Saturday, October 21, 2017

Adjudicatory Hearing Round III – Day Four

June 6, 2011 by · Leave a Comment 


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1997

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1997

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 2009

Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 2036

By Dan McClelland, Tupper Lake Free Press

Round III of Adjudicatory Hearings  Day Four Monday, June 6, 2011

Present:  Paul Van Cott, attorney for APA, John Caffry, attorney for Protect the Adirondacks, Elaine Yabroudy, Mayor Mickey Desmarais, Jon Kopp, representing the Tupper Lake Chamber of Commerce, Fast Freddie Schuller, Don Dew Jr., Leon LeBlanc, village trustee, Phyllis Thompson, Dan Savage, Tom Ulasewicz, attorney for Preserve Associates, Supervisor Roger Amell, Tom Lawson, developer, Dan Plumley, Adirondack Wild, Bob Fuller, consultant for the village, John Bouck,  electric superintendent for village, Dennis Zicha, Kirk Gagnier, representing the town and village planning boards, Curt Wilson, consulting engineer for village, Brian Houseal, Lorraine Bell for Protect the Adirondacks, Mrs. Haddad, Carol Richer, Kurt Stiles, APA chairman

Continuation of Issues #5 and #6.

Judge:  advised re:  filing closing briefs and replies

On the record:

John Bouck and Curtis Wilson sworn in

Tom Ulaswicz:  pp3-5 of pre-filed testimony accurate?  Page 8 to end of pre-filed testimony – joint testimony of Bouck and Wilson?

Bouck: yes

Tom U:  testifying as municipal official?

Bouck:  yes

Tom U:  Wilson’s testimony accurate?

Wilson:  yes

Tom U.  move to admit testimony to record

Judge:  references to pre-filed testimony don’t line up with his copy

Caffry;  his copy agrees with judge’s

Tom U:  compared copies; his is different

Other copies agree with judge’s

No objections to incorporating testimony into record

 

VanCott:  p. 15 of joint portion of pre-filed testimony:  Mr. Bouck, elaborate on response to village reaching agreement with developers.

Bouck:  reached agreement on who’s installing what

VanCott:  Agreement in writing?

Bouck:  not to my knowledge

Van Cott:  agreement re: maintenance?

Bouck: not to my knowledge

 

Gagnier:  if no agreement in place, is village obliged to extend electric lines?

Bouck: no

Gagnier:  rate increase in 2010 – explain how rate system works

Bouck:  in 2009, village reviewed rates with NYPA.  Felt monthly increase over 3 yrs indicated for total of 18%.  Implemented last year.

Gagnier:  is there tiered system of user consumption price?

Bouck: for residential, yes.

Gagnier:  how would rate structure work for ACR?

Bouck:  would be applied to residential

Gagnier: so the same as everyone else?

Bouck:  yes

Gagnier:  with regard TLU – are there ways for development to use to minimize impact on municipal system?

Bouck:  time use rate would be beneficial to them

Gagnier:  would save developers money?

Bouck: advantageous to developer and to whole grid to use TLU

 

Zicha:  define subtransmission level

Bouck: defined by National Grid

Zicha:  re answer 12, p. 16 – is TL Electric Dept. involved in secondary installations?

Bouck:  responsibility of he developer

Zicha:  involved only in bringing power to site?

Bouck:  also responsible for metering

Zicha:  elaborate on estimated project rules

Wilson:  in 2010, numbers updated due to changes in plans, but numbers not substantially changed from 2005-06.  At full build out project demand 3.9 megawatts

Zicha:  includes full ski area operation?

Wilson:  that is correct

Zicha:  average estimated peak at 22.5 megawatts?

Bouck:  correct

Zicha: talk about 19 megawatts of hydropower.  How allocated?

Bouck:  everyone basically gets the same – all blended in to base rate for customer

Zicha:  not what I’m trying to get at – do you divide 19 by number of customers?

Bouck:  no – rates determined by cost of service to customers in general

Wilson:  19 megawatts not specifically allocated to customers.  Allocation is for all customers.  All thrown into same pot to determine average power supply cost.

Zicha:  different rates based on residential customer use?

Bouck:  Residential broken down into 3 tiers

Zicha:  ACR project would add 651 to your 3400 customers.  Other amenities bring it up to 660.  Does this mean that the hydro portion for all existing customers will be reduced and more expensive portion increased to meet demand?

Wilson:  that’s an oversimplification.  More customers doesn’t mean more load.  Majority of new customers would not be full time residents.

Zicha:  any idea in your projections of impact of on existing customers?

Bouck:  Not much of an impact

Wilson:  depends on several things.  Any sales of electricity in summer to residents of project will actually reduce average costs because of cheaper hydro power during those months.  Obviously some impact during winter peak.  Average price of power will increase over time.  Partly mitigated by summer sales.  Also increase revenues in winter.    Rate increases as in TL every 20 years very unusual.

Zicha:  what do you forsee the impact to be

Wilson:  impact very dependent on weather.  Rate increase 10-20 years out not due to ACR project, but same factors as rate increase in 2010.  If I could predict, I’d be making my living at the track.

Zicha:  not so interested in rate increase.  More focused on same rates – whatever they might be – will I pay more because of incremental purchase of higher rate power.

Tom U – object – question has been answered

Zicha:  want some idea of what will happen to existing customers’ bills is cheaper hydro power is split among more customers?

Judge:  you’ve asked that and these men have answered.  Is there something else you’re looking for?

Zicha:  how long is typical hydro contract?

Bouck:  could vary.  Contract has been extended to 2025 with no change in hydro allocation.

Wilson:  I believe previous contract was 1991 to 2013.

Zicha:  In 2025, negotiations will begin again.  Do you foresee hydro allocation increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Bouck:  I don’t see that changing

Zicha:  you don’t go out and fight for that?

Bouck:  we depend on the association

Wilson:  reallocation in 1991, only minor changes since then.

Zicha:  p.13 talks about rate increase related to contribution to NYPA.  How is that covered?

Bouck:  right now, through our rates

Zicha:  how long will that last?

Bouck:  20 years

Zicha:  assumption 4 re:  mitigating costs if build out takes longer than projected.  Does that change?

Bouck:  no

Zicha:  it appears that most electrical distribution will be underground.  Any provisions for foam cable?

Bouck:  I don’t know

Zicha:  what’s reason for moratorium on electric heating?

Bouck:  to deter further growth in incremental power costs, conserve energy

 

Caffrey:  Testifying on behalf of Applicant?  Who is paying for your time?

Bouck:  village

Wilson: applicant

Caffry:  who wrote questions on your pre-filed testimony>

Bouck:  I did

Wilson:  Mr. U

Caffry:  you each wrote your own answers?

Bouck/Wilson:  yes

Caffry:  for ski area, using lower night rates would apply to lighting and snowmaking?

Bouck:  yes.  Time use lists given to them.

Caffry:  electric or diesel power for chairlifts?

Bouck:  now, mostly electric, one diesel

Caffry:  Mr. Wilson, estimates prepared on behalf of village.  Did applicant prepart their own estimates?

Wilson:  to my knowledge, they didn’t prepare any estimates.

Caffry:  when were 2010 estimates prepared?

Wilson:  May 2011

Caffry: in writing?

Wilson:  I have them here.

Judge:  off record for 5-10 minutes

Tom U.  I have not seen this

Judge:  reconvene at 11:45

 

Judge:  back on record.  For Mr. Wilson’s May 2011 figures, does everyone have what he or she needs?  Enter into record as exhibit # 198.

Tom U.:  I have no problem with it.

 

Caffrey:  Do you have that document before you>

Wilson:  yes

Caffry:  3.9 megawatts at full build out?

Wilson:  yes

Caffry: prepared on your own?  No one asked you to do it?

Wilson:  yes

Caffry:  how is this analysis done?

Wilson:  an excel spreadsheet – anticipate installed kw, then used seasonal factors o prepare summer and winter usage.

Caffry?  Accepted standard methodology?

Wilson:  yes

Caffry:  15 year estimate – what is ACR effect?

Wilson:  more people, buying this and that, going to restaurants

Caffry:  induced growth due to project?

Wilson:  yes

Caffry:  approx. 2 megawatts?

Wilson: correct

Caffry:  fair to say that increase in load in 2026 is 5.9 megawatts?

Wilson:  that is correct

Caffry:  so total impact is as much as 50% higher than your previous stated figure of 3.9 megawatts?

Wilson:  that is correct.

Caffry:  If line goes down, what is backup?

Wilson:  from Lake Clear through Gilpin Bay.  Does not serve TL currently.

Caffry:  basically shut off but still available if needed?

Wilson:  yes

Caffry:  in 2026, would not be adequate to serve TL needs?

Wilson:  can’t make that assumption – National Grid in process of updating that line.

Caffry:  are there different rates in summer and winter?

Bouck:  yes – tiered level of costs from November thru April

Caffry:  due to incremental costs of purchased power?

Bouck:  extended tier level because some of costs were being born by customer base, now more by people using it.

Caffry:  would winter rates go up further?

Bouck:  possibly

Caffry:  current peak demand is 22.5 in winter?

Bouck:  approximately

Caffry:  what is cost difference between hydro and incremental?

Bouck:  hydro about .5 cent per kw hour, 3.5-5 cents per kw hour for incremental.

Caffry:  so load could triple at full build out?

Wilson:  that’s possible

Caffry:  what percentage of your dept’s cost is spent on power purchase?

Bouck:  Approx. 60 %

Caffry:  Adding another 5.9 megawatts of incremental power in 2026, isn’t it likely that the number of months you’ll have to purchase incremental power will grow?

Bouck:  according to numbers I’ve seen, no.

Caffry:  p. 13 of prefiled testimony – a bottom – who is going to pay for various parts of project, electric installation – it says village of Tupper Lake will supply labor, transformers and various other things – who is going to pay for those things?

Bouck:  the village of TL

Caffry:  p. 16 – developer paying for nearly all costs of new facilities, etc.  What other costs will developer not be paying for?

Bouck:  none

Caffry:  p.17 – the village envisions the addition of one service vehicle and one employee.  Who will pay?

Bouck:  that will come out of our revenues.

Caffry:  Re: your allocation of hydropower with NYPA.  Is there any way you can lose that allocation?

Bouck:  no

Caffry:  if village is consolidated – would it still be considered a municipality>

Tom U.:  object – no way to know

Caffry:  withdraw

Break for lunch

 

Afternoon session included Dave Gibson, Adirondack Wild, Paul Maroun, Franklin County Legislator, Eduardo Hernandez, Adore Kurtz, Jim LaValley, Rickey Dattola, Peter Littlefield, Kurt Stiles

 

Tom U.:  re:  letter to Franklin County IDA and resolution by IDA on issuance of bonds in Adore Kurtz’s pre-filed testimony – enter into record

Judge:  enter into record

Tom U.:  Enter Mr. Hernandez’ pre-filed testimony into record

Judge:  enter into record

Tom U.:  letter dated 4/22/2010 from director of Franklin County IDA, already part of record, please read second paragraph

Kurtz:  “we continue to be ready with finance options…”

Tom U.  Still position of IDA director?

Kurtz:  yes

Caffry:  May I see that letter?

Tom U shows letter and where it can be found in record.

Van Cott verifies

 

 

Van Cott:  I have questions about the IDA process.  Explain process to get approva of bond issuance.

Kurtz:  every project is different.  Some basic normal procedures.  Start with interesting idea and project that seems to come together.  An applicant will come to IDA and talk about project.  IDA with counsel will see if project  meets threshold and is an IDA project.  Our process has applications that require information described by the state.  Preliminary determination made re: project – cost/benefit analysis, how it meets mission of the agency, etc.  Then public hearing scheduled, committee convened to meet with local taxing jurisdictions, townships may be offered benefits depending on tax exemption policy.  Develop knowledge of impact and benefits of project.  At least one, possible two public hearings on how project will create jobs, etc.

Van Cott:  Where is ACR in process?

Kurtz:  My understanding is that they have more permits than is usual.  It is my understanding Franklin County IDA likes the idea of the project and is in support of the project.

Van Cott:  Does IDA require an objective projection of revenues project will engender?

Kurtz:  yes – cost/benefit analysis will look at jobs generated and so forth.  I’ve seen it ply out in several different ways.  You have to look at it on a project by project basis.

Van Cott:  Bond issuance is approved and a resolution is passed to that effect.  Can an applicant seek issuance of bonds in different increments than what it applied for?

Kurtz:  documents could provide some flexibility.  This project will have at least 4 phases and that’s not uncommon.

Van Cott:  One of the concerns that’s been expressed is that the project will not generate the income that’s been projected.  What’s done with underperforming projects?

Kurtz:  Mortgage can be incorporated into documents to protect taxing jurisdictions.

Van Cott:  Potential scenario – if project were to fail – it’s my understanding lands will be subject to a lease.

Kurtz:  IDA has ability to step in to prevent defaults.  Not something any IDA director wants to see.  Would try to work out the project.    Sometimes have to step in and terminate lease – PILOT goes away.

Van Cott:  if lease is terminated and still outstanding debt, how does IDA recoup?

Kurtz:  there are a number of things that can be done.

Van Cott:  Mr. Hernandez, last week we talked about pump station.  Looking for estimate of cost and where that is for the project.

Hernandez:  I don’t know where those figures are in the application.

Tom U.:  I will try to find that figure out and have it tomorrow.

Hernandez:  It may be bundled up in other figures.

Van Cott:  If I remember, it was somewhere near 250K for 3 years.  On p.2 – talking about phase 1 of the project, would include approx. 12,500 gallons per day.

Hernandez Can I see those figures?

Van Cott:  I’m going to withdraw that question.  No further questions.

 

Gagnier:  Director Kurtz, Mr. Van Cott asked about default.  I want to clarify that in case of default there is no risk to the town or village.

Kurtz:  That’s correct.  The risk is to the investors.  IDA bonds are not the obligation of the municipalities.

Gagnier:  Are defaults common?

Kurtz:  I don’t think they are.  I don’t know what the percentage is.

Gagnier:  When you talk about work outs, are there other benefits to the towns?

Kurtz:  All taxing jurisdictions will benefit from this project.  We take the position that they want to protect all taxing jurisdictions at every level of the project.

Gagnier:  in other words, you make sure the taxing entities are aware of how it works.

Kurtz:  Legislation prescribes that the municipalities are notified of issuance of bonds.

Gagnier:  If no bonds issued but property is part of PILOT, does payment go back to municipality?

Kurtz:  If no closing, no PILOT agreement in effect until lease goes into effect.

Gagnier:  In you experience, have PILOT agreements been phased in?

Kurtz:  yes

Gagnier:  Is it possible to release properties from the PILOT?

Kurtz:  The agency may have the power to do that, but it would require going back to all the information to see if it’s indicated.

Gagnier:  Are materials used in the project exempt from sales and use tax?

Kurtz:  They can be.

Gagnier:  In section 10, p. 6, exhibit 200 – talks about Fulbright and Jaworski being retained to represent the agency.  Is it typical that those costs are borne by the applicant/

Kurtz:  Yes

Gagnier:  What’s your understanding of the use of a bond counsel?

Kurtz:  We rely on them to keep us on the straight and narrow.

Gagnier:  you mentioned there will be another public hearing prior to the issuance of a PILOT agreement.  Is that typical practice?

Kurtz:  The bond counsel typically is involved in the issuance of a PILOT agreement.

Gagnier:  Is the IDA subject to oversight by any state or federal agency?

Kurtz:  Absolutely – regulated by state budget office, subject to audit.

Gagnier:  Is it audited by state comptroller?

Kurtz:  Yes.

Gagnier:  If bond is issued and is used for infrastructure and default occurs and IDA terminates lease, would property go back on tax roll?

Kurtz:  yes

Gagnier:  Cost would be borne by Investors?

Kurtz:  Yes, I would expect these to be institutional investors.

Gagnier:  Mr. Hernandez, it seems the construction of water treatment plant would be highly regulated.  Is that right?

Hernandez:  Yes

Gagnier:  Would require approval of town board?

Hernandez:  Yes

Gagnier:  Cost borne by applicant?

Hernandez:  Yes

Gagnier:  What kind of security can town put into place?

Hernandez:  Same as for any development.  Bonds to make sure things are done properly.

Gagnier:  Bonds can be required for initial installation and also for operation?

Hernandez:  Yes

 

 

Carol Richer:  Can we get a flow chart/outline of the process?

Kurtz:  I’m sure

 

Caffry:  Mr. Hernandez, On p.2 of your prefiled, question #4, it talks about the phasing of the sewer treatment plant, is that new or is it in the documents?

Hernandez:  it’s in the documents

Caffey:  Does DEC monitor the transportation corporation?

Hernandez:  Their interest is in the wastewater discharge.

Caffry:  You talk about the bond the town is authorized to ask for – that’s a maximum of 5 years?

Hernandez:  yes

Caffrey:  The amount of the bond depends on projected revenues?

Hernandez:  That depends – a bond may not be required or allowed on this project.  It can be adjusted year to year.

Caffry:  If a failure or abandonment of the sewer works, the own can take it over?  Or the homeowners have to figure it out for themselves?

Hernandez:  Those are options.  If the town or the ski resort didn’t want it, the homeowners could maintain it.

Caffry:  On p.5, could you read the last sentence?

Hernandez:  “In an extreme case…the homeowners would be required to install individual systems.”

Caffry:  No further questions.

Caffry:  Ms. Kurtz, what typically happens with an IDA project?

Kurtz:  This project – I’m not exactly sure when the initial transfer will occur, but it doesn’t seem to have deviated from the usual.

Caffry:  Developer retains title and leases to IDA?

Kurtz:  IDA requires that the interest the agency has must be sufficient for the project to proceed.

Caffry:  Some form of document that gives the IDA some type of control?

Kurtz:  yes

Caffry:  Have you see the application documents that the developer has filed with the APA?

Kurtz:  I have not

Caffry:  In a leased property, what control does the IDA have?

Kurtz:  When to terminate the lease

Caffry:  Would all the developers’ property be included in the lease?

Kurtz:  I don’t know.

Caffry:  how can road be dedicated to town if IDA has lease on it?

Kurtz:  It would have to be spelled out in the lease.  We have done similar type transactions by bill of sale.

Caffry:  If road is built with IDA funding and developer wants to dedicate to town, can IDA take back road?

Kurtz:  The IDA would have the option, but I don’t think that would happen.

Caffry:  Institutional lender buys IDA bonds, is their investment secured?

Kurtz:  Depends on how underwriting is done.  They’re taking all the risk if the project is unsuccessful.

Caffry:  If somebody buys the bonds, what is the collateral for the investor?

Kurtz:  I’m not sure they are protected the way a bank would be.

Caffry:  Is there sometimes a lien held by the investor on an IDA project?

Kurtz:  I don’t know how to answer that question.

Caffry:  If IDA takes over a property and sells it, would some of the money be given to investors?

Kurtz:  Not necessarily.  It depends on where they are in the loan situation.

Caffry:  Who holds the PILOT mortgage?

Kurtz:  The taxing jurisdictions along with the IDA.  The taxing jurisdictions would be the first paid in a foreclosure situation.

Caffry:  Are PILOT and bond payments usually separate?

Kurtz:  Different IDAs have different approaches.  However the taxing jurisdictions agree to it.

Caffry:  Can the IDA fund the construction of private roads?

Kurtz:  I’ve not been in that situation before – they can fund private building and private infrastructure, so they may be able to fund roads.

Caffry:  Individual owners would have some sort of individual PILOT with the IDA.  Have you seen that before?

Kurtz:  Yes, it’s been done before.

Caffry:  Would bank loan on a property that has liens and mortgages on it?

Kurtz:  I don’t know.

Caffry:  Would bank loan on a property where they’d be the fourth lender?

Tom U. Object – already said she didn’t know.

Caffry:  Would adding mini PILOTS cause IDA and bond counsel to reconsider funding?

Kurtz:  They might reconsider, probably would ask bond counsel to confirm.

Caffry:  In pre-filed testimony, p.2, it appears you have 3 different jobs?

Kurtz:  I have 3 different positions.  I work for the Development Corporation in Clinton County.

Caffry:  What position are you testifying in today?

Kurtz:   As chairman of the NYS Economic Development Council.

Caffry:  Who’s paying for your time?

Kurtz:  I’m here on my own.

Caffry:  On p.5, you discuss if the project is terminated and the property goes back on the tax rolls.  If payments are not made and property is back on tax rolls, can owner file grievance to get taxes reduced?

Kurtz:  IDA would not take away those rights.

Caffry:  Who would be responsible for collection of payments?

Kurtz:  There are different options.  In Clinton County, we have an agreement with the county treasurer to do that.

Caffry:  Somebody has to pay the cost of administering that?

Kurtz: It’s in the agreement.

Caffry:  Who decides to pull the plug on a project?

Kurtz:  The agency can take a number of actions.

Caffry:  Can we get exhibit 85 for her to look at?

 

Off record

 

Caffry:  Can you read the second sentence please?

Kurtz:  reads…

Caffry:  Have you seen individual residential homes subject to a PILOT?

Kurtz:  I have not.

Caffry:  If payments are not made, wouldn’t the IDA have to take ownership?

Kurtz:  That could happen.  I see this as a commercial project.

Caffry: How will people ensure payments are made?

Kurtz:  As part of an IDA project, the agency retains its ability to proceed in the case of default.  They look at how they want to proceed.

Caffry:  PILOT to be made by beneficial owners…What does beneficial owners mean?

Kurtz:  I think they are the folks who are beneficiaries of IDA funding.

Caffry:  Is this an IDA term?

Kurtz:  I’ve not seen it before.

Caffry:  distributes email from Michael Pikiel to John Tubbs, director of Franklin County IDA.

OConnell – objects – not in evidence

Caffry: directly refers to letter she entered in her pre-filed.

OConnell: not a public document

Caffry: got it under FOIL from IDA.  This document should go in the record.

OConnell: this witness cannot lay foundation for this document to be admitted.

Caffry:  We were led to believe Mr. Tubbs would testify. All of a sudden, Mr. Tubbs is pulled and we have this witness.  I have documents related to the IDA process.  This is not a jury trial so the rules of introducing evidence do not apply.

 

Caffry: Well within scope of pre-file.  Entire fiscal plan based upon PILOT and arrangements with IDA.  This goes right to heart if PILOT plan feasible.

Agency members should have this.

 

Judge: Admitted.  Agency can assess the weight it places it on it.

 

Caffry: Ask Kurtz to read letter from Michael Pikiel Jr.

Caffry: May I approach, your honor.

 

Caffry: Asked Kurtz to read. Describe the advice to Ida about PILOT project and how it would work.

 

Kurtz: Never seen this before.

 

Tom U: Question to Mr. Caffry.Who were the participants in the meeting- proponents and detractors.  Object to document on basis of foundation.  Generated by proponents and detractors…

 

Caffry: Don’t think it matters who the citizens were…asked his bond counsel for advice…Advice very neutral.  Think would help agency.  This is very clear info.

 

Brian Houseal: Adirondack Council did not meet with Mr. Tubbs.

 

Paul VanCott: E-mail from Micheal Pikiel would be helpful.

 

Judge: Why offering this?

 

Caffry: This witness offered as expert witness. Couldn’t answer question.  Think it is relevant.

 

Judge: Offer of explanation?

Bob Sweeney: Is this document genuine?  No one knows.  No foundation.  Content as applies to this document.  It mischaracterizes the role of this particular witness.

 

Caffry: We’ve had all kinds of exhibits.  Just about fairness.

 

Judge: Mr. Sweeney, toying with foundation. So asking Mr. Caffry to find original.  Off the record temporarily.

Applicant objects on foundation. Mr. Caffry: which of issues does this relate to?

 

Caffry: Goes to the testimony of this witness.  Also to issue No. 5 and No. 6 (burden on public- impact or  negative.  Primarily refers to burden on public.

What if payments not paid, then PILOT mortgages comes in and this explains.

 

Tom U: What troubles me.  I had her read into the record a letter from Mr. Tubbs, dated 2010.  Well after this 2009 letter.  “We continue to be ready to help finance the project…issuance at intervals and bond counsel concurs we can proceed on this basis. This is the most up to date document.

 

Caffry: False…I’ve got more.

 

Tom U. Relevancy of document seems to be more than resolved in most recent letter.  If something that disputes that, then there’s relevancy.  Casting dispersions on application.

 

Caffry: I have most recent documents.  Paragraph he read was about interval process…not about PILOT…available of money, being paid.  Subsequent minutes that IDA still question if still fundable….these will be coming.

 

Tom U.: Let’s get all documents in one bunch.

 

Caffry: Trying to be orderly.

 

Judge: 4:15 suggest we adjourn for today.  Get copies so can review this evening.

 

Judge: Caffry gave applicant’s attorney list of documents.

 

Tom U: Applicant agree to stipulate admission into record with our objection as to no foundation with no cross examination of Witness Kurtz.

 

 

Introduction of IDA e-mails and minutes…

 

Judge: Marking exhibits

 

Back on record: exhibits would be received providing Protect would waive cross examination of Ms. Kurtz.

 

Caffry: Agree.

 

VanCott: APA staff supports this addition to the record.

 

Paul Maroun has few questions:

 

Paul: Three questions: After bonds, Mr. Gagnier asks you some question.  If something goes wrong, are taxpayer of county or town liable in any way for bonds?

 

Joy Kurtz: They are not!

That’s a statute and citation in my pre-file.

 

Paul: In work in Clinton County, were there PILOTs?

Kurtz: Yes.

 

:P aul: Municipalities forming some form of tax from vacant lands?  Higher afterwards?

 

Kurtz: Yes…more.

 

Paul: Any PILOT agreement settled on in Franklin County.

 

Kurtz: No.

 

Witness excused.

 

Adjourn.

 

Dr. Klemons in morning followed by David Norden.

 

Norden will begin with rebuttal of Martin and Elsemore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!


Warning: Illegal string offset 'status_txt' in /home/arise/public_html/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/share-and-follow.php on line 1938