Board incumbents need to answer a few questions


In 2018 and 2019, the wind company for Alta Farms Wind Project II submitted two special use permits.  Each permit filed required a sizable fee to be paid by the wind company. 

In each case, it was reported that the monies, much more than $250,000, were added to the general fund.  These monies could have instead been earmarked to pay for independent engineering and/or legal costs.  What was this money used for, and why wasn’t it placed in a special fund?

In the years before the filing of these permits, several amendments to wind ordinances were recommended to the board that would have prevented legal and engineering costs, among others, from being incurred by the county (residents). I believe the term “indemnification” (compensation for harm or loss; security against legal liability for one’s action) was part of the recommended amendment wording, which was brought forward by one of the new candidates.  Why did all the incumbents vote against this recommendation?

Why weren’t these questions asked during the radio forum or the latest pro-incumbent letters to the editor, or all the postings, mailings and newspaper articles?

All these communications suggest the apparent shortcomings in the incumbents’ operation of this county board and are deemed to be the fault of those affected by this project. Now, the liability falls on the county’s residents.  Where is the incumbents’ share of responsibility?

Pamela D. Elliott