Judge signs road use agreement

Carroll County Judge David Writer last week signed a road use and maintenance agreement with Nimbus Wind Farm LLC, a subsidiary of Scout Clean Energy.

The agreement, dated Sept. 25, outlines the obligations of both parties regarding the use of county roads in connection with the Nimbus project, which has drawn vigorous opposition from local residents. Among the concerns cited repeatedly by critics of the project is the potential impact on county roads.

The agreement, which also is signed by Nimbus vice president Mark Wengierski, calls for the company to notify the county in writing at least seven days before beginning construction on the project. The company also agrees to notify the county within seven days after construction is complete and the company is selling power through its grid interconnection.

Scout, based in Boulder, Colo., plans for the Nimbus Project to expand over approximately 9,000 acres — about 14 square miles — in Carroll County, much of it along County Road 905. Scout says the project could generate up to 180 megawatts of electricity at peak demand — enough, the company says, to power almost 30,000 homes. The project will include 30 wind turbines — four of which the company says will be 591 feet tall and the other 26 that the company says will be 644 feet tall. The turbines will be placed on private property, the owners of which have signed lease agreements with Scout.

The road use maintenance agreement calls for the company to restrict heavyweight deliveries to certain roads — County Roads 905, 906, 920 and 924 — identified in Exhibit B of the agreement, although the company will be permitted to amend that portion of the agreement with five days written notice.

The agreement stipulates that a baseline survey will be conducted on those roads at the company’s expense before the company transports any project-related equipment materials over the roads. Another survey will be conducted no less than 30 days before the project becomes operational, again at the company’s expense.

The county will continue to perform routine road maintenance, with the company having the right to improve unmaintained county roads at its expense.

Within 90 days (weather permitting) after the project becomes operational, the agreement says, the company will repair and restore the roads to their pre-construction condition.

Before construction begins, the company will obtain a $1 million surety bond, the agreement says. Once the roads are returned to their pre-construction condition, the county will issue to the company a certificate of completion.

The agreement specifies that the company will be liable for the repair of any damage to the roads caused by the company’s use. It also authorizes the company to modify and improve the roads identified in Exhibit B, including strengthening and widening the roads, modifying corners and strengthening, lengthening and/ or spanning of existing culverts and bridges.

The agreement also authorizes the company to remove trees within three feet of the existing roads within any county rightof- way and to temporarily remove any fences located within any county right of way, stipulating that the company must obtain consent from the property owner before removing any tree or fence.

The county agrees to issue master overweight and oversize permits, with the company agreeing to transport tower segments and other oversize loads to reasonably minimize adverse impact on the local traffic. The company also agrees to be responsible for dust abatement.

The company will establish a $150,000 contingency fund to be placed in escrow with the county treasurer, with the money being available to be applied to repair costs caused by the project.

At the quorum court’s most recent meeting, on Sept. 17, Writer said he shared some of the concerns expressed by opponents of the Nimbus project, but defended his decision to sign the road-use agreement, saying it was the only feasible way to protect the county’s interest. Writer said he does not have the authority to prevent the company from using county roads, as some opponents have said.

“(The agreement) will hold (Scout) accountable for the damage they will cause to the county roads,” he said. “Without it, they will just use the roads and county will have to pay for it using taxpayer dollars.

Writer added that refusing to sign the agreement is not a viable option.

“Why not just refuse to sign it and then stick it to them in court when they start tearing the roads up?” he said. “All they have to do is send a lawyer into the courtroom and say: ‘We tried to enter into an agreement with the county, but they refused.’ We would lose that court case and we’d still be on the hook to fix the roads. … (The road use agreement) is really the only option that makes sense. Let’s hold them accountable where we can.”