A Brief Education on TIF's

This is an email I received from a gentleman who was kind enough to break down the "TIF" process to me so I could understand how it DOES NOT benefit the tax paying citizens of Dixfield, ME.

Mr. Daley

Thank you for asking for clarity on a few of my recent statements in the RFT newspaper .

·          I was not able to attend the recent meeting when Mike Rogers presented his spreadsheet. However, I am familiar with his spreadsheet information. One of the critical decisions for any town to consider is whether they will accept a TIF agreement with the wind developer. As you may know, a TIF agreement identifies several Economic Development projects then agrees to use a portion of the calculated Tax Revenues for Economic Development. The remainder of the tax revenue would be retained by the wind developer to pay down his debt. In most TIF agreements, the developer expects to retain 60% of the tax revenue.

o         I’m sure Mr. Rogers defined “Certified Valuation” as approximately 72% of the Toatl value of the project. In Rumford, a proposed 12 turbine WEF would represent a $60M total value, but only $43M certified valuation.

o         When a developer negotiates with a small town they suggest a 40% to Town and 60% to Developer. In the case of a TIF, the portion of the Certified Valuation would be a mere $17.3M.  Typically, that amount would be available for Econ Dev NOT tax reduction.

o         If a town opts for NO TIF agreement, they would have full discretion of how to spend the entire amount of Tax Revenue. For a 12 turbine WEF, the tax revenue to the town would be $43M. If you multiply the MIL RATE times the tax Revenue, that would be a good estimate of the Revenue that could be applied to LOWER the Mil Rate.

·          Another tactic deployed by wind developers is that of proposing wind projects in smaller towns. The reason for this is twofold:

o         Most of the small towns and territories in Western Maine have ideal mountains without having numerous homes within one mile of the proposed turbine locations.

o         A small town, like Carthage, Woodstock or even Dixfield would realize a significantly larger portion of their respective Town Budget. Example: Comparing Rumford to Dixfield the ratio for added valuation from turbines might look great to Dixfield but poor for a large town like Rumford. My recent article focused on RUMFORD (a larger town). The benefits are puny when compared to losing our mountains to the developer.The other False Claims:

The other False Claims have been observed since 2009, when I attended a Wind Conference in Augusta sponsored by Governor Baldacci. During that conference the HIPE was very high. Selling Wind Energy to the attendees and to the State was a hot agenda item. Selected wind advocated went to the podium to praise the benefits of Wind Energy in Maine. They claimed it would lower our risks associated with National Security (Cars and trucks burn oil & gas. Wind will not help), CO2 Emissions Maine electric generators use very little coal or oil), lower cost of electricity and numerous permanent high paying jobs (part time jobs during construction and very few permanent jobs).

Also, during the day they had a person from U of California (Berkley) who spoke about his research study regarding Wind Turbine Impact on Scenic Views and property value for residents who live near turbines. His study was several years old and was based primarily on land formations UNLIKE our Maine, NH and Vermont landscapes. I asked the researcher if he could provide information that would reflect our terrain. He said he could not. However, The wind advocates (King, Baldacci, others) have continued to state that there is LITTLE or NO effect on homes near turbine locations. They lost their credibility!

It is common knowledge that electricity costs will go up. I think Maine should focus on Natural Gas for electric generation. A recent study by the u of Maine at Presque Isle showed that their installed wind turbine operated very inefficiently (approximately 11% of it’s stated capacity)