Each time it appears that a Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting couldn’t possibly become more heated, more contentious, more raucous, more issue-partisan than last month’s; the next Meeting trumps the last. If it weren’t so tragic, it would be humorous to watch the spirited sparring – but the last thing the Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting wasn't even remotely funny.

The tenor was set in the first 30 seconds of the Meeting. While attendees were greeted by not one, but 2 armed Steuben County Sherriff’s Department officers, there was no ‘wanding’ this month. As has been the case now for every meeting of consequence for now the past several years, every of the ± 45 visitors seats was taken by shortly after 6:30 pm. The hallway and lobby was standing room only with at least another 25-30 people trying to hear; more people stood in the rain under umbrellas at the open side door. Others were standing on the porch, out in the driveway, and could be seen driving away because they couldn’t get in.

Immediately after the Supervisor gaveled the Meeting to order, Steve Kula introduced a motion, seconded by Chuck Schick, to move the session to the Fire Hall to accommodate the overflow crowd of those interested in both sides of the issues on the agenda. After a brief attempt by Harold McConnell to characterize moving the meeting as difficult “at this late hour” because he’d had no forewarning that the meeting would be “well attended”, a 3-2 vote – Steve and Chuck voting Yes, Staci, Sharon and Harold voting No – ended any discussion of whether the meeting should be moved to another venue just because doing so would be in the best interests of the taxpayers.

The meeting was, as the saying goes, all down hill from there.

The battle lines are drawn.

Staci Bottoni and Sharon Quigley want whatever Ecogen wants. They want wind turbines now, wherever and however Ecogen wants them – taxpayers, scientific data and public opinion be damned. Who cares if the people in Europe and other parts of the world with many, many years more first-hand experience with wind power have dramatically rethought siting regulations and now understand that the low frequency noise generated by the turbines really does cause serious health problems? Who cares if almost all the initial impressions of those who live near the Cohocton sites are bad? Who cares if Hal Graham’s windows rattle and he and his neighbors near the turbine can’t sleep from the noise? Who cares if Ecogen’s financial backer Babcock and Brown appears on the brink of bankruptcy?

Staci said she was not personally going to be impacted by turbine noise anyway because she could not afford the expensive land “up in the hills” where “those people” live and the turbines will be placed. Sharon said she paid “a lot of taxes.”

Steve Kula and Chuck Schick are not yet sold. Steve Kula, a self-avowed wind power advocate who still supports the concept and feels a wind project might be good for Prattsburgh, is not willing to proceed without solid assurances that both participating and non-participating landowners would be equally protected. Charles Schick has been skeptical from the offset, cautiously optimistic but still skeptical – not opposed, but firm in his position that it would be inappropriate to proceed without more facts backed by solid scientific data.

And, so far at least, Harold’s position has been to vote with the developers.

Time and again, the discussion became way beyond heated – hostile would be a more accurate description.

Steve Kula went after John Leyden and Harold like a rat terrier. John didn’t like having Steve question his billing and whether it was appropriate for him to represent the Town, SCIDA (in effect, the developers). Steve asked Harold for a copy of the letter he’d written apparently supporting the Ecogen project. Some landowners have said the developers appear to be using this letter to convince landowners to sign up. There also seem to be questions about whether the developers have been billed by the Town for all the expenses and costs they had agreed to pay.

Steve and Chuck made a valiant effort to turn the Board’s attention back to the need for developing a Wind Law. Staci and Sharon – after accepting Ecogen’s invitation to visit a wind farm in Canada sporting the Siemens 2.3 MW turbine at the Town’s expense – are convinced that Ecogen is prepared to respond positively to all the issues that came up last month – noise, safety & liability, and local jobs – and that a Prattsburgh Wind Law or a moratorium is not necessary.

The Board’s on-going position and next steps regarding how they intend to address the fact that Italy is getting a hugely ‘better deal’ in their PILOT agreement was less clear.

The mystery stenographer was there again but was sporadic in what discussion topics she fully transcribed.

Many from the audience spoke when afforded the opportunity.

Many expressed outrage that the Board was so aloof and unencumbered by the interests of those who elected them that the idea of moving the meeting to a location where the at least 75-100 members of the public could all hear and participate was dismissed out-of-hand. Several questioned whether the Town should consider a new attorney with clearer allegiance – as John Leyden is also the attorney for SCIDA, the lead agent for the Ecogen project. Al Wordingham presented detailed siting, blade throw and noise data from other parts of the world that should be incorporated in a Wind Law.

John Servo spoke eloquently about some of the legal, liability and mechanics lien issues that rendered participating landowners unable to protect themselves or even sell their properties once a wind turbine had been erected on their land. (The letter presented to the Town Board is printed below).

Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions, a nationally recognized licensed noise engineer, described in detail that – allowed to proceed as planned – the noise from turbines for Prattsburgh residents is going to be a serious issue and that considerable uncontroversial data proved that the low frequency noise from the turbines, in fact, presents health hazards. Mr. James has been contracted by Cohocton citizens to do a noise study, and also did background noise tests on John Servo's property in Prattsburgh. The daytime background noise on Mr. Servo's property was found to be 21dB at his home and 23dB at his property line. Using the DEC's recommendation that noise from wind turbines not exceed 6dB above current background noise, these guidelines show that the ceiling for turbine noise should be about 30dB at non-participating landowners property. Mr. James stated that the 50dB noise levels the developers typically seek is far too great, and often 30dB higher than background. When Chuck Schick asked him to explain this dB difference, he mentioned that 30dB represents a sound pressure level 1000 times louder. This high level of noise is why windows rattle, people can't sleep at night, and why there are health concerns for children, the elderly and some people with special health issues.

Terry Drake repeated what he presented in a recent letter to the Naples Record – that although Ecogen had told him that the lease he’d signed with them would not stand in the way of his agreement to sell John Servo an easement across his land for a power line – today, several years after he and John had reached their agreement, Ecogen had successfully stopped them from moving ahead. Quoting Terry Drake's letter to the Town Board, "There are a few things you should do before you agree to anything with this man. First, find out everyone he’s made promises to, and hold him to what he gave as his word, and make sure people aren’t going to be hurt. And don’t give him whatever he wants until all of us are protected. And when he promises you the earth, you better have it looked at by three lawyers, and after that, figure out what you’re going to do if he changes his mind anyway."

Other speakers said that Ecogen had trespassed on their property, used harassment to them get them to sign up, and told them things that did not appear to be true as an inducement to proceed.

Prattsburgh residents and landowners are missing a real spectacle – small town politics at their best and their worst – if they don’t attend these meetings.

In truth, if this month’s meeting was typical, you may not be able to get in unless you arrive early or call Harold McConnell in advance so he can anticipate how many people may come, but by coming and complaining if you cannot get in, you’ll send a clear message that the Board represents you and you want to be able to watch while they do so.

There will be two important meetings next month. Tuesday, May 19th at 7:00 pm, the Prattsburgh Town Board meeting will be held downstairs at the Ingleside Christian Church in Ingleside. Then just two days later – 6:30 pm on Thursday, May 21st at either the Fire Hall or the Prattsburgh School Cafetorium – there will be a Public Meeting at which Ecogen will make a presentation and answer questions on their project. Town Supervisor Harold McConnell mentioned that at Ecogen's meeting (unlike the First Wind meeting last year), the public will be allowed to speak. This meeting should be highly informative, and anyone with an interest in this issue and relevant information to share should attend.

As you know, I and my family have homes directly across from Eocogen turbine sites, and I'm a member of Advocates for Prattsburgh. We and many of our fellow citizens throughout the Town are concerned about the high level of noise these turbines will make.

We hope the Prattsburgh Town Board will implement a three-month moratorium, and that during this moratorium, the Town Board will draft a Wind Law mandating guidelines which will protect both non-participating landowners and leasing landowners. A key issue is the critical need for greater setbacks to protect adjacent and nearby landowners from noise, health and safety issues, as shown by the noise problems suffered by Cohocton residents.

To start, I have a letter from Jack Zigenfus, Supervisor for the Town of Cohocton, to First Wind, which I'd like to excerpt. I'm sure you remember that Mr. Zigenfus has been a strong backer for the First Wind project, and accepted – like Hal Graham and so many others – that these industrial machines were quiet and not a problem.

He starts, "... noise from First Wind's installation and operation of the Clipper Windpower 2.5MW Wind Turbines in the Town of Cohocton has been and continues to be the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Town, including the Town's Code Enforcement Office and its technical consultants, and extensive complaint by the Town's residents. As the Town's Supervisor, and as a non-participating resident of the Town, I can tell you that many of the complaints ... were merited.

"It is my understanding...actual noise levels at and near non-participating residences and other property lines may be exceeding the levels which were modeled by First Wind's consultants during the Planning Board's review and consideration of the project applications." Now, I'd like to point out that Cohocton enacted a Wind Law virtually written by the developer to ALLOW a high threshold of noise, and their turbines exceeding even THIS "pro-noise" ordinance.

Continuing, "The Town will not stand idle during operation of the projects if the projects are not in total compliance with all of the Town's local laws, the conditions of the special use permits issued to First Wind's subsidiaries, or the terms of the agreements between First Wind's subsidiaries and the Town." I'd like to point out that, even though Cohocton bent over backwards to give First Wind what they wanted, they still had a Wind Law, Special Use Permits, and other agreements in place BEFORE the Town OK'd the developer moving forward. We in Prattsburgh have essentially NOTHING – the Wind Law never got started. And while the Town COULD have done this without a moratorium, the ONLY way to take care of this NOW is to put a three month moratorium in place.

Supervisor Zigenfus then says, "First Wind should immediately contact the Town and its consultants to explain why noise from operation ... is exceeding the levels modeled during review of the projects, and whether, when and how First Wind and/or Clipper Windpower, anticipate remedying the situation." As happens again and again, the developer MODELS how LITTLE noise the project MIGHT make, rather than determining how MUCH noise the turbines DO make, through testing at a comparable project. And we have a comparable project, in Cohocton, which uses turbines rated at 106.4dB of noise, just like the Siemens turbines Ecogen claims are so quiet.

Continuing, Supervisor Zigenfus states, "The current state of affairs in Cohocton, insofar as the wind projects are concerned, is unfortunate for Cohocton, and should be UNACCEPTABLE...". Again, unless we have the Wind Law in place, Prattsburgh will be even more defenseless than Cohocton.

Now, I have with me Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions, a nationally recognized noise expert, who is conducting a noise study at various sites in the Cohocton project, to present what he's found. As a reference, the L90 noise level at my property line is 23dB, 21dB at the house. Following the DEC guidelines, the maximum allowable noise at my house should be 6 dB higher – 27dB.

As you know, at Ecogen's invitation, Sharron Quigley and Stacy Bottoni visited the Kruger Energy Port Alma Wind Power Project in Chatham Kent, Ontario, Canada. This windfarm uses the same 2.3MW Siemens wind turbines chosen for the Ecogen project. The stated purpose of this visit was to show these Town Board members how "quiet" these turbines are. Ecogen claims these Siemens turbines are quieter than the 2.5MW Clipper turbines causing noise problems in Cohocton, even though industry experts classify both turbines at 106.4dB of noise.

Please note the Ontario Ministry of Environment currently mandates 600 meters – 1968 feet – as setbacks from "any residential zone" at the Port Alma project. In comparison, Ecogen's current setbacks are only 1200 feet from residences – at least 768 feet closer than this Ontario project, the same project Ecogen "showcased" for Sharon and Stacy.

But this additional 768 foot setback – which Ecogen doesn't mention – isn't the best part of the story. This past month a representative from the Ontario Ministry of Environment indicated that the current setbacks for this Ontario project inadequate, due to louder noise than presented in the developer's "projections" – Big Surprise – and new setbacks would be greater still during Phase II of the Project.

There you have it. The very Siemens turbines Ecogen would have us believe are quieter than Cohocton's, have noise levels the Ontario government considers TOO LOUD at even 1968 feet away. Ecogen's current setbacks offer adjacent and nearby landowners woefully inadequate protection from potential serious harm. We could be ruined by turbines sited too close to our properties and homes, and the Town needs to enact a good "Wind Law" to protect us.

A good Wind Law would also protect leasing landowners. Let's not forget about them. The developer or project owner should be required to indemnify the leasing landowners and adjacent landowners from all legal liability arising from the operation of these wind turbines. Right now, if anything goes wrong – as it sometimes does – they're on the hook. And currently, it appears virtually impossible for leasing landowners to get adequate liability insurance for wind turbine related accidents. In addition, escrow provisions should be implemented to protect leasing landowners from potential mechanics liens, which can destroy the landowner's credit. These liens are a proliferating problem arising from deadbeat developers not paying their contractors. And as the Town Board should already know, Ecogen's Australian financial backer, Babcock and Brown, is in serious financial trouble. You don't need to take my word for it. Just search the Internet. In 30 seconds you'll find out that Babcock and Brown is as financially flush as a bad bank without a bailout. The Town Board needs to explicitly and adequately address these clear financial dangers. Our landowners need protection, not just promises, and Prattsburgh leasing landowners shouldn't be stuck paying the tab in what might amount to that "bad bank" bailout.

All of these issues can be effectively addressed during a moratorium period. I can only see one downside to having a brief moratorium and putting in place the protections we need. Ecogen and their foreign investors – good neighbors that they are – have threatened to immediately sue Prattsburgh for many times our annual revenues if you, our Town Board, don't cave in and give them what they want. And let's get this straight. The reason they don't want a moratorium is not any "hardship" of a three-month delay. The real reason is they don't want a good Wind Law, which would protect us from noise, protect leasing landowners from financial exposure, and may even cut into their huge, taxpayer-subsidized profits.

So the Town Board is now at the point of decision. All we need is three months. So, which would you rather have? • Would the Town rather be sued by a carpetbagger and his foreign backers, who don't want you to even take a deep breadth to make sure we do this right? • Or would you rather force Prattsburgh citizens to dip into their life savings to fight the Town – something they DON'T want to do – to protect themselves and their friends and neighbors from ruin?

This is the most momentous decision in the history of the Town. Don't surrender to Ecogen's threats. Pass the moratorium, embrace the work, write a good Wind Law, protect all of us, including the leasing landowners, THEN build the project right. It's easier than you think, and if you want it, you'll have our help.

At the Prattsburgh Board meeting, it was revealed that Ecogen is offering payments to non-participating landowners – $10,000 in the example raised in the citizen's complaint last night – on the condition that they NOT COMPLAIN about the noise. This "gag order", a condition for receiving "compensation" in exchange what has been forcibly taken (not freely negotiated and given) is disgusting, and takes away the citizen's freedom of speech. It appears that targeted landowners are being "incentivized" to live with what will be constant industrial noise, and in some cases – as in Cohocton – perhaps not be able to sleep at night, and then have to "forever hold their peace" or face lawsuit. As was shown at the Tug Hill project near the Adirondacks, one-time payments and gag orders are standard operating procedure for wind project developers. But what was particularly shocking was that Board Member Stacy Bottoni admitted that she was directly involved with this effort to buy off and gag local citizens during this period leading up to the Town Board then deciding to "approve" the Ecogen project.

Analyzing this bizarre state of affairs in Prattsburgh, if you want to see what's REALLY going on, FOLLOW THE MONEY. Following this straightforward approach, I brought up during the comment period a critical point many citizens may not know about. While the Town of Italy is scheduled to receive $12,000,000 from Ecogen for siting 18 turbines in their Town, Prattsburgh is currently scheduled to receive only $3,000,000 under its payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement – $9,000,000 LESS – for siting 16 turbines in our town. Please note this is virtually the same number of turbines. For whatever reason, John Leyden, Prattsburgh's attorney (and ALSO the attorney for SCIDA, the lead agent for the Ecogen project), told the Town Board a few months back that the Board had to approve the Ecogen PILOT at the same time they approved a new split of PILOT monies for the First Wind project renegotiated with the school districts. Well, accepting this "deal" – the extraordinarily bad Ecogen PILOT – cost the Town $8,000,000 to $9,000,000 in LOST income, compared to the deal Italy negotiated. And since then, Leyden has repeatedly stated, including Tuesday night, that the Town of Prattsburgh couldn't re-negotiate the bad PILOT, because the deal was done, and the Town couldn't use other issues (such as noise) to sweeten the bad deal.

But what we heard Stacy Bottoni say last night was that Ecogen had "offered" to consider providing funds for civic improvements as a "good neighbor". And we're supposed to believe there's no "quid pro quo", no trade-off. Is the Ecogen-backing Town Board majority going to sell out the citizens who live "in the hills" – those Stacy calls "you people" – who would be harmed, and potentially ruined, by turbine noise, in exchange for, perhaps, some sidewalks in the Village and a new truck for the Highway Department? And all this when the Town SHOULD have received MILLIONS of dollars more if it hadn't been suckered into a bad deal in the first place?

This leads to the comment made by John Servo Tuesday night. He said that, if he made a half million dollar or a one million dollar mistake, his partners would kick him out – and rightly so. But when John Leyden (remember, he's also SCIDA's attorney) makes an at least eight million dollar "mistake" – MANY times the annual budget for the Town – Leyden STILL has his job. WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE? Perhaps, if there is an investigation, this will all come out during discovery. To be fair, there is another possible interpretation: it could just be that attorney John Leyden and the Prattsburgh Town Board majority backing the Ecogen project are simply the worst negotiators in New York State history.

It will be interesting to see if the NY State Attorney General, who initially investigated several wind developers with much fanfare, is interested in protecting Western NY citizens. Or whether we are considered residents of the equivalent of a Third World country, complete with local officials who are easy pickings for foreign financiers and their "development" projects.

By the way, this development is virtually "job-free". When you take the 6 to 8 jobs permanent jobs the Ecogen project claims it will generate – over two towns – and factor in the exclusions for skill staff and remote monitoring, each town will be lucky if they get more than one security guard. And the project's lead agent – Steuben County IDA – claims to be a "development" agency! To make matters worse, at the Tuesday Town Board meeting Stacy Bottoni made a big deal out of the local jobs we'd get when the Town Board approves – meaning "rubber stamps" – this project. What jobs? One job? Maybe two? Do they think our citizens really that stupid that we'd fall for this?

We live in "interesting times". Two hundred years ago, during the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked by a woman on the street "what they were doing in there". He answered, "creating a new country, if you can keep it." Defend your Town and your personal freedom. Come to the two critical meetings next month: the Prattsburgh Town Board meeting 7PM Tuesday, May 19 at the Prattsburgh Town Hall, and the Ecogen Project meeting 6:30PM Thursday, May 21 at either the Fire Hall or the Prattsburgh School Cafetorium. We will alert you to this meeting location as soon as we are informed. See you next month and keep the faith.

At this upcoming meeting, the Prattsburgh Town Board will decide whether to impose a three-month moratorium for the Ecogen Wind project. It is hoped that during this moratorium, the Town Board would draft a Wind Law mandating guidelines which would protect both non-participating landowners and leasing landowners. A key issue is the critical need for greater setbacks to protect adjacent non-participating landowners from noise, health and safety problems, as shown by the noise problems suffered by Cohocton residents. Leasing landowners also need to be indemnified by the developer from legal liability and protected from the thereat of mechanics liens. Another issue is the incredibly bad PILOT deal previously accepted by the Town at the recommendation of the Town's attorney, John Leyden (who is, coincidentally, also the attorney for SCIDA, the lead agent for the Ecogen project). At the previous meeting, it was voted to give Ecogen two weeks to come up with a better deal, and to address the noise concerns.

Ecogen's response was to invite two Board members – Stacy Bottoni and Sharron Quigley – to visit the Kruger Energy Port Alma Wind Power Project in Chatham Kent, Ontario, Canada. This windfarm uses the 2.3MW Siemens wind turbines chosen for the Ecogen project. The object was to shown these Town Board members how "quiet" these turbines are. The developer claims these Siemens turbines are quieter than the 2.5MW Clipper turbines causing noise problems in Cohocton, even though industry experts classify both turbines at 106dB of noise.

Please note that the Ontario Ministry of Environment currently mandates 600 meters (1968 feet) setbacks from "any residential zone". In comparison, Ecogen's current setbacks are only 1200 feet from residences – at least 768 feet closer to houses than residential zone homes in this Ontario project, which Ecogen "showcased" to these Town Board members. It can also be assumed that the closest home in this residential zone is greater than 1968 feet away from these wind turbines, as the residential zone boundary is at the property lines, not the home itself, as Ecogen would like.

Ecogen should also tell the whole story. For example, this past month a representative from the Ontario Ministry of Environment indicated that the current setbacks for this Ontario project (setbacks which are far greater than what Ecogen is currently offering) were inadequate, due to louder noise than originally presented in the developer's "projections", and new setbacks would be greater still during Phase II of the Project. Our concern is that a Town Board majority will give Ecogen whatever it wants, even though current setbacks offer adjacent and nearby landowners and homeowners inadequate protection from potential serious harm.

The Town should also enact a "Wind Law", to protect not only non-participating landowners, who could be ruined by turbines sited close to their properties and homes. A good Wind Law would protect leasing landowners as well. Ecogen and First Wind should be required to indemnify their leaseholders and adjacent landowners from all legal liability arising from the operation of these wind turbines. Currently, it appears virtually impossible for leasing landowners to get adequate liability insurance. In addition, escrow provisions should be implemented to protect leasing landowners from potential mechanics liens, a proliferating problem arising from deadbeat developers not paying their contractors. And as the Town Board knows, Ecogen's Australian financial backer, Babcock and Brown, is in serious financial trouble. The Town Board needs to explicitly and adequately address these clear dangers. Our landowners need protection, not just promises, and Prattsburgh leasing landowners shouldn't be stuck paying the tab in what would amount to a "bad bank" bailout.

All of these issues can be effectively addressed during a brief moratorium period. The Town Board needs to vote for a moratorium – rather than caving in to the developer's threats to immediately sue the Town if they don't get what they want. An effective Wind Law will be essential for protecting all our citizens. Please attend this critically important meeting this coming Tuesday, April 21 at 7:00PM.

The Prattsburgh Town Board met in special session at 7:30 PM Tuesday, March 24, with the avowed intention of considering whether it should enact a three to six month moratorium on wind turbines. Based upon discussion and a presentation by attorney Gary Abraham at the regular town board meeting March 17 a week earlier, citizens were led to believe that the moratorium period would be used to determine appropriate setbacks from houses and property lines to address concerns regarding noise, health and safety.

Supervisor Harold McConnell defined a moratorium as a period in which no wind turbine physical activity – construction of any sort – would take place. At the March 24 special meeting, Harold advised those attending that no comments would be accepted other than from the Board members and the town attorney. Beyond a particularly acrimonious and contentious flavor where those for and against a moratorium did everything but wear opposing jerseys, this particular meeting had three (3) decidedly unusual aspects.

The first was the presence of a representative from the Ontario County Sheriff Department who ‘wanded’ everyone who came in the door for weapons. In response to a question as to what prompted searching all attendees – or at least those in the ‘audience’ – a second officer said that it was his understanding “threats had been made” against Tom Hagner of Ecogen, who was there with an attorney.

The second unusual aspect was the presence of a woman with a state-of-the-art legal courtroom stenography outfit seated next to the Town attorney. While those of us who are not members of the Board and/or ‘seated at the table’ have often asked why a full, formal transcript is not made of every session, the interesting part was that no one we asked, including two Board members, knew for whom the transcript was being taken.

A third fascinating aspect was that the newly-hired, outside, wind-knowledgeable attorney, Mr. Abraham, was asked a series of extremely detailed and specific questions by Town Board member Stacy Bottoni, but prevented by Harold from saying a word. Stacy, who was the prime mover at the March 3rd Board meeting in her adamant insistence that an attorney with specific experience representing NY State communities on both sides of the issue should be hired, then attacked the poor fellow so strongly that he undoubtedly wondered why he had not spent the evening home with his family.

Harold announced that several days after the Town Board voted to have a special meeting to consider a moratorium, two Board members – Stacy Bottoni and Sharon Quigley – had met directly with Ecogen without other Board members present. Stacy was asked to report on that meeting. Stacy, with input and clear support from Sharon, then read a several page statement which centered on six issues:

1. That “all this” had been going on now for eight (8) years and that she, for one, simply wanted to get on with the process of putting up wind turbines.

2. She suggested a period of effort for working toward a “settlement” rather than taking steps which would “undoubtedly” lead to litigation – a moratorium. Stacy frequently stated throughout her presentation that the Town "would be sued (by Ecogen)" if it declared a moratorium, giving the impression that Ecogen's threats against the Town needed to be avoided at all costs.

3. The Town should move forward in recognition of the fact that people in Cohocton were unhappy with the noise being generated, but the project should not be delayed just because “some people” were unhappy with the noise level. Stacy also reiterated that she and Sharon had been assured by Ecogen that the noise in Cohocton was the result of a design flaw in the Clipper turbine, which the manufacturer had committed to address. This noise problem would not be an issue with the Siemens 2.3 MW turbines which Ecogen plans to use. (Not mentioned was the fact this particular turbine had been designed for use off-shore, while Ecogen wants to place them in-between the homes and properties of non-participating landowners). Stacy indicated she wanted to accept Ecogen’s invitation to visit a wind farm outside Detroit to see first-hand what noise levels were being generated by the Siemens 2.3 MW turbine. Chuck Schick pointed out that, now that Winter had passed, a Detroit visit would not merit much return because the Spring/Summer wind level was less, but Staci wasn’t buying. (It would be interesting to see a map of the turbine locations for the Ecogen project, with the homes of the Board members called out to see if they would be negatively affected.)

4. Ecogen should offer a response to how the Town would be protected from potential liability issues connected with tower collapses (such as the recent event in Altona, NY).

5. Ecogen must guarantee local jobs. (Please recall that this project, which spans two towns, claims to generate at most six to eight jobs. Some of these jobs can be handled through remote [out-of-town] monitoring, and others require specialized skill staff [also not local]. It is unclear whether "guarantee local jobs" means more than one or two unskilled positions.)

6. The Board must understand why Italy is getting a better deal. (Does this mean that Stacy and a majority of the Board is willing to "trade off" [sell out] the safety and high-noise concerns of adjacent landowners to get more money for the Town – additional money the Town could have gotten had it actually "negotiated" a PILOT? Unfortunately, the Town's attorney – coincidently, also the attorney for SCIDA, the lead agent for the project – had previously convinced the Town Board they had to accept a bad PILOT deal – for only one-quarter the money Italy negotiated.)

Much of Stacy’s statement was framed in the form of specific questions to Mr. Abraham who, while present, was – for whatever reasons – not allowed to respond even when he was requested to do so. Stacy spoke glowingly of the Town’s “long term” attorney, whose advice she said she was far more inclined to follow than Abraham’s which – at least at this meeting – he was not allowed to present.

After Stacy finished her statement, Steve Kula and Chuck Schick attempted to ask questions and clarify aspects of the issues Stacy raised, but were prevented from doing so by Harold. Harold asked then for and got a motion for a vote on a short period to work toward a settlement, rather than to consider a moratorium. Only Steve Kula and Chuck Schick voted Nay. The meeting lasted about 20 minutes, and with the "gag rule" in play, no one from the overflow crowd could say a word. The meeting was definitely short, but not sweet.