement is the appropriate way to proceed and would want to enter into a PILOT agreement with the Town.
Additional Issues
You should note that the cash available for debt services which will be used as the basis for valuation does not represent the value of the project to Minuteman. Minuteman will use these funds to pay back loans and other financing necessary to pay for the cost of constructing the project.
Another issue that will need to be addressed is the proper treatment of the decommissioning fund and its impact on the value of the project. In the model, we have assumed that the decommissioning fund will be an expense in the first year. This is a placeholder, until we negotiate the nature of the decommissioning fund and determine its proper accounting treatment. It is just included here as a reminder that, while it is a necessary obligation of Minuteman, it is a true cost of the project that will impact the project’s value.
We hope that this information is helpful to you in understanding the project, but, again, we must caution the Board that these are estimates and subject to change as Minuteman proceeds into more detailed project analysis.
We look forward to discussing the matter further with you, and hope for your support of the citizens’ petition submitted by Mr. Malloy." end of letter
Mr. Tom Marshall asked the Select Board members where they stood on the issue.
Mr. Bettis stated he is personally for it. "I am a very green person, wind is free, sustainable, this project is doable. It’s not my call, it’s the town’s call."
Mr. Tynan stated he would like to see it happen, "but, we have to listen to everyone in town. My personal opinion, I don’t really care about windmills."
Mr. Koczela said he liked the idea, but he was also thinking about the people who live in the area and how it would impact them. "We are facing a huge debt right now, our override didn’t pass, we are cleaning out all of our reserves, taxes are going to keep going up. Are we going to wait for the State to keep handing out money to us and we keep going in the hole." He stated the monies may help to stabilize the town and provide money for new highway equipment, fire equipment, and possibly drop taxes in the future. "It is very, very tempting."
Mr. Bettis stated it is part of the Select Board’s job to try and get new revenue, and there is not much of a way to do that in this town.
By Brenda Smith
(Editor’s note: The Select Board meeting was tape recorded. If anyone in Savoy would like to hear the hour long discussion with Mr. McCauley and the Select Board, the recording will be available until Wednesday, January 2, 2008. The Special Town Meeting to vote on the bylaw is Thursday, January 3 at 7PM at the Fire Station.)
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Money is the Carrot, Here’s the Stick.
Pretty is as pretty does. If power from wind made any sense, it might strike some balance between its production value and its downsides.
Wind doesn’t blow enough or dependably. The usual energy generators must consistently back up wind turbine generators. The construction costs per turbine are several million dollars subsidized by taxpayers. Getting energy from wind is a fool’s wasteful errand. Consumers will pay more for energy.
Two centuries ago, steam replaced wind power in the whaling industry eliminating weeks at sea without a breeze, the “doldrums”. What do we get? We get a higher electric bill, very little energy and as much or more CO2.
What expenses would $220K cover in Savoy? That income would reduce the State’s grants to Savoy by $100K for its lottery money shares and aid to the school. And after various costs of added full-time police, firefighters, road workers and maintenance, what is left? Hardly anything.
Property values will decrease causing a tax burden shift. Health risks go up due to very short setback distances of houses from turbines. The World Health Organi-zation sets a safe setback at a mile and a half. Is the town prepared for lawsuits?
What assurances are given that Savoy will see the money? Other towns across the country report they have been shortchanged. Developers are in it for the money only, not the energy.
Savoy’s Town Clerk reports that there are no firm money assurances from the developer Minuteman Wind, no signed contract not even a handshake.
$220K is an unfounded figure. It is the carrot, the stick is to trick Savoy into a very destructive deal: financial, environmental, as well as aesthetic ruin. The pot at rainbow’s end has a hole in it.
Preston McClanahan
Savoy, MA
Pretty is as pretty does. If power from wind made any sense, it might strike some balance between its production value and its downsides.
Wind doesn’t blow enough or dependably. The usual energy generators must consistently back up wind turbine generators. The construction costs per turbine are several million dollars subsidized by taxpayers. Getting energy from wind is a fool’s wasteful errand. Consumers will pay more for energy.
Two centuries ago, steam replaced wind power in the whaling industry eliminating weeks at sea without a breeze, the “doldrums”. What do we get? We get a higher electric bill, very little energy and as much or more CO2.
What expenses would $220K cover in Savoy? That income would reduce the State’s grants to Savoy by $100K for its lottery money shares and aid to the school. And after various costs of added full-time police, firefighters, road workers and maintenance, what is left? Hardly anything.
Property values will decrease causing a tax burden shift. Health risks go up due to very short setback distances of houses from turbines. The World Health Organi-zation sets a safe setback at a mile and a half. Is the town prepared for lawsuits?
What assurances are given that Savoy will see the money? Other towns across the country report they have been shortchanged. Developers are in it for the money only, not the energy.
Savoy’s Town Clerk reports that there are no firm money assurances from the developer Minuteman Wind, no signed contract not even a handshake.
$220K is an unfounded figure. It is the carrot, the stick is to trick Savoy into a very destructive deal: financial, environmental, as well as aesthetic ruin. The pot at rainbow’s end has a hole in it.
Preston McClanahan
Savoy, MA
Friday, December 21, 2007
A MESSAGE FROM THE TOWN CLERK:
I am writing this article in response to a deluge of phone calls to my home and the Town Clerk’s office concerning a report in the North Adams Transcript.
On Wednesday, January 3rd, residents will be asked to consider accepting or rejecting a bylaw that addresses the wind tower project on West Hill. This is the first of two bylaws that have been submitted to the town for approval by the voters. Townspeople are understandably confused with this two bylaw situation and have been given the additional burden of trying to sort the misinformation from the facts. On December 19th, an article appeared in the Transcript stating that the developer of the wind power project, Minuteman Wind, LLC, had offered the town $220,000 annually "in the form of a payment in lieu of taxes if its proposed wind farm is approved for a special permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals." This information is not accurate.
A letter from Donald S. McCauley, President of Minuteman Wind LLC, dated December 11, 2007, clearly states....."we must caution the Board that these are estimates and subject to change as Minuteman proceeds into more detailed project analysis." As Town Clerk and keeper of the town records, I can clearly state that there has been no document entered into the town records, no definitive agreement, no contract signed by officials, and, (to my knowledge), not a handshake, or a promise, that any amount of money has been agreed upon. And, again, as Town Clerk, I am concerned that those residents ..."celebrating the offer as an answer to daunting financial problems." , and others who read the article in the Transcript, will make their decision based on this erroneous information. Copies of the Minuteman letter are available at the Town Office as well as both bylaws. I urge all residents to know what they are voting for.
BYLAW CONFUSION
Two bylaws are to be voted on by the town. The first, which will go before the voters on January 3rd, was influenced by a state-designed outline for a bylaw addressing wind tower projects within the Commonwealth. It is a simple document that is easy to understand and states clearly its objectives. This proposal was submitted by Mr. Harold "Butch" Malloy, owner of the land the turbines will be built on, and forty-three registered voters who also signed the document.
The second bylaw is being proposed by the Savoy Planning Board. This document has been three years in the works and permits construction of wind facilities town wide, as does the "Malloy" bylaw, but restricts certain aspects of a project that would not comply with the concerns of the residents. This bylaw was developed as a result from the input of resident comments, neighboring town input, advice from the Attorney General’s office, Town Council, and visits to Planning Boards in other communities that have already experienced wind farms.
The difference in the bylaws rests mostly with the height of the towers. In the "Malloy" version, 425 feet is proposed as acceptable to the area landscape. The Savoy Planning Board suggests 350 feet is the height most reasonable to fit the size of the community and surrounding areas. Other areas of comparison between the two bylaws concern future projects, property setback, emergency services, flicker and shadow effects, abandonment, balloon visualization (pre-construction), and abandonment. The Planning Board has been handing out informational sheets on their proposed bylaw that point out the differences between the two laws for the convenience of the residents. This information is also available at the Town Office.
Residents should understand the importance of knowing what they are voting on. The results of this issue will impact the town of Savoy and its residents today and for generations to come. It should not be taken lightly, nor should the responsibility of this decision be left to others. Get the facts. Know the substance of each of these bylaws. Vote the one that you feel would best serve you and the community in general.
I am writing this article in response to a deluge of phone calls to my home and the Town Clerk’s office concerning a report in the North Adams Transcript.
On Wednesday, January 3rd, residents will be asked to consider accepting or rejecting a bylaw that addresses the wind tower project on West Hill. This is the first of two bylaws that have been submitted to the town for approval by the voters. Townspeople are understandably confused with this two bylaw situation and have been given the additional burden of trying to sort the misinformation from the facts. On December 19th, an article appeared in the Transcript stating that the developer of the wind power project, Minuteman Wind, LLC, had offered the town $220,000 annually "in the form of a payment in lieu of taxes if its proposed wind farm is approved for a special permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals." This information is not accurate.
A letter from Donald S. McCauley, President of Minuteman Wind LLC, dated December 11, 2007, clearly states....."we must caution the Board that these are estimates and subject to change as Minuteman proceeds into more detailed project analysis." As Town Clerk and keeper of the town records, I can clearly state that there has been no document entered into the town records, no definitive agreement, no contract signed by officials, and, (to my knowledge), not a handshake, or a promise, that any amount of money has been agreed upon. And, again, as Town Clerk, I am concerned that those residents ..."celebrating the offer as an answer to daunting financial problems." , and others who read the article in the Transcript, will make their decision based on this erroneous information. Copies of the Minuteman letter are available at the Town Office as well as both bylaws. I urge all residents to know what they are voting for.
BYLAW CONFUSION
Two bylaws are to be voted on by the town. The first, which will go before the voters on January 3rd, was influenced by a state-designed outline for a bylaw addressing wind tower projects within the Commonwealth. It is a simple document that is easy to understand and states clearly its objectives. This proposal was submitted by Mr. Harold "Butch" Malloy, owner of the land the turbines will be built on, and forty-three registered voters who also signed the document.
The second bylaw is being proposed by the Savoy Planning Board. This document has been three years in the works and permits construction of wind facilities town wide, as does the "Malloy" bylaw, but restricts certain aspects of a project that would not comply with the concerns of the residents. This bylaw was developed as a result from the input of resident comments, neighboring town input, advice from the Attorney General’s office, Town Council, and visits to Planning Boards in other communities that have already experienced wind farms.
The difference in the bylaws rests mostly with the height of the towers. In the "Malloy" version, 425 feet is proposed as acceptable to the area landscape. The Savoy Planning Board suggests 350 feet is the height most reasonable to fit the size of the community and surrounding areas. Other areas of comparison between the two bylaws concern future projects, property setback, emergency services, flicker and shadow effects, abandonment, balloon visualization (pre-construction), and abandonment. The Planning Board has been handing out informational sheets on their proposed bylaw that point out the differences between the two laws for the convenience of the residents. This information is also available at the Town Office.
Residents should understand the importance of knowing what they are voting on. The results of this issue will impact the town of Savoy and its residents today and for generations to come. It should not be taken lightly, nor should the responsibility of this decision be left to others. Get the facts. Know the substance of each of these bylaws. Vote the one that you feel would best serve you and the community in general.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Below is the Proposed Savoy Wind Energy Bylaw presented by Mr. Malloy. I (Brenda Smith) was remiss by not posting this proposal sooner.
SECTION 9. COMMERCIAL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES
9.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Section 9 of the Zoning Bylaw is to provide by special permit for the construction and operation of commercial wind facilities while minimizing the impacts on the scenic, natural and historic resources of the Town of Savoy. This bylaw provides standards and requirements for the design, construction, monitoring, modification and removal of such facilities.
9.2 Definitions. The following terms are defined, for purposes of Section 9, as follows:
Access Road: A roadway constructed on the Site for use in the construction and operation of the Commercial Wind Facility.
Commercial Wind Facility: A Wind Energy Conversion Facility with a nameplate capacity greater than 60 kW.
CWF Owner: The person owning the Commercial Wind Facility.
Decommissioning: Decommissioning shall consist of:
a. Physical removal of all wind turbines, structures, equipment, security barriers and transmission lines, except foundations and underground conduits, from the Site.
b. Disposal of all solid and hazardous waste in accordance with applicable waste disposal regulations.
c. Stabilization or re-vegetation of the Site as necessary to minimize erosion.
Height: The height of each wind turbine in a Wind Energy Conversion Facility shall be measured from the grade at the base of the turbine to the uppermost extension of any blade of the turbine.
Meteorological Tower: A temporary tower equipped with devices to measure wind speeds and direction, used to determine how much wind power a site can be expected to generate.
Property Owner: The person holding proprietary interest in land on which the Wind Energy Conversion Facility is located or proposed to be located. The owner may or may not be the CWF Owner.
Site: The parcel or parcels on which the Commercial Wind Facility is to be located.
Special Permit Granting Authority or SPGA means the Town of Savoy Zoning Board of Appeals.
Wind Energy Conversion Facility: All equipment, machinery and structures utilized in connection with the utilization of wind energy to generate electric energy, including related transmission, distribution, collection, storage or supply systems whether underground, on the surface or overhead, and other equipment including but not limited to, wind turbine, anemometer (wind measuring equipment), transformers, substation, power lines, control and maintenance facilities, site access and service roads. A Wind Energy Conversion Facility may consist of one or more wind turbines. The primary components of a wind turbine are the foundation, tower, nacelle and blades (see diagram attached as Appendix A to the Zoning Bylaw).
9.3. Meteorological Towers. A Meteorological Tower shall be a by-right temporary structure installation provided that it meets the following conditions:
9.3.1 The height of the Meteorological tower shall not exceed 200 feet.
9.3.2 The Meteorological Tower shall be located at a distance of at least 1.0 times the height of the tower from any adjacent property boundary and at a distance of at least 1.5 times the height of the tower from any structure/building occupied by humans on adjacent properties.
9.3.3. The SPGA may require that, prior to erection of the Meteorological Tower, the applicant shall provide (i) evidence of commercial general liability insurance in an amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and (ii) a financial surety in an amount appropriate for the removal of the Meteorological Tower and otherwise in a form a reasonably satisfactory to the SPGA.
9.3.4 The Meteorological Tower shall be removed after a period of 3 years from the date of erection, but such period may be extended by the SPGA for a reasonable period (i) in the event of a failure in the data collection equipment or (ii) upon filing of an application for a special permit for a Commercial Wind Facility at the site where the Meteorological Tower is located.
9.4. General Requirements for Commercial Wind Energy Facilities.
9.4.1. General. No Commercial Wind Facility may be erected, constructed, or installed without first obtaining a Special Permit from the SPGA as provided for in this bylaw. Any physical modifications to existing Commercial Wind Facilities that materially alters the type or size of such facilities shall also require a special permit from the SPGA. The SPGA shall grant a Special Permit if it finds that the proposed Commercial Wind Facility complies with the criteria of this Section 9 and other applicable provisions of the Zoning Bylaw.
9.4.2 Compliance with Laws. The construction and operation of all Commercial Wind facilities shall be consistent with all applicable local, state and federal requirements, including but not limited to all applicable safety, construction, environmental, electrical, communications and aviation requirements. The issuance of a special permit shall not limit the Town’s ability to enforce or seek enforcement of other legal requirements applicable to the Commercial Wind Facility.
9.4.3 Liability Insurance. Prior to commencement of construction, the CWF Owner shall provide evidence to the Board of Selectmen of adequate liability insurance against loss or damage to persons, including personal injury or death, and structures occasioned by failure of the facility.
9.4.4 Accessory Uses. Telecommunications antennas may be sited on Commercial Wind Facilities, subject to applicable regulations governing such uses and to the following.
(a) All ground-mounted equipment shall be located in a shelter, within the Commercial Wind Facility or otherwise screened from view.
(b) Antennas shall be flush-mounted to be in keeping with the design of the Commercial Wind Facility;
(c) All associate cabling shall be contained within the tower structure or enclosed within a conduit finished to match the turbine.
9.5 General Siting Standards
9.5.1 Height. The height of a Commercial Wind Facility shall not exceed 425 feet, with a minimum blade clearance from the ground immediate below of 100 feet.
9.5.2 Setbacks. Each wind turbine in the Commercial Wind Facility shall be located at a distance of at least 1.0 times the height of the tower from any adjacent property boundary and at a distance of at least 1.5 times the height of the facility from any structure/building occupied by humans on adjacent properties which have received a building permit or certificate of occupancy from the Town at the time of the application for a special permit.
9.6 Design Standards.
9.6.1 Color. All facility devices/components (tower, hub and blades) shall be designed to blend into the structure and/or the landscape to the extent reasonably practicable, such as by including the use of non-reflective and less obtrusive colored (e.g. ‘putty’) exterior paints.
9.6.2 Lighting. Lighting of the exterior of the wind facility shall be prohibited, except for the minimum extent necessary lighting or marking requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. Supplemental lighting of safety or information signs as determined necessary by the SPGA. Lighting shall be designed to minimize glare on abutting properties and except as required by the FAA be directed downward with full cut-off fixtures to reduce light pollution.
9.6.3 Signage. The Commercial Wind Facility shall have signs on or near each wind turbine identifying the CWF Owner and providing a 24-hour emergency contact phone number. The Commercial Wind Facility shall also have signs on or near each wind turbine and at the beginning of the on-site access road to minimize trespassing and to warn of any dangers at the Commercial Wind Facility. The Commercial Wind Facility may also have educational signs providing information about the facility and the benefits of renewable energy. All signs shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw.
9.6.4 Advertising. The Commercial Wind Facility shall not display any advertising except for reasonable identification of the manufacturer of the wind turbine and of the owner and operator of the facility.
9.6.5. Appurtenant Structures. All appurtenant structures, including but not limited to equipment shelters, storage facilities, transformers and substations, shall be architecturally compatible with each other and shall be contained within the wind turbine tower to the extent technically and economically feasible. Structures shall only be used for housing of equipment for the Site.
9.7 Safety, Aesthetic and Environmental Standards.
9.7.1 Emergency Services. The applicant shall provide a copy of project plans to local emergency services, as designated by the SPGA. Upon request, the applicant shall provide safety training courses to local emergency services and shall cooperate with local emergency services in developing an emergency response plan.
9.7.2 Shadow/Flicker. A Commercial Wind Facility shall be sited in a manner that minimizes shadowing or flicker impacts which occur when the sun's rays on nearby receptors (usually homes and businesses) are temporarily blocked by the passing of a rotating wind turbine blade. The applicant has the burden of proving that shadowing or flicker does not have significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent uses.
9.7.3 Noise. The Commercial Wind Facility noise shall conform to the regulations of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Air Quality Noise Regulations (310 CMR 7.10).
9.7.4 Land Clearing. Clearing of natural vegetation shall be limited to that which is necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Commercial Wind Facility and shall otherwise be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal requirements.
9.7.5 Safety Features. The Commercial Wind facility shall be designed to prevent unauthorized access (such as by construction of a fenced enclosure or locked access). The SPGA may impose such safety-related conditions, including buy not limited to fences, gates and warning signs as it reasonably finds necessary to protect public health and safety.
9.8 Maintenance.
9.8.1 Access Road. The CWF Owner shall, at all times, maintain the Access Road to a level reasonably acceptable to the local emergency services.
9.8.2 Site Maintenance. The CWF Owner shall maintain the access road (unless accepted as a public way), the Site, and the Commercial Wind Facility in good condition.
9.8.3 Repair of Public Ways. The CWF Owner shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to a public way (including the Access Road if accepted as a public way) restoration of any damage caused by use of the public way in connection with the construction, operation or maintenance of the Commercial Wind Facility. A qualified third party engineer, mutually acceptable to the Town and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant, shall prior to construction (but no longer than a period of 30 days) document road conditions over roads expected to be used in the construction of the Commercial Wind Facility. The engineer shall document road consitions over affectd roads thirty days after completion of construction, or reasonably thereafter as weather permits. Necessary road repairs shall be approved by the Town Highway Department and the Board of Selectmen. The cost of any road repairs as a result of the construction of the Commercial Wind Facility shall be borne by the CWF Owner.
9.9 Abandonment or Decommissioning.
9.9.1 Removal Requirements. Any Commercial Wind Facility which has reached the end of its useful life shall be Decommissioned. When the Commercial Wind Facility is scheduled to be Decommissioned, the CWF Owner shall notify the Town of the proposed date of discontinued operations and plans for Decommissioning. The CWF Owner shall provide for the physical removal of the wind turbines within 150 days after the date of discontinued operations and shall diligently pursue all other Decommissioning activities.
9.9.2 Abandonment. Absent notice of a proposed date of Decommissioning, the Commercial Wind Facility shall be considered abandoned when it fails to operate, except for repair, refurbishment or upgrading, for a consecutive period of one year, unless with the expressed written consent of the SPGA. The SPGA shall determine in its decision what proportion of the facility is inoperable for the facility to be considered abandoned. If the CWF Owner applicant fails to Decommission Commercial Wind Facility in accordance with the requirements of section 9.9.1 within 150 days of abandonment or the proposed date of decommissioning, the Town, by direction of the Selectmen, shall have the authority to enter the property and physically remove the facility in accordance with this section.
9.9.3 Surety
9.9.3.1. Prior to commencing construction, the CWF Owner shall post an ongoing financial surety to cover the cost of Decommissioning in the event the Town must decommission the Commercial Wind Facility in compliance with the requirements set forth herein. Costs may include necessary legal, engineering, permitting, procurement, and construction and demolition expenses.
9.9.3.2. The surety shall be in a form (such as escrow account, bond, or otherwise) and an amount (not exceeding 125 percent of the cost of removal and compliance with the additional requirements set forth herein) reasonably satisfactory to the SPGA. The surety may be issued jointly by the CWF Owner to the Town, the Property Owner, and its lenders, and may be enforceable by each beneficiary in accordance with its terms.
9.9.3.3. A proposed form of surety which is limited in duration (e.g., to 1, 2, 5 years, etc.) shall be acceptable to the SPGA, subject to the condition that it is replaced by another acceptable form of surety prior to its expiration. Thus, an applicant may from time to time update with current estimates its costs of removal and other compliance and provide a new surety consistent with the updated estimates.
9.10 Term of Special Permit; Annual Meeting
9.10.1 Term of Special Permit. A Special Permit issued for a Commercial Wind Facility shall be valid for 25 years, unless extended or renewed. The time period may be extended or the permit renewed by the SPGA upon satisfactory operation of the facility. Request for renewal must be submitted at least 540 days prior to expiration of the special permit. Submitting a renewal request shall allow for continued operation of the facility until the SPGA acts. At the end of that period (including extensions and renewals), the wind facility shall be removed as required by this bylaw. The SPGA will reserve the right to waive sections of the wind turbine bylaw based upon historical data recorded over the prior years of operation.
9.10.2 Annual Meeting. An annual meeting shall be conducted (to be scheduled by the CWF Owner) between the CWF Owner and the town officials to discuss project related issues and concerns, including, but not limited to (i) recorded problems and incidents; (ii) resolution of problems and incidents; and (iii) report on equipment service plans.
9.10.3 Notice of Change in Ownership. Notice shall be provided to the Board of Selectmen of any change in the ownership of the Commercial Wind Facility.
9.11 Application Requirements and Process.
9.11.1 General. The application for special permit for a Commercial Wind Facility shall be filed by the applicant with the town clerk. The applicant shall provide 8 copies of the application. The application may redact any sensitive economic information concerning the facility.
9.11.2 Required Documents. The application shall include:
9.11.2.1 the name and contact information for the applicant;
9.11.2.2 a list of all project related consultants and technical specialists; and
9.11.2.3 documentation of the applicant’s legal right to use the Site for construction and operation of the Commercial Wind Facility.
9.11.3 Siting and Design Information. The application shall include the following material to describe the proposed Commercial Wind Facility:
9.11.3.1 Location Map. A copy of a portion of the most recent USGS Quadrangle Map, at a scale of 1:25,000, showing the proposed facility site, including the turbine sites, and the area within at least two miles from the proposed facility.
9.11.3.2 Site Plan. A plan of the facility site at a scale of 1" = 200 feet, with contour intervals no greater than 10 feet showing:
(a) Property lines for the Site and adjacent parcels within 300 feet;
(b) Outline of all existing buildings, including purpose (e.g. residence, garage, etc.) on the Site and all adjacent parcels within 500 feet and showing distance from the Commercial Wind Facility to each building shown;
(c) Location of all roads, public and private, on the Site and adjacent parcels, and proposed roads on the Site;
(d) Existing vegetation on the Site; and
(e) Proposed location and design of the Commercial Wind Facility, including all wind turbines, ground equipment, appurtenant structures, transmission infrastructure, access roads, fencing and lighting.
9.11.4. Visualizations. The Applicant shall provide visualizations from at least five sight lines selected to give representative views from principal locations in the Town and surrounding communities, for pre- and post-construction view representations of the Commercial Wind Facility. The view representations shall:
(a) be in color and shall include actual pre-construction photographs and accurate post-construction simulations of the height and breadth of the wind facility (e.g. superimpositions of the wind facility onto photographs of existing views).
(b) include existing, or proposed, buildings or tree coverage.
(c) be accompanied by a description of the technical procedures followed in producing the visualization (distances, angles, lens, etc).
9.11.5 Landscape Plan. The application shall include a plan indicating all proposed changes to the landscape of the site, including temporary or permanent roads or driveways, grading, vegetation clearing and planting, exterior lighting other than FAA lights, screening vegetation or structures.
9.11.6 Traffic Plan. The application shall provide the applicants estimate of traffic impacts during the construction and operation of the Commercial Wind Facility, including:
(a) a map of roadways anticipated to be utilized for construction and delivery of all project components and materials;
(b) Provide information on delivery vehicle types available for delivery of wind turbine components;
(c) Report all locations on the delivery route where land alterations, notwithstanding ownership, are necessary;
(d) Report if there will be road closures and disruptions affecting provisions for emergency response; and
(e) Report on any necessary road improvements.
9.11.7. Town Consultants. The SPGA may retain technical experts and consultants as appropriate to verify information presented by the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of such consultants.
APPENDIX A was a picture of the wind turbine which will not scan to become part of this document.
SECTION 9. COMMERCIAL WIND ENERGY FACILITIES
9.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Section 9 of the Zoning Bylaw is to provide by special permit for the construction and operation of commercial wind facilities while minimizing the impacts on the scenic, natural and historic resources of the Town of Savoy. This bylaw provides standards and requirements for the design, construction, monitoring, modification and removal of such facilities.
9.2 Definitions. The following terms are defined, for purposes of Section 9, as follows:
Access Road: A roadway constructed on the Site for use in the construction and operation of the Commercial Wind Facility.
Commercial Wind Facility: A Wind Energy Conversion Facility with a nameplate capacity greater than 60 kW.
CWF Owner: The person owning the Commercial Wind Facility.
Decommissioning: Decommissioning shall consist of:
a. Physical removal of all wind turbines, structures, equipment, security barriers and transmission lines, except foundations and underground conduits, from the Site.
b. Disposal of all solid and hazardous waste in accordance with applicable waste disposal regulations.
c. Stabilization or re-vegetation of the Site as necessary to minimize erosion.
Height: The height of each wind turbine in a Wind Energy Conversion Facility shall be measured from the grade at the base of the turbine to the uppermost extension of any blade of the turbine.
Meteorological Tower: A temporary tower equipped with devices to measure wind speeds and direction, used to determine how much wind power a site can be expected to generate.
Property Owner: The person holding proprietary interest in land on which the Wind Energy Conversion Facility is located or proposed to be located. The owner may or may not be the CWF Owner.
Site: The parcel or parcels on which the Commercial Wind Facility is to be located.
Special Permit Granting Authority or SPGA means the Town of Savoy Zoning Board of Appeals.
Wind Energy Conversion Facility: All equipment, machinery and structures utilized in connection with the utilization of wind energy to generate electric energy, including related transmission, distribution, collection, storage or supply systems whether underground, on the surface or overhead, and other equipment including but not limited to, wind turbine, anemometer (wind measuring equipment), transformers, substation, power lines, control and maintenance facilities, site access and service roads. A Wind Energy Conversion Facility may consist of one or more wind turbines. The primary components of a wind turbine are the foundation, tower, nacelle and blades (see diagram attached as Appendix A to the Zoning Bylaw).
9.3. Meteorological Towers. A Meteorological Tower shall be a by-right temporary structure installation provided that it meets the following conditions:
9.3.1 The height of the Meteorological tower shall not exceed 200 feet.
9.3.2 The Meteorological Tower shall be located at a distance of at least 1.0 times the height of the tower from any adjacent property boundary and at a distance of at least 1.5 times the height of the tower from any structure/building occupied by humans on adjacent properties.
9.3.3. The SPGA may require that, prior to erection of the Meteorological Tower, the applicant shall provide (i) evidence of commercial general liability insurance in an amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and (ii) a financial surety in an amount appropriate for the removal of the Meteorological Tower and otherwise in a form a reasonably satisfactory to the SPGA.
9.3.4 The Meteorological Tower shall be removed after a period of 3 years from the date of erection, but such period may be extended by the SPGA for a reasonable period (i) in the event of a failure in the data collection equipment or (ii) upon filing of an application for a special permit for a Commercial Wind Facility at the site where the Meteorological Tower is located.
9.4. General Requirements for Commercial Wind Energy Facilities.
9.4.1. General. No Commercial Wind Facility may be erected, constructed, or installed without first obtaining a Special Permit from the SPGA as provided for in this bylaw. Any physical modifications to existing Commercial Wind Facilities that materially alters the type or size of such facilities shall also require a special permit from the SPGA. The SPGA shall grant a Special Permit if it finds that the proposed Commercial Wind Facility complies with the criteria of this Section 9 and other applicable provisions of the Zoning Bylaw.
9.4.2 Compliance with Laws. The construction and operation of all Commercial Wind facilities shall be consistent with all applicable local, state and federal requirements, including but not limited to all applicable safety, construction, environmental, electrical, communications and aviation requirements. The issuance of a special permit shall not limit the Town’s ability to enforce or seek enforcement of other legal requirements applicable to the Commercial Wind Facility.
9.4.3 Liability Insurance. Prior to commencement of construction, the CWF Owner shall provide evidence to the Board of Selectmen of adequate liability insurance against loss or damage to persons, including personal injury or death, and structures occasioned by failure of the facility.
9.4.4 Accessory Uses. Telecommunications antennas may be sited on Commercial Wind Facilities, subject to applicable regulations governing such uses and to the following.
(a) All ground-mounted equipment shall be located in a shelter, within the Commercial Wind Facility or otherwise screened from view.
(b) Antennas shall be flush-mounted to be in keeping with the design of the Commercial Wind Facility;
(c) All associate cabling shall be contained within the tower structure or enclosed within a conduit finished to match the turbine.
9.5 General Siting Standards
9.5.1 Height. The height of a Commercial Wind Facility shall not exceed 425 feet, with a minimum blade clearance from the ground immediate below of 100 feet.
9.5.2 Setbacks. Each wind turbine in the Commercial Wind Facility shall be located at a distance of at least 1.0 times the height of the tower from any adjacent property boundary and at a distance of at least 1.5 times the height of the facility from any structure/building occupied by humans on adjacent properties which have received a building permit or certificate of occupancy from the Town at the time of the application for a special permit.
9.6 Design Standards.
9.6.1 Color. All facility devices/components (tower, hub and blades) shall be designed to blend into the structure and/or the landscape to the extent reasonably practicable, such as by including the use of non-reflective and less obtrusive colored (e.g. ‘putty’) exterior paints.
9.6.2 Lighting. Lighting of the exterior of the wind facility shall be prohibited, except for the minimum extent necessary lighting or marking requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. Supplemental lighting of safety or information signs as determined necessary by the SPGA. Lighting shall be designed to minimize glare on abutting properties and except as required by the FAA be directed downward with full cut-off fixtures to reduce light pollution.
9.6.3 Signage. The Commercial Wind Facility shall have signs on or near each wind turbine identifying the CWF Owner and providing a 24-hour emergency contact phone number. The Commercial Wind Facility shall also have signs on or near each wind turbine and at the beginning of the on-site access road to minimize trespassing and to warn of any dangers at the Commercial Wind Facility. The Commercial Wind Facility may also have educational signs providing information about the facility and the benefits of renewable energy. All signs shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw.
9.6.4 Advertising. The Commercial Wind Facility shall not display any advertising except for reasonable identification of the manufacturer of the wind turbine and of the owner and operator of the facility.
9.6.5. Appurtenant Structures. All appurtenant structures, including but not limited to equipment shelters, storage facilities, transformers and substations, shall be architecturally compatible with each other and shall be contained within the wind turbine tower to the extent technically and economically feasible. Structures shall only be used for housing of equipment for the Site.
9.7 Safety, Aesthetic and Environmental Standards.
9.7.1 Emergency Services. The applicant shall provide a copy of project plans to local emergency services, as designated by the SPGA. Upon request, the applicant shall provide safety training courses to local emergency services and shall cooperate with local emergency services in developing an emergency response plan.
9.7.2 Shadow/Flicker. A Commercial Wind Facility shall be sited in a manner that minimizes shadowing or flicker impacts which occur when the sun's rays on nearby receptors (usually homes and businesses) are temporarily blocked by the passing of a rotating wind turbine blade. The applicant has the burden of proving that shadowing or flicker does not have significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent uses.
9.7.3 Noise. The Commercial Wind Facility noise shall conform to the regulations of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Air Quality Noise Regulations (310 CMR 7.10).
9.7.4 Land Clearing. Clearing of natural vegetation shall be limited to that which is necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Commercial Wind Facility and shall otherwise be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal requirements.
9.7.5 Safety Features. The Commercial Wind facility shall be designed to prevent unauthorized access (such as by construction of a fenced enclosure or locked access). The SPGA may impose such safety-related conditions, including buy not limited to fences, gates and warning signs as it reasonably finds necessary to protect public health and safety.
9.8 Maintenance.
9.8.1 Access Road. The CWF Owner shall, at all times, maintain the Access Road to a level reasonably acceptable to the local emergency services.
9.8.2 Site Maintenance. The CWF Owner shall maintain the access road (unless accepted as a public way), the Site, and the Commercial Wind Facility in good condition.
9.8.3 Repair of Public Ways. The CWF Owner shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to a public way (including the Access Road if accepted as a public way) restoration of any damage caused by use of the public way in connection with the construction, operation or maintenance of the Commercial Wind Facility. A qualified third party engineer, mutually acceptable to the Town and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant, shall prior to construction (but no longer than a period of 30 days) document road conditions over roads expected to be used in the construction of the Commercial Wind Facility. The engineer shall document road consitions over affectd roads thirty days after completion of construction, or reasonably thereafter as weather permits. Necessary road repairs shall be approved by the Town Highway Department and the Board of Selectmen. The cost of any road repairs as a result of the construction of the Commercial Wind Facility shall be borne by the CWF Owner.
9.9 Abandonment or Decommissioning.
9.9.1 Removal Requirements. Any Commercial Wind Facility which has reached the end of its useful life shall be Decommissioned. When the Commercial Wind Facility is scheduled to be Decommissioned, the CWF Owner shall notify the Town of the proposed date of discontinued operations and plans for Decommissioning. The CWF Owner shall provide for the physical removal of the wind turbines within 150 days after the date of discontinued operations and shall diligently pursue all other Decommissioning activities.
9.9.2 Abandonment. Absent notice of a proposed date of Decommissioning, the Commercial Wind Facility shall be considered abandoned when it fails to operate, except for repair, refurbishment or upgrading, for a consecutive period of one year, unless with the expressed written consent of the SPGA. The SPGA shall determine in its decision what proportion of the facility is inoperable for the facility to be considered abandoned. If the CWF Owner applicant fails to Decommission Commercial Wind Facility in accordance with the requirements of section 9.9.1 within 150 days of abandonment or the proposed date of decommissioning, the Town, by direction of the Selectmen, shall have the authority to enter the property and physically remove the facility in accordance with this section.
9.9.3 Surety
9.9.3.1. Prior to commencing construction, the CWF Owner shall post an ongoing financial surety to cover the cost of Decommissioning in the event the Town must decommission the Commercial Wind Facility in compliance with the requirements set forth herein. Costs may include necessary legal, engineering, permitting, procurement, and construction and demolition expenses.
9.9.3.2. The surety shall be in a form (such as escrow account, bond, or otherwise) and an amount (not exceeding 125 percent of the cost of removal and compliance with the additional requirements set forth herein) reasonably satisfactory to the SPGA. The surety may be issued jointly by the CWF Owner to the Town, the Property Owner, and its lenders, and may be enforceable by each beneficiary in accordance with its terms.
9.9.3.3. A proposed form of surety which is limited in duration (e.g., to 1, 2, 5 years, etc.) shall be acceptable to the SPGA, subject to the condition that it is replaced by another acceptable form of surety prior to its expiration. Thus, an applicant may from time to time update with current estimates its costs of removal and other compliance and provide a new surety consistent with the updated estimates.
9.10 Term of Special Permit; Annual Meeting
9.10.1 Term of Special Permit. A Special Permit issued for a Commercial Wind Facility shall be valid for 25 years, unless extended or renewed. The time period may be extended or the permit renewed by the SPGA upon satisfactory operation of the facility. Request for renewal must be submitted at least 540 days prior to expiration of the special permit. Submitting a renewal request shall allow for continued operation of the facility until the SPGA acts. At the end of that period (including extensions and renewals), the wind facility shall be removed as required by this bylaw. The SPGA will reserve the right to waive sections of the wind turbine bylaw based upon historical data recorded over the prior years of operation.
9.10.2 Annual Meeting. An annual meeting shall be conducted (to be scheduled by the CWF Owner) between the CWF Owner and the town officials to discuss project related issues and concerns, including, but not limited to (i) recorded problems and incidents; (ii) resolution of problems and incidents; and (iii) report on equipment service plans.
9.10.3 Notice of Change in Ownership. Notice shall be provided to the Board of Selectmen of any change in the ownership of the Commercial Wind Facility.
9.11 Application Requirements and Process.
9.11.1 General. The application for special permit for a Commercial Wind Facility shall be filed by the applicant with the town clerk. The applicant shall provide 8 copies of the application. The application may redact any sensitive economic information concerning the facility.
9.11.2 Required Documents. The application shall include:
9.11.2.1 the name and contact information for the applicant;
9.11.2.2 a list of all project related consultants and technical specialists; and
9.11.2.3 documentation of the applicant’s legal right to use the Site for construction and operation of the Commercial Wind Facility.
9.11.3 Siting and Design Information. The application shall include the following material to describe the proposed Commercial Wind Facility:
9.11.3.1 Location Map. A copy of a portion of the most recent USGS Quadrangle Map, at a scale of 1:25,000, showing the proposed facility site, including the turbine sites, and the area within at least two miles from the proposed facility.
9.11.3.2 Site Plan. A plan of the facility site at a scale of 1" = 200 feet, with contour intervals no greater than 10 feet showing:
(a) Property lines for the Site and adjacent parcels within 300 feet;
(b) Outline of all existing buildings, including purpose (e.g. residence, garage, etc.) on the Site and all adjacent parcels within 500 feet and showing distance from the Commercial Wind Facility to each building shown;
(c) Location of all roads, public and private, on the Site and adjacent parcels, and proposed roads on the Site;
(d) Existing vegetation on the Site; and
(e) Proposed location and design of the Commercial Wind Facility, including all wind turbines, ground equipment, appurtenant structures, transmission infrastructure, access roads, fencing and lighting.
9.11.4. Visualizations. The Applicant shall provide visualizations from at least five sight lines selected to give representative views from principal locations in the Town and surrounding communities, for pre- and post-construction view representations of the Commercial Wind Facility. The view representations shall:
(a) be in color and shall include actual pre-construction photographs and accurate post-construction simulations of the height and breadth of the wind facility (e.g. superimpositions of the wind facility onto photographs of existing views).
(b) include existing, or proposed, buildings or tree coverage.
(c) be accompanied by a description of the technical procedures followed in producing the visualization (distances, angles, lens, etc).
9.11.5 Landscape Plan. The application shall include a plan indicating all proposed changes to the landscape of the site, including temporary or permanent roads or driveways, grading, vegetation clearing and planting, exterior lighting other than FAA lights, screening vegetation or structures.
9.11.6 Traffic Plan. The application shall provide the applicants estimate of traffic impacts during the construction and operation of the Commercial Wind Facility, including:
(a) a map of roadways anticipated to be utilized for construction and delivery of all project components and materials;
(b) Provide information on delivery vehicle types available for delivery of wind turbine components;
(c) Report all locations on the delivery route where land alterations, notwithstanding ownership, are necessary;
(d) Report if there will be road closures and disruptions affecting provisions for emergency response; and
(e) Report on any necessary road improvements.
9.11.7. Town Consultants. The SPGA may retain technical experts and consultants as appropriate to verify information presented by the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of such consultants.
APPENDIX A was a picture of the wind turbine which will not scan to become part of this document.
There is a Magic to this Place.
There is a magic to this place. Savoy, North Berkshire County, Massachusetts. I think most of us who live here sense this in our own different ways. It is Heaven on earth for me.
The Air, the Water, Trees, the Sunsets. The long, dry, warm summer Days, the Fall Carnival of leaves, and the morning sun gleaming upon the Snow. The indescribable magic holds on. Now, who would think that these qualities are not valuable? They are valuable to others looking for these same qualities that we enjoy.
We have adopted town laws that insure these qualities. These laws have directed the town growth in a positive direction for over thirty years. The magic has persisted. These qualities, under the guidance in place of our town codes, can answer many of our town’s financial problems. We only need turning our unique and increasingly scarce qualities to our advantage.
How does that happen? By encouraging wise business and up-scale residential developments that are compatible. These are the most healthy alternatives to intrusive and detrimental commercial industry such as a wind plant which will spell the end of the magic.
Do we choose to live in an industrial park or do we continue to live in the place of our original choice?
Preston McClanahan, Savoy taxpayer for 36 years, a resident and a member of the first town zoning board which brought the strongest town laws in Massachusetts before the town, are still in effect and exclude any detrimental commercial industry.
There is a magic to this place. Savoy, North Berkshire County, Massachusetts. I think most of us who live here sense this in our own different ways. It is Heaven on earth for me.
The Air, the Water, Trees, the Sunsets. The long, dry, warm summer Days, the Fall Carnival of leaves, and the morning sun gleaming upon the Snow. The indescribable magic holds on. Now, who would think that these qualities are not valuable? They are valuable to others looking for these same qualities that we enjoy.
We have adopted town laws that insure these qualities. These laws have directed the town growth in a positive direction for over thirty years. The magic has persisted. These qualities, under the guidance in place of our town codes, can answer many of our town’s financial problems. We only need turning our unique and increasingly scarce qualities to our advantage.
How does that happen? By encouraging wise business and up-scale residential developments that are compatible. These are the most healthy alternatives to intrusive and detrimental commercial industry such as a wind plant which will spell the end of the magic.
Do we choose to live in an industrial park or do we continue to live in the place of our original choice?
Preston McClanahan, Savoy taxpayer for 36 years, a resident and a member of the first town zoning board which brought the strongest town laws in Massachusetts before the town, are still in effect and exclude any detrimental commercial industry.
There is no gain from the wind.
Wind energy delivers less than its costs to all: taxpayers, personal health, and the environment. It is not the magic bullet as advertised. These claims can be proven. The true facts are always hidden by the developers.
So where is the gain? The only real gain is to the brokers, developers, financial backers and the land lessors who will profit heavily.
Slowly, the world is becoming aware that wind energy is a swindle. Those for wind will soon be seen as blowing smoke.
In Towns which have good zoning laws, which do not allow commercial-industrial development, as does Savoy, Planning Boards should uphold the existing laws rather than ushering in commercial wind plants (these are not farms) through revised bylaws. Preston McClanahan Savoy Resident
Wind energy delivers less than its costs to all: taxpayers, personal health, and the environment. It is not the magic bullet as advertised. These claims can be proven. The true facts are always hidden by the developers.
So where is the gain? The only real gain is to the brokers, developers, financial backers and the land lessors who will profit heavily.
Slowly, the world is becoming aware that wind energy is a swindle. Those for wind will soon be seen as blowing smoke.
In Towns which have good zoning laws, which do not allow commercial-industrial development, as does Savoy, Planning Boards should uphold the existing laws rather than ushering in commercial wind plants (these are not farms) through revised bylaws. Preston McClanahan Savoy Resident
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The Select Board met November 20. Mr. Butch Malloy wanted to know when the Special Town Meeting would be held to vote on the proposed bylaw presented by Mr. Malloy and MinutemanWind at the Public Hearing on October 25. Mr. Bettis wanted the vote to be held in December. Mr. Bettis was informed the Planning Board had scheduled an informational meeting for December 13 to present the Planning Board proposed bylaw. Mr. Bettis stated this was the first he had heard of this informational meeting. He was opposed to the Planning Board presenting their proposed bylaw before Mr. Malloy’s proposal was voted on by the town. He asked if this informational meeting could be rescheduled. Sue McGrath told the Select Board this was not possible since the newspapers had been sent notification to be published. Mr. Betttis said Jamie Reinhardt, Planning Board Chairman, should have presented the Select Board with his proposal for an informational hearing before it was sent to the papers. Mr. Bettis said it has been three years, what’s another two weeks.
Mr. Bettis explained he was concerned the residents would be just as confused as they were at the Public Hearing about which bylaw was being discussed. Brenda Smith suggested to Mr. Bettis the residents would be prepared to make a correct decision for the Town if they were aware of the significant differences in the two bylaws. The presentation by Mr. Malloy and MinutemanWind compared only their proposal and the state requirements. Mr. Bettis asked if the Planning Board would use their presentation to show the differences between Mr. Malloy’s and the Planning Board’s proposed bylaw. Since the Planning Board does not have either the equipment or the money to make a similar presentation, this would not possible.
Mr. Malloy said the Planning Board has been stalling. He felt the Planning Board was now rushing their informational hearing since his proposed bylaw had been presented. Mr. Malloy said his lease runs out in January. He wanted his bylaw to be voted on before the lease expired. He further expressed his concern the project would not go forward if his proposed bylaw is voted down. Mr. Malloy, also, said referring to the Commercial Wind Energy Facilities Bylaw his bylaw was wrong.
The vote on the bylaw presented by Mr. Malloy and MinutemanWind will be held Thursday, January 3, 2008 at the Fire Department, 7 PM. If this proposed bylaw is approved, it will become the bylaw for Savoy.
There was a brief discussion on the override vote to be held at the Senior Center, November 28, from noon to 8 PM. By Brenda Smith
Mr. Bettis explained he was concerned the residents would be just as confused as they were at the Public Hearing about which bylaw was being discussed. Brenda Smith suggested to Mr. Bettis the residents would be prepared to make a correct decision for the Town if they were aware of the significant differences in the two bylaws. The presentation by Mr. Malloy and MinutemanWind compared only their proposal and the state requirements. Mr. Bettis asked if the Planning Board would use their presentation to show the differences between Mr. Malloy’s and the Planning Board’s proposed bylaw. Since the Planning Board does not have either the equipment or the money to make a similar presentation, this would not possible.
Mr. Malloy said the Planning Board has been stalling. He felt the Planning Board was now rushing their informational hearing since his proposed bylaw had been presented. Mr. Malloy said his lease runs out in January. He wanted his bylaw to be voted on before the lease expired. He further expressed his concern the project would not go forward if his proposed bylaw is voted down. Mr. Malloy, also, said referring to the Commercial Wind Energy Facilities Bylaw his bylaw was wrong.
The vote on the bylaw presented by Mr. Malloy and MinutemanWind will be held Thursday, January 3, 2008 at the Fire Department, 7 PM. If this proposed bylaw is approved, it will become the bylaw for Savoy.
There was a brief discussion on the override vote to be held at the Senior Center, November 28, from noon to 8 PM. By Brenda Smith
Thursday, November 01, 2007
NOTICE:
The last day to register to vote on the override question is, Tuesday, November 6. The Town Clerk's office will be open from 2pm to 5pm and 7pm to 8pm for those who wish to register. The actual vote on the override ($70,000.00) will take place at the Senior Center on Wednesday, November 28, from noon to 8pm. from the Town Clerk's office
The last day to register to vote on the override question is, Tuesday, November 6. The Town Clerk's office will be open from 2pm to 5pm and 7pm to 8pm for those who wish to register. The actual vote on the override ($70,000.00) will take place at the Senior Center on Wednesday, November 28, from noon to 8pm. from the Town Clerk's office
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The following was left at the Savoy Store.
FY08 BUDGET NEWS:
This year at the Annual Town Meeting Savoy voters approved a nearly level funded budget submitted by the Finance Committee and Select Board seeing only moderate increases.
Currently with the first quarter of the fiscal year complete we now have the final numbers from revenues including state cherry sheet at $818, 574 an increase of $24,812, new growth at $31,612, local receipts $114,500 and free cash at $12,500 also expenditures state and county charges at $176,433 an increase of $66,992, overly, etc. A very large increase cost in Charter School at $82,242 an increase of $28,410 and School Choice $93,593 an increase of $38,593 in tuition up by 61%.
During this time of finalizing the budget there is usually a deficit to be addressed. The methods used are to trim the working budget, use money from free cash or stabilization fund to help balance the budget or vote an override of Prop. 2 1/2.
After review of the current budget the Finance Committee, Select Board and other town officials have found ways to reduce costs by approx. $60,000 dollars including using all free cash of ($12,500).
The recommendation is to take approx. $15,000 from the stabilization fund bring the deficit to $70,000 and vote in an override of $70,000 rather than continue reducing the town's stabilization fund ($160,352.53). The override's ballot vote will be held on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 from 12 noon to 8pm at the Senior Center.
The increase in property tax will be approx. $1.00 per $1,000 of evaluation.
Select Board and Finance Committee
Contact People
John Tynan, Select Board Chair 743-3573
Joe Bettis, Jr. 743-8132
Scott Koczela 743-0792
Finance Committee
Emile Mazur 743-1354
Jody Jardine 743-0029
Susan McGrath 743-0977
FY08 BUDGET NEWS:
This year at the Annual Town Meeting Savoy voters approved a nearly level funded budget submitted by the Finance Committee and Select Board seeing only moderate increases.
Currently with the first quarter of the fiscal year complete we now have the final numbers from revenues including state cherry sheet at $818, 574 an increase of $24,812, new growth at $31,612, local receipts $114,500 and free cash at $12,500 also expenditures state and county charges at $176,433 an increase of $66,992, overly, etc. A very large increase cost in Charter School at $82,242 an increase of $28,410 and School Choice $93,593 an increase of $38,593 in tuition up by 61%.
During this time of finalizing the budget there is usually a deficit to be addressed. The methods used are to trim the working budget, use money from free cash or stabilization fund to help balance the budget or vote an override of Prop. 2 1/2.
After review of the current budget the Finance Committee, Select Board and other town officials have found ways to reduce costs by approx. $60,000 dollars including using all free cash of ($12,500).
The recommendation is to take approx. $15,000 from the stabilization fund bring the deficit to $70,000 and vote in an override of $70,000 rather than continue reducing the town's stabilization fund ($160,352.53). The override's ballot vote will be held on Wednesday, November 28th, 2007 from 12 noon to 8pm at the Senior Center.
The increase in property tax will be approx. $1.00 per $1,000 of evaluation.
Select Board and Finance Committee
Contact People
John Tynan, Select Board Chair 743-3573
Joe Bettis, Jr. 743-8132
Scott Koczela 743-0792
Finance Committee
Emile Mazur 743-1354
Jody Jardine 743-0029
Susan McGrath 743-0977
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing for Mr. Malloy’s proposed "Commercial Wind Energy Facilities Bylaw" was held October 25 at the Fire Station. Mr. Malloy explained MinutemanWind did not write the bylaw. Mr. Malloy went to UMASS to see Sally Wright, , Renewable Energy Research Lab. Ms. Wright gave Mr. Malloy a copy of the state "Model Amendment to a Zoning Ordinance or bylaw". Mr. McCauley, President of MinutemanWind, stated they took the model and developed a proposal for Savoy.
Mr. Malloy felt the Savoy Planning Board’s bylaw had too many snags and was not workable. Mr. Malloy stated the proposed bylaw MinutemanWind would present had all the ‘meat and potatoes’ of the Planning Board without the snags. (The proposed bylaw presented by MinuteManWind will be referred to as the Malloy/MinutemanWind proposal not to be confused with the Planning Board proposal.)
Steve Weisman, MinutemanWind vice president, stated they had been waiting for the Planning Board bylaw but doubted the Planning Board would present their proposal anytime soon. The Planning Board has been working on a bylaw since 2004 and, it has not been presented to the town. Mr. Reinhardt, explained the Planning Board proposal would be ready as soon as town counsel clarified legal language in the document.
When questioned why Malloy and MinutemanWind didn’t wait for the Planning Board’s proposal, Mr. McCauley explained he was concerned about their data going stale. He briefly mentioned without going into detail, wetlands and habitats. Mr. Malloy mentioned the need to move forward to take advantage of environmental and tax incentives.
Some of the residents had issues with more of the ridgelines being used for wind turbines. Mr. McCauley explained the Malloy bylaw was for the project on West Hill Road, at this time.
Mr. Reinhardt was asked what would happen if the town voted for the Malloy/MinutemanWind bylaw and then voted to supersede with the Planning Board proposed bylaw. Mr. Reinhardt explained MinutemanWind would surely apply for a Special Permit from the Zoning Board as soon as the bylaw is approved. MinutemanWind would not be bound by the guidelines proposed by the Planning Board bylaw, only future projects, if any.
Mr. Bettis was moderator in place of Eric Krutiak, who had been called out of town. Mr. Bettis, Select Board member, explained the Planning Board has 21 days to review and make a written report to the Select Board on the "Malloy-MinutemanWind proposed bylaw". Mr. Bettis stated the Select Board thinks the "Malloy-MinutemanWind proposal" is a workable bylaw. He further explained the Select Board already has ideas on changing the "Malloy/MinutemanWind proposed bylaw before being presented to the town for a vote. The proposed bylaw will require a 2/3 vote at a Special Town Meeting to pass. Mr. Bettis stated the vote would be by ballot.
There was a question how concerns of citizens would be handled. Mr. Bettis said these issues would be handled by the Select Board. Concerned citizens would contact the Select Board and they would contact MinutemanWind.
Mr. McCauley was asked to define ‘sensitive economic information". Mr. McCauley said MinutemanWind would withhold sensitive economic information if it applies to individuals.
Mr. McCauley stated MinutemanWind wants to make "payment in lieu of taxes" (PILOT). Mr. Weisman stated assessors make assumptions about what taxes should be. The Select Board would negotiate PILOT. The propose settlement would be put before the town for a vote. If PILOT failed, the fallback for the town would be normal taxation. It was suggested taxation would be based on the cost of the turbines. The rate would be the ‘residential rate’ since Savoy has only a ‘residential rate’.
Mr. McCauley stated the Department of Revenue Regulations give the developer the right to PILOT. The proposed Malloy/MinutemanWind bylaw provides for independent consultants to be paid by the applicant. Mr. McCauley stated some towns hire consultants to negotiate PILOT. The town would be permitted to seek consultants familiar with negotiating fees for wind turbines and MinutemanWind would pay the consultants.
Mr. Bettis responded to inquiries about the fees MinutemanWind would pay the town. Mr. Bettis said the Select Board won’t know what the town would receive until after a bylaw is passed and MinutemanWind applies for a permit.
Mr. McCauley stated the existing bylaw would keep the project from beginning. The project would be illegal. The current bylaw has height limitations. Also, there is language that limits type of uses for land.
Mr. Malloy and Mr. Weisman both took shots at the Planning Board, as previously noted, for not having the Town Proposed bylaw ready. What they both neglect to appreciate is the Planning Board wrote the bylaw after reviewing exiting bylaws from other towns. The Planning Board members put in hundreds of hours researching issues the residents brought before them. The Planning Board has been trying to develop a bylaw that the residents would be comfortable voting for. They listened to the residents, trying to do the right thing for the town. The Planning Board had been working on the town’s proposal before Mr. Malloy walked into Sally Wright’s office and was handed the State’s generic model.
Mr. Bettis and Mr. Rosenthal had a brief exchange that brought a halt to the meeting. Mr. Rosenthal had his hand raised and wanted to be recognized to ask a question. Mr. Bettis told him he was not going to call on him again and to put his hand down. Mr. Rosenthal stated he was not going to put his hand down. Mr. Reinhardt stepped forward and adjourned the meeting. By Brenda Smith
The public hearing for Mr. Malloy’s proposed "Commercial Wind Energy Facilities Bylaw" was held October 25 at the Fire Station. Mr. Malloy explained MinutemanWind did not write the bylaw. Mr. Malloy went to UMASS to see Sally Wright, , Renewable Energy Research Lab. Ms. Wright gave Mr. Malloy a copy of the state "Model Amendment to a Zoning Ordinance or bylaw". Mr. McCauley, President of MinutemanWind, stated they took the model and developed a proposal for Savoy.
Mr. Malloy felt the Savoy Planning Board’s bylaw had too many snags and was not workable. Mr. Malloy stated the proposed bylaw MinutemanWind would present had all the ‘meat and potatoes’ of the Planning Board without the snags. (The proposed bylaw presented by MinuteManWind will be referred to as the Malloy/MinutemanWind proposal not to be confused with the Planning Board proposal.)
Steve Weisman, MinutemanWind vice president, stated they had been waiting for the Planning Board bylaw but doubted the Planning Board would present their proposal anytime soon. The Planning Board has been working on a bylaw since 2004 and, it has not been presented to the town. Mr. Reinhardt, explained the Planning Board proposal would be ready as soon as town counsel clarified legal language in the document.
When questioned why Malloy and MinutemanWind didn’t wait for the Planning Board’s proposal, Mr. McCauley explained he was concerned about their data going stale. He briefly mentioned without going into detail, wetlands and habitats. Mr. Malloy mentioned the need to move forward to take advantage of environmental and tax incentives.
Some of the residents had issues with more of the ridgelines being used for wind turbines. Mr. McCauley explained the Malloy bylaw was for the project on West Hill Road, at this time.
Mr. Reinhardt was asked what would happen if the town voted for the Malloy/MinutemanWind bylaw and then voted to supersede with the Planning Board proposed bylaw. Mr. Reinhardt explained MinutemanWind would surely apply for a Special Permit from the Zoning Board as soon as the bylaw is approved. MinutemanWind would not be bound by the guidelines proposed by the Planning Board bylaw, only future projects, if any.
Mr. Bettis was moderator in place of Eric Krutiak, who had been called out of town. Mr. Bettis, Select Board member, explained the Planning Board has 21 days to review and make a written report to the Select Board on the "Malloy-MinutemanWind proposed bylaw". Mr. Bettis stated the Select Board thinks the "Malloy-MinutemanWind proposal" is a workable bylaw. He further explained the Select Board already has ideas on changing the "Malloy/MinutemanWind proposed bylaw before being presented to the town for a vote. The proposed bylaw will require a 2/3 vote at a Special Town Meeting to pass. Mr. Bettis stated the vote would be by ballot.
There was a question how concerns of citizens would be handled. Mr. Bettis said these issues would be handled by the Select Board. Concerned citizens would contact the Select Board and they would contact MinutemanWind.
Mr. McCauley was asked to define ‘sensitive economic information". Mr. McCauley said MinutemanWind would withhold sensitive economic information if it applies to individuals.
Mr. McCauley stated MinutemanWind wants to make "payment in lieu of taxes" (PILOT). Mr. Weisman stated assessors make assumptions about what taxes should be. The Select Board would negotiate PILOT. The propose settlement would be put before the town for a vote. If PILOT failed, the fallback for the town would be normal taxation. It was suggested taxation would be based on the cost of the turbines. The rate would be the ‘residential rate’ since Savoy has only a ‘residential rate’.
Mr. McCauley stated the Department of Revenue Regulations give the developer the right to PILOT. The proposed Malloy/MinutemanWind bylaw provides for independent consultants to be paid by the applicant. Mr. McCauley stated some towns hire consultants to negotiate PILOT. The town would be permitted to seek consultants familiar with negotiating fees for wind turbines and MinutemanWind would pay the consultants.
Mr. Bettis responded to inquiries about the fees MinutemanWind would pay the town. Mr. Bettis said the Select Board won’t know what the town would receive until after a bylaw is passed and MinutemanWind applies for a permit.
Mr. McCauley stated the existing bylaw would keep the project from beginning. The project would be illegal. The current bylaw has height limitations. Also, there is language that limits type of uses for land.
Mr. Malloy and Mr. Weisman both took shots at the Planning Board, as previously noted, for not having the Town Proposed bylaw ready. What they both neglect to appreciate is the Planning Board wrote the bylaw after reviewing exiting bylaws from other towns. The Planning Board members put in hundreds of hours researching issues the residents brought before them. The Planning Board has been trying to develop a bylaw that the residents would be comfortable voting for. They listened to the residents, trying to do the right thing for the town. The Planning Board had been working on the town’s proposal before Mr. Malloy walked into Sally Wright’s office and was handed the State’s generic model.
Mr. Bettis and Mr. Rosenthal had a brief exchange that brought a halt to the meeting. Mr. Rosenthal had his hand raised and wanted to be recognized to ask a question. Mr. Bettis told him he was not going to call on him again and to put his hand down. Mr. Rosenthal stated he was not going to put his hand down. Mr. Reinhardt stepped forward and adjourned the meeting. By Brenda Smith
An Educated Electorate
Savoy and the surrounding area is now the prime target for wind developers since the Cape Wind project was rejected. Savoy is facing the most serious challenge in its 210-year history: the question of whether or not to include commercial industrial wind plants in its rural, agricultural, residential area.
Only an educated electorate can make responsible choices. Objective, credible information is needed on wind, as a renewable energy source globally and how it will impact our Northern Berkshires locally. Without that reality check, personal subjective interpretation alone will guide perception.
The list surrounding wind plants in the world, the state and the Berkshires is long i.e.: the financial picture, private property valuation and taxes, personal health, eminent domain, environmental impacts, wind plant power production and delivery, government subsidies to developers heavily underwritten by the common taxpayer, lucrative incentives to developers from commercial foreign and domestic investing, as well as profiteering landowners. Add the fact of nature that wind is not a reliable, controllable energy source and you have large profits to the investors,developers and land leasors for very small return of renewable energy. Is it worth it in the long run? No.
The financial picture is first on this list of issues for Savoy. Does Savoy need more money? One of Savoy’s pro wind plant assessors says either we let in the wind turbines or we must pay higher real estate taxes over the normal 2.5% yearly increase. This choice is given without knowing exactly what income will be from any wind plant in town. The developer, Minuteman Wind LLC, says that sum cannot be given unless Savoy approves their commercial/industrial wind plant first. Does the developer expect us to go ahead without the income figure, to buy a “pig in a poke”? These tactics, the threat of raising taxes and withholding town income figures, both are underhanded leverages for a pro wind agenda.
People need to know what is at stake so they can answer for themselves. The Savoy Mountain News
Savoy and the surrounding area is now the prime target for wind developers since the Cape Wind project was rejected. Savoy is facing the most serious challenge in its 210-year history: the question of whether or not to include commercial industrial wind plants in its rural, agricultural, residential area.
Only an educated electorate can make responsible choices. Objective, credible information is needed on wind, as a renewable energy source globally and how it will impact our Northern Berkshires locally. Without that reality check, personal subjective interpretation alone will guide perception.
The list surrounding wind plants in the world, the state and the Berkshires is long i.e.: the financial picture, private property valuation and taxes, personal health, eminent domain, environmental impacts, wind plant power production and delivery, government subsidies to developers heavily underwritten by the common taxpayer, lucrative incentives to developers from commercial foreign and domestic investing, as well as profiteering landowners. Add the fact of nature that wind is not a reliable, controllable energy source and you have large profits to the investors,developers and land leasors for very small return of renewable energy. Is it worth it in the long run? No.
The financial picture is first on this list of issues for Savoy. Does Savoy need more money? One of Savoy’s pro wind plant assessors says either we let in the wind turbines or we must pay higher real estate taxes over the normal 2.5% yearly increase. This choice is given without knowing exactly what income will be from any wind plant in town. The developer, Minuteman Wind LLC, says that sum cannot be given unless Savoy approves their commercial/industrial wind plant first. Does the developer expect us to go ahead without the income figure, to buy a “pig in a poke”? These tactics, the threat of raising taxes and withholding town income figures, both are underhanded leverages for a pro wind agenda.
People need to know what is at stake so they can answer for themselves. The Savoy Mountain News
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I have been attending Select Board meetings for quite a few years. The Select Board has questioned why the townspeople don’t get more involved with the meetings. Attendance is nonexistent unless there is an issue that interests the townspeople. That is normal for most small towns. I propose another reason, could it be the Select Board makes decisions outside the Select Board meetings? I have been informed by three previous Select Board members that this was a practice. Is this practice continued by the current Select Board?
What I have experienced is townspeople asking questions and some members of the Select Board being rude in their response. We all know the purpose of Select Board meetings. The Select Board meetings are for the purpose of handling town business. Also, the Select Board should be clear what information they use to make their decisions. When townspeople have to ask the Select Board to speak up so they can hear what is being discussed, does this make for a good meeting? Does the Select Board want participation from the townspeople?
At the last meeting in September several issues came up that were cause for concern. The first was Don McCauley stating how the informational meeting for the Molloy bylaw for wind turbines should be conducted. Isn’t this the responsibility of the Select Board and Planning Board? The Select Board and Planning Board should have been informing Mr. McCauley what procedures would be followed.
The property tax rate for Fiscal Year 2007 was $10.77 per thousand. Property was reassessed last year. My property increase was approximately $30,000.00. If my math is correct, my property tax bill will increase $323.10 with the $10.77 rate without the annual increase. The town is allowed an automatic annual 2.5 percent increase in each year. Why haven’t the tax bills been sent out? The property tax bills are suppose to be mailed October 1. The Select Board answered that question. There is not sufficient funds to run the town. The Select Board needs to ask for a tax increase. How do I know how I should vote when I don’t know how much the actual increase should be now? Or, is this a ploy by the Select Board to get my vote for a wind turbine bylaw? Mr. Tynan said he might not want wind turbines, but he had to do what was best for the town. Every voter is faced with the same issue. It shouldn’t be all about the money but the best bylaw that protects Savoy today and for future generations.
Since the Select Board has verbalized the need for more funds, I had to research the Massachusetts Government web site to try and understand the difference between a "debt exclusion" and "Proposition 2 1/2". "A "debt exclusion" creates a temporary increase in the levy limit to fund the payment of debt service costs for capital projects by borrowing. The additional amount for the debt service is added to the levy for the life of the debt. Exclusions do not become part of the base upon which the levy limit is calculated for future years. Exclusion questions are placed on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the selectmen. A majority of the electorate is required to implement an exclusion." Savoy has voted for two debt exclusions since Fiscal Year 2000. Fiscal Year 2001, voters approved the purchase of a new four-wheel drive loader. Fiscal Year 2003, a modular addition to the elementary school was approved.
"Proposition 2 1/2" is a vote by a community at an election that permanently increases the levy limit. Unlike capital outlay expenditure exclusions or debt exclusions, an override vote can increase the levy limit no higher than the levy ceiling. The override ballot question must state a purpose for the override and a dollar amount.
"Proposition 2 ½ allows a community to assess taxes in excess of the automatic annual 2.5 percent increase and any increase due to new growth by passing an override. A community may take this action as long as it is below it’s levy ceiling, or 2.5 percent of full and fair cash value. An override cannot increase a community’s levy limit above the level of the community’s levy ceiling.
"When an override is passed, the levy limit for the year is calculated by including the amount of the override. The override results in a permanent increase in the levy limit of the community, which as part of the levy limit base, increase at the rate of 2.5 percent each year.
"A majority vote of a communities selectmen allows an override question to be placed on the ballot. Override questions must be presented in dollar terms and must specify the purpose of the override. Overrides require a majority vote of approval by the electorate."
If the Select Board follows through and asks for a property tax increase. Will I be able to afford a tax increase? Tough questions need to be asked, the Select Board needs to have answers, not the standard "we don’t have that information". If they don’t have the information, how can I vote to support an increase when I don’t know what my taxes should be under the Fiscal Year 2008 budget?
By the by, the Trojan Horse is at the gate filled with promises of money. After the Select Board meeting had adjourned Don McCauley and Select Board members stayed after the meeting and discussed the wind turbine project. The discussion centered around the fees Minuteman Wind would pay Savoy. Mr. McCauley was told he should be specific to the amount of money Savoy would receive, and the timeframe. Would the fees increase or decrease over the years. There was a consensus the fees would decrease each year since the wind turbines would devalue each year. What percentage would the turbines devalue? If my memory is correct, Mr. McCauley previously stated at a meeting the intent of his company was to sell the wind turbines to another company after they had been built. He made the comment he was in this business to make money. No one can blame him for wanting to make money. What is the long term expense for Savoy. Will his promise to pay the town specific amounts of money flow to the purchasing company? What if the company is an overseas company, how would Savoy be able to recoup any expenses associated with this project? What is my problem with this discussion? This discussion occurred after the Select Board meeting. Shouldn’t the townspeople attending the meeting been included in this exchange? Isn’t this town business?
Am I prepared to sell the heart and soul of Savoy for money? If my answer is ‘yes’, do I know how the Select Board will spend this money? Will the Select Board expect the taxpayers to fill the void with continued requests for higher tax increases as the fees decrease? A more serious question for me is the consideration of a proposed tax increase by the Select Board while a proposed wind turbine bylaw is being considered. The Select Board indicated they were going to be neutral. To bring up the matter of money with Mr. McCauley in attendance and the discussion after the meeting, makes this all about the money. Is this neutrality?
Savoy residents do care. I have come to the conclusion that nothing will change until we have a Select Board who is open about town business and encourages participation by the townspeople. We need to know what information they are considering when they make decisions. This is a small town and cannot have the budget of a larger town. What has happened to sensibility?
That’s my opinion. Your opinion and comments are welcome. By Brenda Smith
What I have experienced is townspeople asking questions and some members of the Select Board being rude in their response. We all know the purpose of Select Board meetings. The Select Board meetings are for the purpose of handling town business. Also, the Select Board should be clear what information they use to make their decisions. When townspeople have to ask the Select Board to speak up so they can hear what is being discussed, does this make for a good meeting? Does the Select Board want participation from the townspeople?
At the last meeting in September several issues came up that were cause for concern. The first was Don McCauley stating how the informational meeting for the Molloy bylaw for wind turbines should be conducted. Isn’t this the responsibility of the Select Board and Planning Board? The Select Board and Planning Board should have been informing Mr. McCauley what procedures would be followed.
The property tax rate for Fiscal Year 2007 was $10.77 per thousand. Property was reassessed last year. My property increase was approximately $30,000.00. If my math is correct, my property tax bill will increase $323.10 with the $10.77 rate without the annual increase. The town is allowed an automatic annual 2.5 percent increase in each year. Why haven’t the tax bills been sent out? The property tax bills are suppose to be mailed October 1. The Select Board answered that question. There is not sufficient funds to run the town. The Select Board needs to ask for a tax increase. How do I know how I should vote when I don’t know how much the actual increase should be now? Or, is this a ploy by the Select Board to get my vote for a wind turbine bylaw? Mr. Tynan said he might not want wind turbines, but he had to do what was best for the town. Every voter is faced with the same issue. It shouldn’t be all about the money but the best bylaw that protects Savoy today and for future generations.
Since the Select Board has verbalized the need for more funds, I had to research the Massachusetts Government web site to try and understand the difference between a "debt exclusion" and "Proposition 2 1/2". "A "debt exclusion" creates a temporary increase in the levy limit to fund the payment of debt service costs for capital projects by borrowing. The additional amount for the debt service is added to the levy for the life of the debt. Exclusions do not become part of the base upon which the levy limit is calculated for future years. Exclusion questions are placed on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the selectmen. A majority of the electorate is required to implement an exclusion." Savoy has voted for two debt exclusions since Fiscal Year 2000. Fiscal Year 2001, voters approved the purchase of a new four-wheel drive loader. Fiscal Year 2003, a modular addition to the elementary school was approved.
"Proposition 2 1/2" is a vote by a community at an election that permanently increases the levy limit. Unlike capital outlay expenditure exclusions or debt exclusions, an override vote can increase the levy limit no higher than the levy ceiling. The override ballot question must state a purpose for the override and a dollar amount.
"Proposition 2 ½ allows a community to assess taxes in excess of the automatic annual 2.5 percent increase and any increase due to new growth by passing an override. A community may take this action as long as it is below it’s levy ceiling, or 2.5 percent of full and fair cash value. An override cannot increase a community’s levy limit above the level of the community’s levy ceiling.
"When an override is passed, the levy limit for the year is calculated by including the amount of the override. The override results in a permanent increase in the levy limit of the community, which as part of the levy limit base, increase at the rate of 2.5 percent each year.
"A majority vote of a communities selectmen allows an override question to be placed on the ballot. Override questions must be presented in dollar terms and must specify the purpose of the override. Overrides require a majority vote of approval by the electorate."
If the Select Board follows through and asks for a property tax increase. Will I be able to afford a tax increase? Tough questions need to be asked, the Select Board needs to have answers, not the standard "we don’t have that information". If they don’t have the information, how can I vote to support an increase when I don’t know what my taxes should be under the Fiscal Year 2008 budget?
By the by, the Trojan Horse is at the gate filled with promises of money. After the Select Board meeting had adjourned Don McCauley and Select Board members stayed after the meeting and discussed the wind turbine project. The discussion centered around the fees Minuteman Wind would pay Savoy. Mr. McCauley was told he should be specific to the amount of money Savoy would receive, and the timeframe. Would the fees increase or decrease over the years. There was a consensus the fees would decrease each year since the wind turbines would devalue each year. What percentage would the turbines devalue? If my memory is correct, Mr. McCauley previously stated at a meeting the intent of his company was to sell the wind turbines to another company after they had been built. He made the comment he was in this business to make money. No one can blame him for wanting to make money. What is the long term expense for Savoy. Will his promise to pay the town specific amounts of money flow to the purchasing company? What if the company is an overseas company, how would Savoy be able to recoup any expenses associated with this project? What is my problem with this discussion? This discussion occurred after the Select Board meeting. Shouldn’t the townspeople attending the meeting been included in this exchange? Isn’t this town business?
Am I prepared to sell the heart and soul of Savoy for money? If my answer is ‘yes’, do I know how the Select Board will spend this money? Will the Select Board expect the taxpayers to fill the void with continued requests for higher tax increases as the fees decrease? A more serious question for me is the consideration of a proposed tax increase by the Select Board while a proposed wind turbine bylaw is being considered. The Select Board indicated they were going to be neutral. To bring up the matter of money with Mr. McCauley in attendance and the discussion after the meeting, makes this all about the money. Is this neutrality?
Savoy residents do care. I have come to the conclusion that nothing will change until we have a Select Board who is open about town business and encourages participation by the townspeople. We need to know what information they are considering when they make decisions. This is a small town and cannot have the budget of a larger town. What has happened to sensibility?
That’s my opinion. Your opinion and comments are welcome. By Brenda Smith
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The Select Board meeting held on July 31, 2007. The meeting lasted approximately two hours. While it is important to present the meeting, it would not be of value to transcribe the meeting in its entirety. We will try to provide the content without being inflammatory.
Preston McClanahan presented the Select Board with a petition with 24 signatures to remove the tower on West Hill. The Select Board said they would have to verify the signatures with the Town Clerk. Mr. McClanahan presented the Board with information about wind energy for their review. Mr. Bettis said they would put it in their file.
There were residents concerned with how Kevin Kruitak was not reappointed. The statement Mr. Tynan made to the newspaper concerning fire department members drinking and reporting to fire alarms was not resolved to the satisfaction of those in attendance. Residents felt such a blanket statement implied all members may have been drinkers. The Board would not apologize for the statement even though many of the residents expressed to the Select Board they did not drink.
The Select Board was asked what was going on in Savoy since the new Fire Chief had been appointed. After a lengthy debate, Mr. Bettis replies, "what do you want to happen?" Mr. Bettis and Mr. Tynan explained the Select Board had made their decision because they could; and it is their responsibility to appoint the Fire Chief. The Board members would not go into details of the precise reasons for not reappointing Mr. Kruitak. Questions arose as to why the Select Board had not requested the Fire Department members select a Fire Chief as they had in the past; and present their recommendation to the Select Board for approval. The Select Board did not feel they had to follow this procedure and could appoint who they wanted.
Mr. Bettis stated the Mr. Ordyna would not receive compensation this Fiscal Year. The money appropriated for the fire chief would be sent to Kevin Kruitak at the recommendation of the town’s counsel. If money became available for the new fire chief, the appropriation would need to be approved by the voters.
Jamie Reinhardt, Chair of the Planning Board, gave the Select Board an update on the "Commercial Wind Energy Facility Bylaw. He stated the bylaw probably would not be ready for August. The Attorney General’s Office had granted a review and noted areas of concern. The Planning Board is in the process of reviewing areas of concern and will update the bylaw. Mr. Reinhardt explained the Board had sought assistance from Berkshire Regional Planning. They had assisted as a courtesy, but they could not continue as a ‘free service’.
The town owns property at 116 Center Road. Mr. Tynan stated the property is ¾ of an acre. The Select Board is interested in asking abutters if they would be interested in the property. Sue McGrath explained the property had been turned over to the town for unpaid taxes plus attorney fees totaling over $13,000. Mrs. McGrath will do further research to determine whether the town can present the offer to abutters.
Mr. Bettis stated the berm at the school needs repair. In between meetings, he will let the Select Board know how much it will cost to repair the berm.
The Town Hall needs an evaluation of repairs. The back of the building is in poor condition.
The Select Board was questioned about the insurance rating for the town. The concern was the town may have a lower rating since the new fire chief does not have sufficient training. The Select Board responded they had not heard anything about it. They did not think their appointment would have any effect on the insurance rates for the residents.
Preston McClanahan presented the Select Board with a petition with 24 signatures to remove the tower on West Hill. The Select Board said they would have to verify the signatures with the Town Clerk. Mr. McClanahan presented the Board with information about wind energy for their review. Mr. Bettis said they would put it in their file.
There were residents concerned with how Kevin Kruitak was not reappointed. The statement Mr. Tynan made to the newspaper concerning fire department members drinking and reporting to fire alarms was not resolved to the satisfaction of those in attendance. Residents felt such a blanket statement implied all members may have been drinkers. The Board would not apologize for the statement even though many of the residents expressed to the Select Board they did not drink.
The Select Board was asked what was going on in Savoy since the new Fire Chief had been appointed. After a lengthy debate, Mr. Bettis replies, "what do you want to happen?" Mr. Bettis and Mr. Tynan explained the Select Board had made their decision because they could; and it is their responsibility to appoint the Fire Chief. The Board members would not go into details of the precise reasons for not reappointing Mr. Kruitak. Questions arose as to why the Select Board had not requested the Fire Department members select a Fire Chief as they had in the past; and present their recommendation to the Select Board for approval. The Select Board did not feel they had to follow this procedure and could appoint who they wanted.
Mr. Bettis stated the Mr. Ordyna would not receive compensation this Fiscal Year. The money appropriated for the fire chief would be sent to Kevin Kruitak at the recommendation of the town’s counsel. If money became available for the new fire chief, the appropriation would need to be approved by the voters.
Jamie Reinhardt, Chair of the Planning Board, gave the Select Board an update on the "Commercial Wind Energy Facility Bylaw. He stated the bylaw probably would not be ready for August. The Attorney General’s Office had granted a review and noted areas of concern. The Planning Board is in the process of reviewing areas of concern and will update the bylaw. Mr. Reinhardt explained the Board had sought assistance from Berkshire Regional Planning. They had assisted as a courtesy, but they could not continue as a ‘free service’.
The town owns property at 116 Center Road. Mr. Tynan stated the property is ¾ of an acre. The Select Board is interested in asking abutters if they would be interested in the property. Sue McGrath explained the property had been turned over to the town for unpaid taxes plus attorney fees totaling over $13,000. Mrs. McGrath will do further research to determine whether the town can present the offer to abutters.
Mr. Bettis stated the berm at the school needs repair. In between meetings, he will let the Select Board know how much it will cost to repair the berm.
The Town Hall needs an evaluation of repairs. The back of the building is in poor condition.
The Select Board was questioned about the insurance rating for the town. The concern was the town may have a lower rating since the new fire chief does not have sufficient training. The Select Board responded they had not heard anything about it. They did not think their appointment would have any effect on the insurance rates for the residents.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Select Board met July 17, 2007. Althea Maynard and Cecelia Bloniarz asked the Select Board the status of the Fire Department. Mrs. Maynard was concerned with coverage for the senior citizens and response to their life alert. Select Board Chairman Tynan explained the senior citizens didn’t have to worry. He stated the Town has full coverage. Since July 1, there have been new firefighters come on board the department, and there are three EMTs on the Police Department. Also, Windsor will respond when called. The Select Board received a letter from the Adams Ambulance stating they will continue to support the town. He assured Mrs. Maynard training will be provided for new members of the Fire Department who need training.
Don McCauley, President of Minuteman Wind LLC, asked if the Select Board had read their (Minutemand Wind) bylaw proposal. Mr. Tynan replied they had read through it but didn’t form a group opinion or anything like that. The Select Board is still waiting for the Planning Board to present the Town bylaws. Jamie (Reinhardt) has told the Planning Board the bylaws would be ready for August.
Mr. McCauley inquired if he should proceed with introducing his proposed bylaw. Mr. Tynan explained he would want to wait and see what happened with the Town’s proposed bylaw. Mr. McCauley stated "he would believe it when I see it".
Mr. Tynan responded the Select Board had a pretty candid talk with Jamie. "It sounds like they (Planning Board) are pretty much done and Select Board is waiting to see bylaw". Mr. McCauley said he is waiting and anxious to get going. Mr. Tynan stated the Planning Board had worked hard on the bylaw. He said when Joe (Bettis) gets back from vacation maybe the Select Board can give Mr. McCauley more details on the proposal he had presented. "Ask me, that sounds fair enough."
Mr. McCauley responded "very good".
Mr. Malloy gave an update on the progress of the Conservation Commission regarding Griffin Hill Road and wet lands. He will return to the next Select Board meeting with further progress.
The meeting adjourned. Mr. McCauley stayed after the meeting to speak with the Select Board.
* * * * * *
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office has published "Open Meeting Law Guidelines" that encompass the Massachusetts General Laws that apply to officials in government. Following are excerpts:
"Massachusetts adopted in 1958 its first open meeting law applicable to governmental units at the state, county and municipal levels. St. 1958, c. 626. In fact, there were three separate laws, one applicable to each level of government (state, county and municipal), but the substance of the three laws was the same. The first statute was fairly general in approach, and after a series of amendments over the years, the Open Meeting Law was substantially revamped in 1975, adding for each level of government a set of definitions of terms used and making more specific the provisions governing closed meeting sessions and notices of meetings. There have been a number of amendments to the Law since 1975, but its general format and provisions have remained the same. The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to eliminate much of the secrecy surrounding the deliberations and decisions on which public policy is based. It accomplishes this purpose by requiring open discussion of governmental action at public meetings. The requirements of the Open Meeting Law grow out of the idea that the democratic process depends on the public having knowledge about the considerations underlying governmental action, for without that knowledge people are not able to judge the merits of action taken by their representatives. The overriding intent of the Open Meeting Law is therefore to foster and indeed require open discussion of governmental action at public meetings. Yet the Law does recognize that public officials might be "unduly hampered" if all discussions by public officials were required to be open. As a result, it specifies certain types of issues that may be discussed and decided in a closed session. These exceptions, however, are limited in number and narrow in scope.
The Law applies to those meetings of governmental bodies in which a quorum of the body convenes to deliberate on any public business or policy within its jurisdiction. The terms meeting, governmental body, deliberation, and quorum are specifically defined in the Law. G.L. c. 39, §23A. For covered meetings, the Law lays out specific procedures that must be followed. Most important is that the meeting be open to the public except in nine specific circumstances that are described in the statute. If one of the exceptions applies, the governmental body can meet in an executive session (closed session), provided it follows certain preparatory steps. Other critical procedural requirements are that records be maintained of all meetings (including executive sessions) and be made available to the public, and that notice of all meetings be publicly posted. Responsibility for enforcement of the Law at the local levels is vested in the District Attorney. However, judicial remedies in the form of prospective injunctive and declaratory relief may be sought by the District Attorney, the Attorney General, or three or more registered voters. Relief may also include an order invalidating or rescinding past actions by a governmental body or requiring the body to make its records public. Other remedies may be available as well; the Law states that its remedial provisions are not exclusive.
The Open Meeting Law is clear that all meetings of a governmental body are to be open to the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any such meeting unless the governmental body (1) validly decides to hold an executive session for one of the nine purposes outlined in the Law and (2) follows the prescribed procedures for holding such an executive session.
Note: "Telephone meetings" -- discussion by telephone among members of a governmental body on an issue of public business within the jurisdiction of the body -- are a violation of the Law. This is true even where individual telephone conversations occur in serial fashion.
"Revolving door" meetings, in which a quorum of members participates in serial fashion, are meetings under the Open Meeting Law and must comply with all the Law’s requirements.
With the advent of computers, it has become more common for persons, both at home and at work, to communicate through electronic mail, or "e-mail." Like private conversations held in person or over the telephone, e-mail conversations among a quorum of members of a governmental body that relate to public business violate the Open Meeting Law, as the public is deprived of the opportunity to attend and monitor the e-mail "meeting." Thus it is a violation to e-mail to a quorum messages that can be considered invitations to reply in any medium, and would amount to deliberation on business that must occur only at proper meetings. It is not a violation to use e-mail to distribute materials, correspondence, agendas or reports so that committee members can prepare individually for upcoming meetings."
If you are interested in the "Open Meeting Law Guidelines", go to www.mass.gov.
Don McCauley, President of Minuteman Wind LLC, asked if the Select Board had read their (Minutemand Wind) bylaw proposal. Mr. Tynan replied they had read through it but didn’t form a group opinion or anything like that. The Select Board is still waiting for the Planning Board to present the Town bylaws. Jamie (Reinhardt) has told the Planning Board the bylaws would be ready for August.
Mr. McCauley inquired if he should proceed with introducing his proposed bylaw. Mr. Tynan explained he would want to wait and see what happened with the Town’s proposed bylaw. Mr. McCauley stated "he would believe it when I see it".
Mr. Tynan responded the Select Board had a pretty candid talk with Jamie. "It sounds like they (Planning Board) are pretty much done and Select Board is waiting to see bylaw". Mr. McCauley said he is waiting and anxious to get going. Mr. Tynan stated the Planning Board had worked hard on the bylaw. He said when Joe (Bettis) gets back from vacation maybe the Select Board can give Mr. McCauley more details on the proposal he had presented. "Ask me, that sounds fair enough."
Mr. McCauley responded "very good".
Mr. Malloy gave an update on the progress of the Conservation Commission regarding Griffin Hill Road and wet lands. He will return to the next Select Board meeting with further progress.
The meeting adjourned. Mr. McCauley stayed after the meeting to speak with the Select Board.
* * * * * *
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office has published "Open Meeting Law Guidelines" that encompass the Massachusetts General Laws that apply to officials in government. Following are excerpts:
"Massachusetts adopted in 1958 its first open meeting law applicable to governmental units at the state, county and municipal levels. St. 1958, c. 626. In fact, there were three separate laws, one applicable to each level of government (state, county and municipal), but the substance of the three laws was the same. The first statute was fairly general in approach, and after a series of amendments over the years, the Open Meeting Law was substantially revamped in 1975, adding for each level of government a set of definitions of terms used and making more specific the provisions governing closed meeting sessions and notices of meetings. There have been a number of amendments to the Law since 1975, but its general format and provisions have remained the same. The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to eliminate much of the secrecy surrounding the deliberations and decisions on which public policy is based. It accomplishes this purpose by requiring open discussion of governmental action at public meetings. The requirements of the Open Meeting Law grow out of the idea that the democratic process depends on the public having knowledge about the considerations underlying governmental action, for without that knowledge people are not able to judge the merits of action taken by their representatives. The overriding intent of the Open Meeting Law is therefore to foster and indeed require open discussion of governmental action at public meetings. Yet the Law does recognize that public officials might be "unduly hampered" if all discussions by public officials were required to be open. As a result, it specifies certain types of issues that may be discussed and decided in a closed session. These exceptions, however, are limited in number and narrow in scope.
The Law applies to those meetings of governmental bodies in which a quorum of the body convenes to deliberate on any public business or policy within its jurisdiction. The terms meeting, governmental body, deliberation, and quorum are specifically defined in the Law. G.L. c. 39, §23A. For covered meetings, the Law lays out specific procedures that must be followed. Most important is that the meeting be open to the public except in nine specific circumstances that are described in the statute. If one of the exceptions applies, the governmental body can meet in an executive session (closed session), provided it follows certain preparatory steps. Other critical procedural requirements are that records be maintained of all meetings (including executive sessions) and be made available to the public, and that notice of all meetings be publicly posted. Responsibility for enforcement of the Law at the local levels is vested in the District Attorney. However, judicial remedies in the form of prospective injunctive and declaratory relief may be sought by the District Attorney, the Attorney General, or three or more registered voters. Relief may also include an order invalidating or rescinding past actions by a governmental body or requiring the body to make its records public. Other remedies may be available as well; the Law states that its remedial provisions are not exclusive.
The Open Meeting Law is clear that all meetings of a governmental body are to be open to the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any such meeting unless the governmental body (1) validly decides to hold an executive session for one of the nine purposes outlined in the Law and (2) follows the prescribed procedures for holding such an executive session.
Note: "Telephone meetings" -- discussion by telephone among members of a governmental body on an issue of public business within the jurisdiction of the body -- are a violation of the Law. This is true even where individual telephone conversations occur in serial fashion.
"Revolving door" meetings, in which a quorum of members participates in serial fashion, are meetings under the Open Meeting Law and must comply with all the Law’s requirements.
With the advent of computers, it has become more common for persons, both at home and at work, to communicate through electronic mail, or "e-mail." Like private conversations held in person or over the telephone, e-mail conversations among a quorum of members of a governmental body that relate to public business violate the Open Meeting Law, as the public is deprived of the opportunity to attend and monitor the e-mail "meeting." Thus it is a violation to e-mail to a quorum messages that can be considered invitations to reply in any medium, and would amount to deliberation on business that must occur only at proper meetings. It is not a violation to use e-mail to distribute materials, correspondence, agendas or reports so that committee members can prepare individually for upcoming meetings."
If you are interested in the "Open Meeting Law Guidelines", go to www.mass.gov.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)