http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20140109/NEWS02/701099912
Published January 9, 2014 in the Rutland Herald Town asks PSB to put road condition on woodchip plant By SUSAN SMALLHEER Staff Writer MONTPELIER — Springfield’s attorney told the Public Service Board on Wednesday that the town wanted its agreement with the developer of a proposed wood-fired power plant in North Springfield added as a condition of any state permit. During oral arguments before the board on whether it should accept a proposed decision drafted by a hearing officer for the board, Town Attorney Stephen Ankuda suggested to the board that promises made by the developer regarding a new access road to North Springfield Industrial Park and a residential heat loop for a portion of the village of North Springfield be included in any certificate of public good. Ankuda said after the hearing that PSB board member John Burke was concerned about the promises concerning construction of the new road, and the timing of its construction compared to that of the plant itself. Ankuda said the town’s agreement with the North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project — which was reached last summer — calls for $1.5 million in advance funding for the road — within 90 days of when the developer has received its bank financing. When Burke asked Ankuda if the Springfield Select Board supported the project, Ankuda said because the Select Board hadn’t listened to the detailed technical testimony about the project, it was relying on the PSB to make a decision that was good for Springfield. But Ankuda said he told Burke — who had noted that he had been the town attorney in Castleton for many years — that the two properties needed for the new road were already under option, and there would be no need for condemnation proceedings. In November, PSB hearing officer John Cotter recommended the project be turned down because of its affect on roads and traffic — the “orderly development” of the area. A new access road is expected to have an effect on Cotter’s recommendation. Ankuda said the road, which he estimated would be less than an eighth of a mile long, would cost about $3 million, largely because it was being built to handle heavy traffic going to the industrial park and it would include one bridge to cross Great Brook. Robert Kischko, president of North Springfield Action Group, a citizens’ organization opposed to the 36-megawatt project, said he was pleased with questions posed by the Public Service Board, and he was also pleased with issues raised by the group’s attorney, Gerry Tarrant of Montpelier. But Kischko warned the memorandum of understanding between the town and the developers was never entered as evidence during testimony on the case, limiting its legal impact. Kischko said the project, if allowed to be constructed, would significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, contrary to current Vermont law. Kischko’s group wants the Public Service Board to adopt the findings of Hearing Officer John Cotter, who had recommended denying the certificate of public good the project must have to build the project. Last month, the North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project said it had given up hope of receiving between $40 million and $50 million in renewable energy tax credits because it hadn’t started construction on the project by the end of December 2013. “I think the oral arguments were very good,” Kischko said. “My personal opinion is that Downs Rachlin Martin (the developers’ attorney) pushed back on the hearing officer’s recommendations,” he said. Kimberly Hayden, the Downs Rachlin attorney for the North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project, didn’t return a telephone call for comment after the hearing. The developers of the project are Winstanley Enterprises LLC., which owns the former Fellows Corp. headquarters in North Springfield, next to the proposed site of the woodchip plant, and Weston Solutions of Connecticut.
This is a general comment:
ReplyDeleteWhy would the selectboard rely on the PSB to make the very important decission about what is / is not going to be built in springfield ? Do they not represent the town ? What other descissions have been made in the past where some other party makes the choice ? Belly up to the bar selectboard.
Why do the citizens of Springfield allow any body - be it the state, the PSB or the Springfield select board decide what is good for Springfield? Why an issue that will have such a huge impact on Springfield is not put up to a vote by the citizens is beyond me. I am tired of being told what is good for me. I am tired of living in a dictator state....VERMONT. Somebody stands to profit from the biomass plant and I don't think it's the people of Springfield.
ReplyDeleteRe: "When Burke asked Ankuda if the Springfield Select Board supported the project, Ankuda said because the Select Board hadn’t listened to the detailed technical testimony about the project, it was relying on the PSB to make a decision that was good for Springfield."
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Springfield. You've elected a bunch of Chicken Littles to represent you, and in fitting fashion, they've deferred to the state for a key decision that will bear on the town's fate.
VOTE ALL THESE BUMS OUT!
HAHAHA, in order to "VOTE ALL THESE BUMS OUT" you need to have people contest them in elections. To date Springfielders have not been willing to get involved or run for elected positions.
DeleteI am joining in the general tenor of the comments above; our current Select Board has abdicated their responsibilities in this matter and it is inconceivable that the Board made a side deal with the project sponsors regarding the access road and then had the gall to tell their constituents that they are "neutral" on the application. The article states that the cost of the new access road will be $3MM and the project sponsors are putting up 50% of it; where is the rest of the money coming from? From local home owners who aren't going to benefit from this project at all? And who is going to be asked to shoulder the cost of ongoing maintenance after the road is built? The Board needs to get real; we are not a major city with a large commercial tax base to spread these costs over. Our Select Board needs to get off their duffs and get a lot more involved in this decision than they have to date.
ReplyDeleteWe call them sleeze bags where I come from.
DeleteI had to laugh at how poorly informed and prepared the board is when it comes to matters of the town. A few years ago I attended a meeting at which discussions ensued about fueling the municipal fleet and Mike Knoras made a remark about using the fuel pumps at the town barn/garage. The very same fuel pumps that had been removed years (if not decades ago) out of fears over leaks/spills in proximity to the town's aquifer. Let's face it folks, these people don't get out much and the last thing most of them want to do is have to take a stand on an issue. They'd prefer to vote "Present".
ReplyDeleteGood point, 2:37! When B&J's considered the ice cream plant, not only did the town give them the usual bribes; two years later it had to install $3 million in new sewerage to handle their discharge. Then Unilever bought it and moved it out without so much as a fare-thee-well. Springfield should have a lien on companies to recover such expenses when Wall Street gets acquisitive...
ReplyDeleteAir quality alert today in Rutland. See what we have to look forward to Springfield. Keep on doing "the people's" work select board.
ReplyDelete"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, air quality alerts in winter are frequently due to wood stoves and coal plants."
DeleteSorry Charlie, no mention of biomass plants contributing to the alert.
Nothing but positive change can result from this Biomass Plant! Period!
ReplyDeleteGet real 3:12 PM! I don't define "positive change" as higher tax bills, a net of 30 new jobs and depressed house prices in North Springfield which will translate into lower assessments for those properties and affect every other home owners' bill in town. Like one of the earlier commenters, I don't believe that this decision should be left up to our Select Board and the PSB; a special election should be declared to allow the citizens of Springfield to vote on this issue. If this plant is built, there will be major environmental and financial consequences for all taxpayers in Springfield whether you live in proximity to the plant or not.
Delete