I also threw in my 2 cents about the re power back in May , after voicing concerns at a Feb. zoning meeting in Pocahontas county concerning an MEC planned re power there. Not only do the current property valuations appear too low on this project, as I've noted in this post, but county officials have explained there will be no property tax increase as a result of the re power improvement. I asked the county to request that the property tax discrepancies I've found on this project be resolved before permitting was approved. That might not be traditionally germane to the permitting process, but I certainly thought it was reasonable to ask. Especially now that a major improvement was planned with no tax benefit. The county declined to do that.
MEC changed their re power plans for this project , apparently now MEC also intends to re power turbines installed in 2011 as well , despite telling the IUB that properly maintained wind turbines can generate electricity for 25 years or more. This change required MEC to modify their permit application , and another zoning meeting was held on August 13. I attended this meeting as well, and repeated my Feb concerns about the wind projects tax valuations , including noting the re power should be treated as an improvement. The county again approved the project without cleaning up the tax issues.
Several MEC employees were in attendance and one of them agreed to get me information I requested the county officials to look into. It was Adam Jablonski, and he did call a couple days later, leaving a voicemail stating he was hoping to discuss this to make sure he understood my concerns-better understand them ... something to that effect, and that he would be setting up a call with the MEC tax department. . My call back went to voicemail as well, I left my email address, noted I had a small list questions, and that I thought it would be more efficient for all to sort things out by email. I'm still waiting several weeks later.!
I hear the re power with no additional tax revenue issue getting some discussion in the area, so it was nice to see it addressed in the Pocahontas Record Democrat by Chis Vrba. Chris noted a cost estimate for the re power at this site of $256 million. The article also noted a BV county area attorney had contacted the state AG office in April asking for a ruling if the improvements at wind projects in Buena Vista and Pocahontas counties should be taxed as such. the article also noted a familiar line from 2 county assessors stating they can't raise taxes unless the wind projects report the costs to them. The article is not available online, but I'll add it if I get permission. Chris and the people quoted in the article are welcome to provide a statement as well. Let's look at these three items I noted from this article.I'd also encourage interested folks to pick up a copy or subscribe to the paper.
First, the $256 Million re power.
$256 million is a lot of upgrade …it’s not a repair .What are
the cost of the new components compared to the old?
I've previously noted the following issues at this project.
MEC listed a higher cost at IUB and federally … about $15
Million, for this project
Wind project operational for 10 years , so $150 million
currently not taxed now.
MEC has wind assets in the replacement tax (the
wrong Program) instead of listing them as wind property.Another wind project in the county lists the same equipment as wind property.
Webster county example of this listed the equipment at about
$3 million, so $30 million has been improperly tax taxed for 10
years in Pocahontas, If it’s taxed at all . I find no record of this asset
added to the replacement tax assets in Webster county.
So the items I’ve found are nearly as large a $$$ amount as the
re power.Yes folks , almost a half $billion dollars not taxed or improperly taxed. MEC has over 20 more wind projects I believe, and I'm seeing theses same issues at other projects.
Next, asking the state AG office for a ruling on this.
The office of consumer advocate is part of the AG office, and it seems they would be naturally be concerned that any increase in local wind property taxes would cause MEC to ask for a electric customer rate increase, and oppose a property tax increase. In fact, I've had a public official tell me that OCA would likely do just that.
I'm not an attorney, so the gentlemen that asked the AG office for an opinion may very well have considered that. The AG office might also have guidelines in place for when such situations arise. Never the less, it looks like a potential conflict of interest IMO. And the AG office took several months to get back to the area inquiry stating they weren't sure when they would look into this. I would think a statement from the AG office describing the various AG office responsibilities here would have been included in any reply.
At any rate, AG joins the state department of revenue, department of management, Iowa utilities board, local assessors, and numerous public officials in being not helpful with sorting this out so far...
And finally, the BV county and Pocahontas county assessors stating they can't increase wind property taxes unless the utility reports the costs.
I've read numerous department of revenue memos, directing assessors to account for all wind project costs, and I've listed enough examples on this blog to determine that in my opinion, that's not happening , I see nothing in the wind statute that prevents them from tracing down these discrepancies, or increasing property taxes as a result of the re power. Assessors are welcome to go on record here, or provide the specific part of the code that prevents them from doing this. I'll also note that the Calhoun county assessor verbally told me that all county assessors are using the same methods to value wind property as Buena Vista county, as that county had one of the first large wind projects in the state. An email from her stating that all counties are assessing wind properties the same way is posted on this blog .
Wind property is assessed locally, and this is a departure from how assessors treat other property owners who make improvements , and, a clear county and state appeal process exists for property owners who disagree with property assessments. In fact Calhoun county has already handled a contested wind property review, and ruled improperly in my opinion.
So the property tax issues I've been reporting have become an even bigger mess.
stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment