VIDEO LOG OF CAPE VINCENT TOWN BOARD MEETINGS

Video filenames are year, month and day, e.g., 2009.08.14. Remarks statements taken from the Excel spreadsheet Cape Video Town Bd.xls. Remarks represent transcript and comments associated with any part of a meeting where wind and associated issues were discussed. Numbers in parenthesis pertain to the timing on the video, e.g. 22.34 = 22 minutes and 34 seconds. Town Board members: Supervisor Urban Hirschey (1/1/10 to present), Ex-Supervisor Tom Rienbeck (prior to Hirschey), Marty Mason (contracts with Acciona and BP), Joe Wood (prior to 1/1/10, contract with Acciona), Donald Mason (1/1/07 to present, contract with Acciona), Mickey Orvis. Prepared by Clif Schneider September 23, 2010

2009.08.14 (yr.mo.day) Rienbeck sets up a wind law committee. WOH drafted a wind law that will be available on the town's website. Committee will review and make changes and then a public hearing and adopt a law. Rienbeck Chair, Orvis, Bourcy, Ingersoll, Mingle, Doud, Hirschey, Beth White. Hope to get a law that will not meet a lot of opposition. Art Pundt - Wind committee is a good idea and website okay too. Consider a moratorium. Edsall - Small lot in subdivisions need bigger lots due to waste management. Need bigger minimum sizes. No wind law recommendations. MacSherry - Don't make wind laws retroactive. Gormel - Rienbeck and board hasn't answer any questions. A number of public hearings without any response from elected officials. Rienbeck, question and answer period at the town board meetings. Rienbeck - we've answered questions. Gormel - How will our taxes be affected? Rienbeck, will go down. Gormel - How much and how about electric bills? Rienbeck - Won't change electric bills. Current law wind developers can come into river and lake front districts. Rienbeck - Yes and Edsall said so earlier. Edsall (7.30) - Right now wind turbines considered utilities and they are allowed in all districts in town and developer can apply and we have to accept. PB by law cannot refuse an application for an allowed development. Mark Boss - If that's the case then what could have been done to stop that? Edsall response, "If it were me I would never had challenged the ZBA." Edsall (8.30), "We (PB) can't do anything about it." Schneider (8.37), "How about enacting a moratorium?" Do it quickly to provide a law for PB and the community. Edsall, "If you try a moratorium you'll lose the Article 78 (by developer against the town)." NOTE: Again we have the revisionist history of Edsall. He is shifting blame for the threat that wind companies are allowed in the riverfront and lakefront districts. This is not due to any court ordered procedure, but rather it was a part Cape Vincent's current zoning law. An application from a wind developer for the site plan review process requires the applicant to pick a permitted site plan use. There were only three possibilities: commercial, light industry and utilities. Utilities is the most logical classification. Edsall's response to the suggestion for a 1

moratorium is an implied threat with no reasonable basis. 2009.03.12 Rienbeck - (1.05.00) No more correspondence from this wind power group but I have had just about enough banging on that I believe this board has done everything correct and I guess I ve had about enough of it. Four people can make all the noise they're making and no one wants to fight back, and I do. Four people, there's a sign in one of these letters this one's asking $5K a pop to those who they chose to send it to. This letter tells me so called WPEG is composed of the four people are Urban Hirschey, Sally Boss, Tom Brown and T. Urling Walker. Four people. Here's another one sent out for anything. What do you get for a $500 donation? You get a to everybody from Rollie Hansen print or a Pat Brown print and where the prints of Clayton. I don't how you guys can take it, but I can't . Four people can bang on this board like they've done. I'm not going to let four people bang on this board and I'm not going to take it without saying something back. I don't believe they can find anything this board has done wrong. (1.08.00) D.Mason - I agree you just have to keep going we haven't done anything haven't voted on anything in 2 1/2 years. Rienbeck - I've worked for over nine years to get this town back in the financial condition it is in and I'm not going to throw that away. If anyone doesn't believe the books here, they can come and check them some time. We're a hell of a lot better off now than we were nine years ago. It's taken some hard work to do it and I haven't done it alone. I've had a lot of cooperation from this whole board and cooperation from the highway department and the water department. We all get along here and we work our butts off for this township and what do we get, banged on by four people. Okay, I'm done (1.10.00) NOTE: Rienbeck has a rant over a fundraising pamphlet put out by the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG). He also exposes a sensitive issue, his financial acumen., which in early 2010 becomes a sore point. 2009.04.09 See sheet 2009.04.09 THIS WAS THE MOST EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ON CONFLICTS AND WIND LAW ADOPTION TO DATE. TRANSCRIPT DOESN'T DO JUSTICE TO THE DISCUSSION - PLEASE REVIEW THE VIDEO OF THIS MEETING BETWEEN TIME OF WIND DISCUSSION Schneider (23.00) poses questions to the board that he gave the Supervisor earlier in the day. Where do we stand with adopting a wind law? I thought the wind committee did a good job. I have a series of questions that I have but others have as well. Is the town intending to adopt a law? Rienbeck - I haven't had time to think about it and I have no comment. S - Would the town ensure no application will go forward without a wind law? R - I don't think any of these questions at the moment I could answer. Too many things in the air. S - If you terminate the wind law process by inaction, you don't know what your doing but you're not doing anything? R - Still being considered by our attorney, still in that process. S - You said Friday when we spoke that you would not stop a project from moving ahead if you did not adopt a wind law? R - I don't think that's necessarily true. S - During our conversation Friday one of the reasons for stopping the process of adopting a wind law was the dislike of newspaper ads submitted by the WPEG group, if so, then why would you derail a process whose purposes is to protect many non-participating residents who may live near some of these wind turbines? Comes down to a 2

simple question, will the town approve an application without a wind law? R - We are not stopping the process, I guess I can answer that one, we are moving forward with what's going on. S - Courts ruled the town has the right to call wind turbines utilities under current zoning law, but did the courts rule the best way to protect non-participating residents is without a supplemental wind law? R - Not that I'm aware of. S - For non-participants are their rights best protected by a fair wind law or best protected by relying on a planning board whose composition includes three members who have ties to wind developers? Joe Wood responds after Rienbeck hesitates - (30.41) I don't believe you can make that statement that three have financial ties. S - Oh, that part so however you decide whether two have direct financial ties and one has indirect ties. Are these people better off with a wind law to protect their rights or better off relying on the judgment of five people sitting around a table? S - You don't want to answer that question. Wood - I'd like to respond. Three of those members were on board long before this issue come up you can pick people who are opposed and in favor of them by digging deep enough the three members have ties. S - So, remove that part of the question, better off with a law or no rules or laws and just the judgment of the five people sitting around the table. D. Mason - you might be better off with the five people, how you know it isn't. S- (32.25) I know it isn't from question No. 9 in the two draft laws done in 2006 and 2009 there is a purpose statement which says current zoning law for CV is inadequate that's why you were moving ahead trying to adopt a law. R - doesn't associate with his own reports that current zoning is inadequate. S- Why aren't you more firm and move ahead. Let's back up couple of years, couldn't get law passed. Couldn't get a law, so PB handled it with site plan review. WPEG asked for a determination of ZBA. That's where we got determined to be a utility. If that didn't occur probably wouldn't have been determined to be a utility. This was supported by the courts. Would have had a law three years ago. S - I differ. In Aug 2006 you killed zoning process because you didn't want to spend the money ($40K). S- For each of TB members, do you see any value in Cuomo's Code of Conduct for this community? R - I'll say this for members that have potential conflicts of interest, if that's so wrong and I'm so wrong I didn't address these conflicts, where's the AG why hasn't he investigated? S - Is the AG's code just a waste of time? Marty Mason - Many small towns in NY where board members and numerous, numerous conflicts; we wouldn't have a water district in the town of CV if we went by that because everybody here would have a conflict. Nobody's done anything wrong. S - Nobody's in our prison down here for conflicts of interest, nobody is doing 3-5 for conflicts. If anybody has done something wrong its a felony and their prosecuted. S - What this is all about is the perception. This is so important that Atty Gen has developed a code, if this board doesn't think there is something to that... D. Mason - there isn't something to it, this board hasn't done anything wrong. I've been on this board for 2 1/2 years and haven't voted on a thing. S - yeah, but that's going to change if you vote on issues involving money. D.M. - If I vote. (41.43) FROM THIS POINT ON A GENERAL OUTLINE OF DISCUSSION RATHER THAN TRYING TO DO A TRANSCRIPT. Dave LaMora has comments and questions. Conflicts of Interest is big issue, very emotional, we 3

aren't accusing people of being dishonest. Municipal law small communities are not exempt from conflicts issue. Constitution and municipal law prohibit conflicts of interest. Communities don't get much backing from AG and local DA. They leave it to local communities to deal with the issue. It's ripping this town apart. Utility decision is not a victory for this town. When you say Cuomo's code has no value I disagree, I think it does. If these projects go through without a law you people will gain and that's not right, we should have protections. You are attempting to circumvent this process... NOTE: In the following discussion Supervisor Rienbeck seems to be saying the Zoning Board of Appeals was somehow at fault for rendering an interpretation of the zoning law that wind turbines could be classified as utilities. He should have been asked if not utilities then what else would you have called them? R - We didn't have anything to do with designating utilities. WPEG challenged, we didn't choose them to be called utilities, the ZBA is the ones who said they were utilities. They discussed town defending legal challenges to different parts of the town government. (54.00). TB putting distance between ZBA decision on utilities and their own interests. Rienbeck suggesting ZBA decision was wrong. LaMora - Will TB plan on accepting IDA's PILOT agreement? R- I don't know that yet. IDA will negotiate amount of money from developers, but we negotiate the distribution. LM - will you vote on that, will CV vote on a PILOT? R - No, TB won't vote on it. LM - you can't negotiate financial agreements. R - If we do anything it will be done legally. LM - Conflicts issue still a problem. You should endorse the AGs Code. Like you to support a moratorium and rescind the utilities decsion and adopt a wind law. (54.00) (1.06.00) Joe Wood - I have a question for Clif. Your asking us to adopt a law and your saying we've got a conflict of interest, and you're going to call us on it, so how can we adopt a law and in your second breath there are three conflicts of interest up there and we are going to nail them when they adopt a law. So we passed it on to the PB because we had conflicts of interest and now you're picking them apart saying they have conflicts of interest, there's three members there who have a conflict of interest and they shouldn't be adopting a law. So, what's the answer? NOTE: The above comment from Deputy Supervisor Joe Wood suggests some members of the 2006 town council killed the process of adopting a wind law not because of the excessive cost, e.g., $40,000, but because they were fearful they'd be sued in court over the conficts issue. S - Two things I want on this thing. What do I want on this thing? What I would like to see on this thing a fair wind law, best for non-participants. Job of zoning is to protect the interests of people living close to turbines. Just no way can have no laws on turbines, you've got pages in the zoning law on signage, mobile homes and a section on adult entertainment, but nothing on wind. We need people who aren't leaning on one side because of conflicts, we need interest in protecting the rights of small landowners we owe them that. We need good wind law and fair administration. Edsall - I want to make this real clear the ZBA and PB are autonomous. The ZBA are a judicial board and courts decision is binding. Years ago people spoke up and said we needed a wind law. We tried to do it but didn't get it done. Worse decision from the PB is the fact these are utilities, we can't control they are utilities, we got put in this box. My recommendation all the people who put us in the box come up with a law and the TB needs to vote on it. If get through SEQR then have to get through site plan review. We are doing our job, 4

but we are in a real poor position that we didn't ask to be put in. NOTE: Edsall's box was his own making. In April 2006 he decided that he could handle wind turbine siting with existing law. He wrote the town board a letter and recommendation to this effect. He indicated that current zoning law was satisfactory to handle this issue, but a good example of it not being satisfactory is the issue of being labeled a utility means turbines can be placed anywhere in the town of Cape Vincent. Worst decision was not the ZBA's that turbines are utilities, but the PB's decision they didn't need a wind law. Edsall - People have to come before board and vote on a law. (1.20.25) If not we have to follow the dictum that it's a utility not that its a commercial project which it should be for a commercial project we have a lot more control. (Interesting point since there is no distinction between these two uses in existing zoning law). MacSherry - Let's reconvene the wind law committee. Edsall - I'm not bashing anybody, we are facing a lion and you've given us a broom. If you want a law everybody needs to stop the mudslinging, if you do nothing else you've got to prohibit them from being in the river and lake districts, because I'm waiting for someone to come in here and put them into the lake district, that's my greatest fear. Questions from Tom Gormel on tax breaks, electricity etc. Mark Boss - Where are we going to be if wind companies come into this town and put them anywhere? Edsall (1.38.50) I'll address that, right now they are designated utilities if you look at zoning law utilities are allowed everywhere, we can't deny a developer's application for a allowable use in an area. We can't deny. If we try they'll take us to court and we'll lose. Boss - What could have been done? Edsall - If it were me I'd never have challenged the ZBA. We can't do anything about it. S - How about enacting a moratorium? Edsall - If you try to put a moratium in place after a project has been under review with two years you be challenged in courts. At least you could pass a law to keep them out of Lake and River front districts. Cindy Edsall - to pass a law you must allow the TB to vote that's what stands in the way. Edsall - If you pass a law still doesn't mean a project will move ahead. You were elected you need to vote. If the committee can do it, vote and get it done, give the PB some protection. Beth White - we met for 5 months, get it back from lawyer, tweek it and hold a public hearing. (1.45.40). NOTE: More revisionist history from Edsall and his wife. The also are espousing having conflicted board members vote on a wind law, something they were advised against by the Jefferson County Bd. Of Ethics. 2009.06.11 NO WIND DISCUSSION 2009.07.09 NO WIND DISCUSSION 2009.08.13 5

MEETING TRYING TO REMOVE CAMERA @11.23. At 46.30 question about moratorium proposed by town for Lake and River zoning districts. R - moratorium geared more for personal turbines than commercial. Problem with side setbacks in the Lake and River district only 15 ft and if considered an accessory structure and had four requests for personal wind turbines. ?? What's height? Edsall - in current law side setbacks are such that turbine could Pundt (49.0) Madden admits he's approached people in Lake district for wind contracts. LaMora (52..00) We canvassed taxpayers in the town on the issue of a moratorium on wind power. Asking for a referendum vote on wind development. Petition effort took much time, so we had 25-30 people who helped with the petition on a town-wide moratorium, not a selective moratorium. We had 300 voters on the petition and over 600 taxpayers on our petition. County planning approved selective moratorium, but recommended a town-wide recommendation. R - I didn't receive the letter from the county until the 4th, ended up on the internet and only one other person who had the letter. Schneider - I sit on county planning board and they provide recommendation and guidance to local towns. The county approved the town's recommendation and added it would be best for a town-wide moratorium, it was an important issue and our community deserved to see that letter. LaMora - Save the River recommends a 1-year moratorium on wind development because of the needed cumulative assessment of avian resource impacts. Andrew Wood, Director of the TI Land trust supported the recommendation of Save the River. Given all of these points that support a moratoium I ask that you move forward, conduct a public hearing on the moratorium.(1.05.00). D. Mason (1.32.00) complaints about a wind forum at the TI High School on what life is like living near a wind farm. Don Metzger (2.0.0) questions regarding DEIS material on Acciona's website and PILOT agreements, decommissioning plans and power line issues. Edsall (2.12.10) Unless acceptable plan to protect waterline, their project won't move ahead. 2009.09.10 Rienbeck - Introduces new rules for public comment. No more than 30 minutes total, 5 minutes each. Nothing says public has the right to speak. LaMora - Moratorium issue and comprehensive planning tied together. Lots of valid reasons for a moratorium. Presented proposal for assessing tourism impacts by the county (20.38). Art Pundt - Presented 800 taxpayer and 361 voters signed the moratorium petition. R - will take the petition under consideration. 2009.11.12 Hester Chase (19.00) reported receiving $100K grant for feasibility study for local based community wind farm. Don Metzger (29.00) concerns with access to supplemental DEIS on the power line from cape to Lyme. Need more copies of SDEIS for Lyme and Cape libraries. LaMora (33.30) Endorse Hester Chase's efforts for community wind. We need a moratorium for a year on all wind development. Joe Wood - I don't like being accused of not being fair. Been working on this for years, another year. Wood challenges LaMora as just not wanting a turbine in his back yard. Discussion on the balance of recent wind committee. LaMora charging composition 6

of committee wasn't fair and balanced. R - I appointed a representative each from WPEG and voters for wind, that's what I considered balanced. Jolliff (44.00) critical of high school forum on what it's like living under a wind farm. NOTE: In the following paragraph, Rienbeck indicates the last version of the wind committee's draft law was August 2009, yet that copy was unavailable in 2010 to the new supervisor or to the town's engineering consultant, Kris Dimmick. However, during the 1/30/2010 or 2/1/2010 wind committee meeting, Rienbeck offers a personal copy to the town's attorney Mark Gebo, the meetings facilitator. Rienbeck - (1.24.00) Last print of the wind zoning law was August 12(??) I believe. Basicially the only changes were some language changes to cleans some things up and the noise issue was not, the noise issue would prohibit wind farm development in CV and the intent is to regulate not prohibit it. So, that's why I gave you (board) a copy of this, get it out to a public hearing and get something done with it (1.25.00). Marty Mason - Has the planning board seen this? R they have to get a copy before it goes to a public hearing. Hester Chase - Does that mean the sound has changed in it, you said prohibit but you wanted to regulate? R- the way the law was written it would have prohibited development, I've been working the last four months to try to get that close enough to do something different. Schneider - who made the determination it would prohibit development, did it come from committee members, attorneys or developers? It had to come from somebody because you agreed with the committee, had agreed with the language, and the standards that were implicit in the whole thing. R - The problem with the way the language was in there is if you were going to come up with an ambient noise level, which would be much lower in the winter than the summer, and if you use the winter ambient level which the opponents of wind power wanted used it would be in violation all summer. Excuse me all winter. Because they expect to be probably 15 db above that in the winter, not in the summer. The combined ambient level and noise levels expected to be somewhere at about 40 dB. If you use the ambient wind law it would be projected to be somewhere at around 24 and went 6 over you'd be at 30. So obviously at 40 they'd be 10 dB over all winter long. S Again where did this come from, did it come from the lawyers, did it come from...? (1.27.45) R It came from everybody involved. S - Does everyone include developers? R - Yes. NOTE: Rienbeck's introduction to the adoption of his gutted wind law (no noise restrictions) was important because he admits he had a change of heart from the completion of the draft wind law from his own appointed wind committee, which he chaired. Although he answers that he spoke to everybody, committee member Dick MacSherry admitted Rienbeck didn't talk to him about the proposed law (he was surprised). In addition, Kris Dimmick the town's consulting engineer, who advised the committee for each of its sessions was never contacted either. Yet, Rienbeck admits to discussing the noise issue with developers. In file 2020.01.30005 MacSherry admits to a confidential meeting between Rienbeck, MacSherry and developers (presumably Madden and Zedick) in which the developers went over the draft wind law line by line. That draft was never, however, released to the public. Judging from BP Madden's presentation to the planning board and town boards in May 2010, his view is that the noise restrictions in the draft wind laws was too restrictive for BP. Undoubtedly, Rienbeck was influenced by Madden and Zedick to such a degree that Rienbeck rejected his own draft wind 7

law developed by him and his appointed committee. Rienbeck - (to board) First I need to know if you want to put this to a public hearing? Marty Mason - I think we need to. Rienbeck - I made a commitment to put a law in place by the end the year and I intend to do that. R - Proposes long detailed resolution, and all members vote AYE. (1.32.45) NOTE: The resolution was not part of the official minutes, but was noted as being on file with the Town Clerk. However, it was not available through FOIL or online. All members voted aye on the resolution (#17), but there was NO record in the minutes of the vote, or it's outcome. This was very unusual. 2009.12.10 NO WIND DISCUSSION 2020.01.01 NO WIND DISCUSSION 2010.01.30-001 reference) WIND COMMITTEE (Attach copy of 2/10/2009 Draft Wind Law for

Edsall - (15.00) For a long time there have been different people asked for law. Purpose is not to allow turbines to come into town. Purpose is to restrict where they go. If you don't pass a law they can go anywhere. We are playing the cards we were dealt. Rienbeck - (17.45) He tells Mark Gebo he has a copy of the 2009 wind draft done by Todd Mathes, a copy no one else in the town or Bernier Carr could provide. No one else knew about it. This suggests that Rienbeck has files that were not available to the current town supervisor Urban Hirschey. 2010.01.30-002 OVERALL DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT WIND LAW 2010.01.30-003 OVERALL DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT WIND LAW 2010.01.30-004 Dimmick (26.00) DEC has a policy starts to guide sound analysis, but leaves a lot to be desired from what we are trying to do here. Some of the subtle nuances within the policy it leaves lot to be desired, e.g., Leq and L90 little specific recommendations. February committee (2009 draft wind law) provided more, including Cavanaugh Tocci. Gebo - Which version do you want to go with? Edsall - What do old committee members say about the sound issue, which to use DEC policy or Tocci. MacSherry - DEC is not best, no enforcement ability either. Addresses typical industrial noise situation, its a stretch to supply it with turbines. Original Committee preferred Tocci and engineer's input to the DEC policy. Beth White - this is where we have to 8

spend some time. The background sound and how its measured, the quietest time, lots of conversation and data was collected, where collected, we need to get a consensus. Gebo sound is a very difficult issue. Hard to wrap your hands around. I don't expect we'll come to a quick consensus. Gebo - sound is a major issue and related to setbacks, should we put it off to next meeting. Edsall - What should we do DEC model or committee's model. D.Mason - If DEC good for a factory it's good enough for us. B. Bragdon - I've asked others its a very serious issue. Beth White - I'd like to use the DEC as a guideline, but this is different. We need to find a middle ground that can allow construction but provide some protection. Other projects 50 dB easy to understand. D.Mason - What do others in the state have? M.Orvis - References to NYSDEC policy. Urban Hirschey - This township is unique due to density of turbines and density of people. We can't just assume an average and policies adopted by DEC long ago, it's incumbent upon this community to learn as much as possible. Tocci can come here next Friday to learn about sound. Bragdon - I'd like to listen to what Tocci has to say. Dimmick - I've reached out to Tocci and Bill Elliot can attend next Friday and Saturday. Dimmick - We've reviewed the data by various wind project sponsors and also the WPEG data when you look at all the data the variability of sound levels town-wide is very difficult to come up with one number, and some will be above for some people and below for others. 2010.01.30-005 MacSherry - not an exercise to regulate anybody out. MS - (2.00) "Mr. Rienbeck and I sat down with developers last May and, people don't know this, we presented a copy of this proposed law to them and they went over everything line by line and at the end of the session asked them to give us written comments to go back to legal firm in Albany, but to my knowledge they never did." We have a player where the developer has got a number he wants to but do people have protections. We can negotiate to find some middle ground. Edsall (6.30) I have a question for Kris, a PB question, whatever we do are we going to have a map with sound decibel levels shown around so PB and see how close it is to a house? K. Dimmick - Yes, documents have sound isobars. Gebo - issue is how much is background and how much will the project add to it. Edsall (9.20) Has Tocci looked at this? Dimmick - Yes some of this from the early draft law came right from his office. 2010.01.30-006 OVERALL DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT WIND LAW 2010.01.30-007 OVERALL DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT WIND LAW 2010.01.30-008 OVERALL DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT WIND LAW 2010.01.30-009 Complaint process (9.50) Follows Cape Vincent Local Law 2-10-10. At 19.23 Gebo states, "After the investigation, if the Town reasonably concludes that operational violation of any applicable permit conditions or modeled sound levels are shown to be caused by the Wind Energy Facility, the licensee/operator/owner shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems. These 9

reasonable efforts include such measures as temporary cessation of operation." Gebo asked if anyone on the committee had any problems with the language in this section, neither Edsall, Rienbeck, Binsley or Mingle had any objections. Item 7 in the complaint plan states, "If the operator of the Wind Energy Facility does not mitigate such problems they will be subject to enforcement penalties in the Town Zoning Law." Again, none of the PB members had a problem with the use of "will" in this statement (25.06). NOTE: The above section and discussion by PB members may have relevance to the complaint resolution plan that was approved by these same individuals in Acciona's FEIS in September 2010. In the FEIS complaint plan some of the initial points are identical to the same components of this 1/30/2010 version. There is uncertainty where the framework for this plan had its origin, whether in law or in wind industry policy. However, at the end of each plan there is wide divergence in their respective provisions. Two sections of this plan quoted above are not in Acciona's version. There is no language in the approved FEIS complaint plan that refers to cessation of operation nor is there any reference to them being subject to the enforcement penalties in the town zoning law. Acciona's version, instead, sets up a complaint triumvirate comprised of a town official, an Acciona representative and a third party which has to be approved by Acciona. This version of a complaint resolution plan is much more developer-friendly. The complaint plan in the FEIS takes on a more important role than otherwise because Acciona was unwilling to conform to the recommendation of the town's acoustic consultant. At one point Tocci suggests Acciona better have a good complaint plan because they can expect lots of complaints. Acciona went on to suggest the complaint plan will be the solution to the unresolvable differences between Cavanaugh Tocci and Acciona/Hessler. 2010.02.05-001 2010.02.05-002 Bill Elliot from Cavanaugh Tocci Assoc. explains sound 101. 2010.02.05-003 Bill Elliot from Cavanaugh Tocci Assoc. explains sound 101. 2010.02.05-004 Bill Elliot begins critique of Hessler's methodology. Dimmick -(45.00_) How to get to one number for background sound. There's a difference in the method in how Hessler and Tocci' estimate background sound. Elliot - L90 the lowest level that typically that occurs in the environment. Its the level that is exceeded 90% of the time. Hessler measured wind speed and calculated speeds at 10 m and compared sound levels at these wind speeds. Scatter plot of 10min sound levels for various locations and various wind speeds. Best fit line drawn through the data scatter. Then they picked a 6 m wind speed which corresponded with maximum turbine noise and drew line up to intersect best fit line for a measure of average sound. In Hessler's case it was 37 dBA. Again, wind speed not taken at the location of the sound level meters. We looked at the sound levels regardless of wind speed. Edsall - let me rephrase, they used wind 10 WIND COMMITTEE

Bill Elliot from Cavanaugh Tocci Assoc. explains sound 101.

speed...(end of record segment). 2010.02.05-005 Edsall (segment continued) you did not use wind speed. Edsall - If they had 37 what did that do to your number? Elliot - Ours was near 25 dBA for winter time. The summer levels were higher. Dimmick - If I recall you looked at all the data points, but you tried to take a 90% confidence level? Elliot - Yes, all these data points are 90% level of the 90% level, because of the problem with a regression line is where 50% of the time it will be too low. The regression only works well 50% of the time. Dimmick - We had concerns with Hessler's predictions when he said their predictions were anywhere from 1/2 as much to 2X as much as their prediction. We suggested it was little more than a wild-ass guess. Elliot - 50% of the time it will over predict and 50% of the time it will under predict the sound levels. Discusses the fairness of using a regression line, it's a line that's approximating average conditions, but 50% are above and 50% below. Dimmick - Regression line says it is quieter at wind speeds below 6 m/s. NOTE: Cavanaugh Tocci Associates (CTA) have been firm in their criticism of using regression analysis to predict average background sound. Although the PB's attorney worked diligently to change CTA's critique, they remained firm up to this point in their contention that wind speed should not be a factor in the estimation of background sound levels. Edsall - noise spread greater on the left (calmer winds) than the right. Dimmick - best to measure background sound without wind. Edsall - 25 too low and 37 too high. Dimmick - agree on the process tomorrow discussing the noise section of the draft wind law. Edsall (4.55) Warm fuzzy feeling is going away, I've got your data and applicant's data that's 50% correct. Dimmick - in an appendix for the applicants data it had a statement of variability. Edasll - so we've got a level somewhere to go between 25 and 50. Edsall - How do I do studies so PB has better chance of a passing grade. Elliot - we recommend ignoring wind speeds. If you use wind speed at met towers how does it relate to sound locations if its miles away and at different heights. Edsall - what is the background sound levels? Dimmick - the relationship between wind speed and sound is not particularly good, the R2 coefficient was not very good. If the relationship isn't there we have to look at it another way. Edsall - How to measure background sound? Elliot - can't relate sound levels to wind speed. Edsall - can you measure sound levels on a wind day if there are complaints? Beth White - with 25 dBA it is not realistic for a wind farm (14.45). Also talking about annoyance, what percent will be annoyed? Elliot - That's where we come back to the NYDEC standard of 6 dBA above background sound levels. Questions about how to deal with a complaint. (22.15) Dimmick - complaint comes in, take measurements, shut down turbine, along with operating data from the turbine, then you have complete data set from machine, measurements at property of complaintant. Edsall - so you'll be able to make a determination? Dimmick - yes. Dimmick - put the onus on a good acoustic prediction of the turbine up front. Beth White - company guarantees it will predict so much sound. MacSherry - no company will provide that guarantee. Beth White - these companies will order equipment that they know the sound levels. Dimmick - if a complaint comes in the summer time picnic period July, one of the things Edsall is concerned, it is inappropriate to use the wintertime ambient. Concern for repeatable complaints for the same sound level from a turbine. Edsall - how to reconcile your 25 and their 37 so we can determine the setback? Edsall 11

- what happens with three people giving us numbers? At 32.00 discussion of setbacks until the end. NOTE: What was remarkable in this discussion is that members of the PB and members of this committee who had both direct conflicts of interest (monetary compensation) and a bias toward the financial incentives, they all viewed the recommendations of the town's consultant as just another competing viewpoint from an acoustic consultant, whose recommendation the all realized could reduce the number of turbines. There was never the feeling that PB members should rely on CTA's recommendations principally because they were hired to advise the PB. They always viewed them as an equivalent, the low ball estimate. Their conflicts and bias toward the wind projects undoubtedly fostered their view. In a phone comm with Greg Tocci, principal at CTA, in August 2010 he stated, We were tightly managed and had the view the (planning) board wanted the project. 2010.02.06 WIND COMMITTEE MEETING

Edsall - Will the method outlined in the draft Feb.2009 law be adequate to measure background sound? Dimmick and Elliot - Yes. MacSherry - Will someone need to do another sound study? Elliot - Yes. Developer would have to start over. Edsall - this isn't a two-year study. Elliot - Only 3 days needed. MacSherry - If we wanted a spring fall surveys... Edsall - not a problem for them to do it. If you need data from October they'll do it. Gebo - sound is an issue for both SEQR and site plan review. (24.00) Gebo - begins to go through the noise section of the draft law. Important to check the draft law of 2/10/2010 to see what the committee actually agreed on. AT THE END OF THE SOUND SECTION EDSALL STATES (3.14.50) "WE'RE ALL BEYOND ON THE SOUND, LIFE IS GOOD." NOTE: Check the Draft Wind Law 2/10/10 for the section on sound (see attached). It represented the efforts of the entire PB (Less Bourcy), the TB, ex-supervisor Rienbeck and members of the previous wind committee of 2008-09. Edsall's endorsement should be important. 2010.02.11 BACK TO TOWN BOARD MEETINGS

Tom Jolliff - Wind law proceedings last few weeks. If you eliminate turbines on our property I am requesting suitable compensation. Map showed elimination of big areas, us included, that would otherwise allowed turbines. No one discussed the financial considerations resulting from the restrictions (8.52). Paul Mason - I agree. There would be a big financial loss with the loss of turbines. Wind law is restricting the use of our land and thereby limiting our means of income. As a landowner with a contract I'll either win one way or another, including a lawsuit. Bob Brown - We are in Ag/res district but we are taxed according as lake front. Treat us the same way as the lake district. LaMora - Conflict of Interest rules, has someone in control made a conscious decision that we are now going to disregard these concerns? Wind law committee is operating with people with conflicts. Harry Landers - What happened to the petition with over 800 names on it? LaMora - (15.45) We are suppose to be protected from illegal bias, conflcits. 12

Why not put it up to a referendum vote? NOTE: The concern for having individuals with conflicts involved in writing a wind law was demonstrated in the final wind committee session on May 5, 2010 (see below). 2010.03.11 NO WIND DISCUSSION 2010.04.08 LaMora - What's happened with the Ethics committee. Bragdon - I've worked on the committee. The town has an ethics code written in the 70s. County has ethics board. We've been looking at the issue and we are at work. Hirschey - we have an ethics code and it's a good one. It's a nice document, but no teeth. LaMora - Would you delay wind law committee until ethics committee is finished with their work. Hirschey - Ultimately it will be resolved by the AG's office or the courts. Landers - What about the 800 names on the petitions? Mason - We brought it up at our January meeting and it was voted down. (39.39) NOTE: When Hirschey assumed office committees were established and an ethics committee consisted of Brooks Bragdon (newly elected with a conflict of interest) and Donny Mason a councilman with a conflict of interest. 2010.05.01 WIND COMMITTEE (Last session for 2010 committee)

Gebo begins the meeting two things - continuation for sound requirements. Since met last (2/2/10) acquired additional information. Hessler made presentation (4/14/10) and Tocci reviewed that taken another view and will give us an update today. (19.00) Bill Elliot's presentation is available as a separate power point presentation (see attached). Presentation finishes at 50.00. Dimmick states information was same as given to the committee in February except the last two slides (setback illustrations). In response to Bragdon asking what should be the standard, Elliott responds that NYSDEC guideline of 6 dBA is reasonable increase in ambient not likely to produce complaints and that 10 dBA would be a doubling and you would expect greater complaints and high levels of noise. Bragdon asks about how to measure background sound, Gebo responds it is about the methodology and that method is worth reviewing. Beth White - 10 consultants would have 10 different views. How to enforce 6 dBA when ambient is a moving target. Suggests pick a number, e.g., 50, rather than say 6 dBA above ambient. Beth White (1.01.24) gets up and hands out her proposal, "I kind of put some figures together as far as the economic impacts of these two projects. I want to just briefly talk about the BP economic impact before we really lose sight of that." It's a huge issue for this town, this county and this school system. Comparing to the Galloo Is. project for comparison "Over a 20 year period the total economic impact for our school district would be $14 million, for Jefferson County it would be $9 million and for the town it would be $4 million, and those are conservative estimates." (1.02.08) St. Lawrence wind farm has similar figures. These are huge 13

impacts at least 10 teachers losing jobs, at least 10 non-teaching positions lost. Huge economic boost this whole area I don't want to lose sight, this is important for me. NOTE: The figures Beth White (representative of leaseholders) submits as her analysis were the exact same figures that Jim Madden, BP project manager, included in a letter to Town and Planning Boards two weeks later (see attached). White continues to refer to economic analysis as her own. In that letter Madden shows how noise restrictions will negatively influence project size and the economic return to all taxing jurisdictions. He also states a noise restriction of 42 dBA would effectively kill their project. Prior to this point, the committee was debating restrictions 32 to 42 dBA. Madden's analysis was obviously given to White, she didn't make the calculations herself and she misrepresented to the committee who prepared figures. Don Mason - How did you have that broke down, the school, county and town? White - I can give you a copy of this. White - "I had...the first one was at 50 dBA, the first scenario and 124 MW would be approximately 69 turbines (1.03.21) for the BP project. D. Mason - But, the percentage that the school got, the county and the town? White - Oh the percentage..I based that again on the Galloo Island project and the Galloo was not a third, a third and a thrid. It was I think town had 15%, I think the school had more, is that right? Dimmick - (reading from her handout) - 55 and the county was 35. Urban Hirschey - If I may interject for just a minute, it seems to me that what we are doing we are somehow saying we should compromise our safety and offsets based on how much money we are going to get. White - You can't lose sight of that, its a huge issue. Urban - We shouldn't lose sight of that but we should make the right decisions irrespective of the money involved. White - You can lose sight but I think most people in this town that pay taxes aren't going to lose sight of the huge economic impacts. White - (1-04.35) Now this is the wind law proposal that I came up with. I have 45 dBA at all dwellings, 50 dBA at non-participating property lines. Setbacks: I have 1,000 ft setback from non-participating property lines, 1000 ft from participating dwellings, 1000 ft setback from 12E VC to Lyme , 2,000 ft from centerline 12E from CV to Clayton, 600 ft from seasonal and non seasonal roads, 2,000 ft setback from high water mark and 1,000 ft plus 1.5 times the tower height from the village line (1.05.23). White - If we don't come up with a wind law then it will be sited as utilities I don't want to see that but if that is what it comes to then that is what it comes to. NOTE: With respect to the noise provision White has taken Madden's recommendation, 45 and 50 dBA and derailed all the previous work of the committee and earlier presentation of Bill Elliot on the sound issue. White has support at this point from the conflicted members of the wind committee and two other supporters (D. Mason, M. Mason, M. Orvis and T. Rienbeck) Comments follow by Bragdon and MacScherry with concern for disregarding all the previous work of the committee. Don Mason - On that 1,000 ft setback from 12E is that from the centerline? White - Yes. Brooks Bragdon - I'm very respectful of what Beth said, but I still think we have to say what the data says. We have to be responsible to the community to all of the constituents to all the interested parties in the community and let data stand for what it stands for and we have to listen to our consultants. MacSherry - We may not be able to press the issue of the town's split. Because this is a project that most of the community wants, town will probably only get 1215%. Town's potential is not going to be as great as I had imagined earlier. We are going to 14

adjust our lives considerably without much to gain and that makes a difference to me. Mickey Orvis (1.23.00) What can we do to move ahead with Beth's proposed wind law? LOTS OF DICUSSION ABOUT PILOTS, MONEY, NOISE STANDARDS, HOW TO MEASURE AMBIENT WITHOUT MUCH AGREEMENT. MacSherry (2.38.00) - I think CTA has bent over backward to find a middle of road approach and use existing data from the developer's expert. To say we'll just use the raw data from the developer is to say why did we do this? If we've spent this amount of time and taxpayers money to look at it in the best scientific way and best practical way and not find a way to compromise is an injustice. I would not want a law enacted, that was not based on fact, the due diligence is to use the science and all the hours and don't just say arbitrarily... Andy Binsley (2.40.00) - I took 37 and 32 averaged and added 6. I don't think we can all find a common agreement. High number too many complaints find a lower number and expect fewer complaints. Let's quit all these meetings we've been going round and round. Binsley 2.44.00 spoke from himself. Bragdon 2.45.00 - We should be respectful of Tocci, but Marty, Donny and Tommy didn't agree. Beth White - enough compromises have been made. When I suggested this proposal that's what it is. I came up with what I did it would be regulate. When you reduce from 50 dBA your reducing economic benefit and it is a substantial amount of money. NOTE: Again, some members of the committee are concerned with White's proposal in that it represents an industry proposal, negates the previous long work of the committee and is oriented solely toward economic benefit. Ovis (2.49.50) - Can we take a vote on Beth's proposal? Gebo - that's up to the board, Andy had a different number, Dick wasn't prepared to vote. MacSherry - I'm prepared to have Dimmick and Elliot to help us work through this. If we vote on this (Beth's proposal) I think we've wasted a lot of time. Gebo - CTA 32+6, Andy 34+6, Hessler 37+6, Beth 45/50. I don't hear any disagreement for adding 6 to ambient, it's state guideline. Majority supporting 45/50 Beth's proposal (White, Mason, Mason, Orvis and Rienbeck). Gebo - Do we need further discussion? MacSherry - How did you come up with 45/50? White - Other wind farms, NYSERDA and DEC. MacSherry - DEC no recommendation. NYSERDA older info it's emerging and evolving and suggests they are biased. Back and forth on issue of accepting White's proposal or use consultant and committees work to date. (3.06.00) Could not reach agreement on debate regarding White's proposal vs. consultant's recommendation and committee's work up until today. Marty Mason (3.09.30) argues for 50 dBA at residences, since other communities have a similar law. Gebo - responding on whether the vote on 45/50 is this committee's vote. Urban - I think fixation on 50 dBA is because of sheet given to us on those communities that adopted this type of law. If we go back we probably would find 50 dBA was recommended by wind industry years back and current thinking is very different. Recommending 50 would not be fair to rest of community. NOTE: At this point White and conflicted supporters have taken over the meeting and are pushing to have adopted Whites/BP's proposal using the least restrictive noise constraints. Missing in this debate is Edsall, who may have known what others were planning to do, and found a convenient excuse to be absent. At the preceding meeting of the wind committee in February, Edsall and all other PB members as well as Rienbeck had all supported the revised 15

noise restriction, e.g. 6 dBA above background sound. Gebo - have you gone as far as the committee can go? D. Mason - yes, I think we've gone as far as we can go . MacSherry - Irresponsibe to use an industry standard, e.g., 50 dBA, and shame all of our efforts and expense are for naught (3.18.00). Bragdon - We should stop and come back to this. General discussion on setbacks, White and supporters (5) okay with her proposed setbacks. Hirschey (3.30.00) Proposes to follow-up meeting with another future session or continue after a break. D. Mason - I make motion to get done with it today. We don't need another session. People on vacations and busy, I willing to do with what we've got, what Beth's given us. If I make a motion to have Mark draw it up and get it to the Planning Board. Orvis indicates he won't be back after break. (3.45.00) Resumes after break and lost couple of members, Orvis and Rienbeck. Gebo - What is the group's interest to continue today or schedule for another session. D. Mason - I've got a motion on the floor. Gebo - What's your motion? D. Mason - That we accept Beth's, what she had give us, that you draw it up and get it back to us so we can review so we can give it to the Planning Board to review. M. Mason - I've got a question, can we take the dBs and setbacks out of it and pass the rest of it? There's a lot of language in the law that would be very beneficial to the planning board. Gebo - You could do that but those are obviously two issues the PB has got to face. If you pass the law without some guidance you're putting the burden on the PB to devise that on a case by case basis. M. Mason - Can we do it without the dBs and setbacks? Gebo - Can do it any combination of ways, and you are right there are other things people have agreed to. Sound and setbacks are two major issues. Gebo - We still have a motion from Donny (Mason), do we have a second? Gebo - I think your motion is to recommend to town board and PB the law with Beth's standards With a few little changes the 600 ft setback for seasonal nonseasonal public roads or the greater standard, and 1,000 ft setback from centerline 12E. Gebo -So that's the motion, is there a second. White - Can I second it? Gebo - Sure, I have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion. Hirschey - Concern that last meeting's 2500 ft setback from 12E and Co. Rte 6 and 3,000 ft from the village was agreed upon. What you are recommending now is a far cry from that. D. Mason (3.49.30) - The reason I'm doing that is on the turbines we were losing from doing it that way there and I was upfront with people from day one that I wasn't for losing a lot of turbines. I'm here to help the town out from the money they will get, the school, county and even the ???. Once we found out how many were being lost with that, that's why I changed my mind on it I guess and I like what Beth proposes here. NOTE: Donny Mason states clearly what has happened to him, and presumably White's supporters, that he wants as many turbines as possible and that the earlier work of the committee, I.e., noise restrictions, would have cut out too many turbines. Hirschey - So you're making your recommendation based upon on monetary? Mason - Yes, however you want to call it and I've been upfront with you on day one from that. Hirschey - I hate to think our decisions are based solely on monetary issues. M.Mason - What isn't nowadays? Hirschey - Well there is a quality of life to consider... D. Mason - And if the taxes go down or stay the same for school county and town my quality of life will be better,...because I won't have to pay as much taxes. Comments by MacSherry and Bragdon on sticking with earlier agreement. Gebo (3.55.30) - Don, just as a means of clarification, previously we went through 16

sound analysis and put in things like how you determine ambient, how you collect data, and all the rest of this, are you suggesting that all of that would come out of the proposed law, as well as the a section on compliance. D.Mason - Yeah, it doesn't need to be in there with what I've got proposed there. Gebo - So you are suggesting we don't need any methodology at all we just have the number? D. Mason - Yup (3.56.00). NOTE: All the detail related to the science of sound is eliminated. All the previous work with the town's consulting engineers is eliminated. The methodology that was struck by D. Mason was designed to make any future enforcement easier and more effective. The methodology, however, would be considered a hindrance by any wind developer. BP not only knocks out the noise restrictions but all of the associated science that is needed for proper enforcement. MacSherry - Let's have a roll call vote. D. Mason - Well I made my motion for the TB to vote, this is a town meeting right? Gebo - It's a TB meeting, but it's also a meeting of the wind committee. D. Mason - Should it be a town board motion? Gebo - If it's a town board motion then Beth can't second it. D. Mason - Right, but maybe Mickey agreed with me, can he speak or even though he isn't here? Gebo - (3.56.56) - Well technically no if it's going to be a TB motion. D.Mason - That's why we wanted to do it before we went into break. Gebo - Sorry about that. Gebo - So, are you making it as a committee motion? D. Mason - Yes, for the committee. Gebo At this point if we are going on we'll need a break for food. Any reason to go any longer for today? NO. Any reason to meet again? Binsley - Nothing resolved. Hirschey - Poor place to leave this. Gebo - Report back to the TB that issues remain unresolved. NOTE: This marks the end of the 2010 wind committee's attempt to provide a draft wind law. Although, conflicted town board members did not pursue adoption of BP's 50 dBA noise limit, collectively, the conflicted members, the leaseholder representative and wind project supporters killed this attempt at adopting a zoning law designed to protect non-participating landowners. Their actions also demonstrated the futility of including officials with contracts and other officials who have openly supported wind development in a process designed to afford protection to citizens whose property will be in close proximity to wind development. The efforts in this session were to open the door as wide as possible for wind development in Cape Vincent at the expense of protecting many residents. 210.05.06 Appointment for Planning Board - Rienbeck chosen to replace Tom Ingersoll 2010.05.20 NO WIND DISCUSSION 2010.06.10 John Byrne (13.30) - Informs the board that on June 9, 2010, after regular PB meeting, there was another meeting on town property consisting of a quorum of PB members (Edsall, 17

Rienbeck, Binsley, Bourcy) and two Town Board members (Orvis and Donny Mason). Clif Schneider - Following up on Byrne's letter asks D. Mason and Orvis if they discussed town business at the private meeting. D. Mason - "I was there and no town business being made and there were two councilman there. Schneider - "Mickey?" Orvis replies, "No town business." (22.00). NOTE: Mason and Orvis at this time are unaware that Byrne recorded 2 minutes of their private discussion in which they discussed the town's escrow accounts with the wind companies. They lied in response to the question had they discussed town business. M. Mason (39.30) Asks about latest draft of wind law, Gebo was going to provide a new draft of Beth Whites proposal. Bragdon - Reviewing 5/1/2010 wind law committee minutes says he didn't agree to the 45/50 dBA noise restrictions. Hirschey (1.28.00) Establishes the economic committee to examine impacts from wind development. (1.32.00) D. Mason, Mason and Orvis refuse to pay for the audit. Discussion of the legal right for the board to not pay the for the audit since these members did not agree to conduct an audit. Mason, Mason and Orvis still refuse to pay for the audit even with the potential for a legal suit from the auditing firm. Hirschey mentions audit found some illegal activities, innocent, but illegal. When questioned, Hirschey mentions the handling of the wind company escrow accounts. D. Mason - What was illegal? Hirschey - The wind escrow accounts. Mason Talk to our lawyer he's the one who drew up the resolution for us. Hirschey - The resolution doesn't address how it should be accounted for. D. Mason - This has been working real good for how many years. There getting their bills paid, the wind mill company is getting their bills paid. NOTE: Establishment of Acciona's escrow account was done with a resolution at the December 2006 town board meeting. Both Wood and M. Mason voted to approve even though they had recused themselves earlier on other wind issues, and even though in this instance they voted on a financial agreement between a wind company and the town, which was presumably illegal for them to do. The BP escrow account was setup without a resolution and vote in January 2007. Tom Rienbeck (out of order outburst from the audience) - "I think you need to get those agreements out and read those from the two windmill companies. The accounts were set up because the PB requested them to be setup. On those special checking accounts no check can be drawn without approval from the wind power companies. You put that money in any other account and the wind companies lose control of their money and I stress their money. Its not town funds. If you put it in trust agency account you can write a check out any day of the week, you could pay yourself some money out of there if you'd like. You need their approval to write a check out of there. The only time a check was written on there is when the signature comes back on an invoice either from an attorney or copies made by the PB or whatever it may be for be for you have copies of all of those in the files. You talk transparency, those files were in there every day of the week just like everything else everybody could go in their and see everything they want. All the bills for the wind farm are there they were paid only upon approval either by project manager whoever it might have been at the time either Jim Madden or Pete Zedick. Those were only way anything was drawn on those. If you do anything else you will lose those agreements that you have. You better consult an attorney before you do 18

anything with those funds any different".(1.46.00) NOTE: This was unusual for Rienbeck. Normally he is very controlled, but in this instance the handling of these escrow accounts touched a nerve. This was the same concern, most likely, that was the premise for holding the secret meeting the night before. The 2-minute recorded segment also discussed handling of the escrow accounts, so it is reasonable to conclude the secret meeting was probably called by Rienbeck (that's why Mason attended the planning board meeting, normally he doesn't). Hirschey (responds that he emailed the town's attorney Mark Gebo regarding how to treat these invoices) - Gebo agrees completely the invoices for the escrow account should go through normal books and those invoices should be approved as abstracts the same as any other abstracts. Discussion on audit and handling wind company escrow accounts concludes(1.48.00) 2010.07.08 Hirschey (51.30) reads resolution regarding the retroactive acceptance of the payment of invoices in wind escrow accounts since 2007 to current date, and from this date forward invoices will be paid in the same way as other abstracts. Discussion by Schneider and Edsall about who is authorized to sign checks. (1.03.30) 2010.08.12 Don Alexander (25.30) outlines the draft Uniform Tax Exempt Policy for wind farms in Jefferson County. Wind wasn't treated in earlier PILOT arrangements because wind power projects are enormous capital projects. County wanted new uniform policy. JCIDA hired several consultants. Outlines provision for allowing local municipalities the authority to approval any wind PILOTs. Tim Conboy, SLWF Project Mgr (1.08.30) Concerned for this IDA taking the unique step of allowing local communities to vote on the wind PILOTs. Alexander's presentation concludes at 1.12.00. NOTE: During the debate at the Jefferson County IDA, Conboy and Acciona lobbied hard to NOT allow local communities the opportunity to vote on every wind PILOT. At the local level, Conboy understood the dynamics in Cape Vincent if the town board votes on a wind PILOT for Acciona's St. Lawrence Wind Project. There are two town board members with wind contracts with Acciona. Voting on a financial agreement between the town of Cape Vincent and Acciona would be a clear violation of municipal law. This opinion was provided by the Planning Board's developer-friendly legal group, Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna. 2010.08.17 Special meeting on AG's announced investigation into complaints of ethical infractions by some officials. Gebo reviews process and also states the AG has no requirement to halt ongoing process of current wind applications, this is a local option. Hirschey tries to pass a moratorium on wind development, which was unsuccessful. 19

NOTE: From this point on, whenever a state police vehicle attempts to pull me over with lights flashing and siren wailing, I will ignore it and continue down the road to my destination (Okay, I'm sarcastic, it's in my genes) 2010.09.09 John Byrne (25.20) - submits letter outlining charges that D. Mason and M. Orvis, along with members of the Cape Planning Board, discussed town business during their 6/9/10 illegal, private planning board meeting, and that they lied when on 6/10/10 said that no town business was discussed (34.00). Hirschey (51.30) outlines material request from the AG. He indicates the Economic committee submitted preliminary report and will have completed report in another month, hopefully. Hirschey (58.00) resolves to suspend wind development activities until the AG finishes their investigation. Motion does not pass. Hirschey and Bragdon = aye, M. Mason = abstain due to conflict, D. Mason and Orvis = nay. Board goes into executive session, returns and then adjourns 2.20.00 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft wind law 2/10/2010 2. Bill Elliot CTA presentation on sound 5/1/2010 3. Jim Madden BP letter dated 5/2/2010 presented 5/16-17/2010

20