Questions for Scout

Mr. Loftis, Your report regarding the last Quorum Court meeting and the modifications Scout plans to make to the proposed wind farm in Carroll County raises several questions I think your readers would find interesting.

With the reduction in the number of turbines, I think the County can expect a sizable reduction in the amount of tax revenue to be derived from the project. Scout’s representations regarding the tax revenue are certainly subject to question. A handout (copy attached) provided by Scout to the County in September 2021, when Scout anticipated building up to 43 turbines, reflects that Scout represented that the tax revenue to the County would be approximately $4.6 million over 30 years. I believe your article states that Scout recently stated that it anticipated the tax revenue to be closer to $25 million. Which number is accurate and what can the expected tax revenue be now that the number of turbines has been reduced from 43 to 30—an approximately 30 percent reduction? A 30 percent reduction from $4.6 million, or a 30 percent reduction from $25 million? A big difference. And is Scout to be trusted with any number it gives out?

I’m sure the landowners who signed up for a turbine are wondering who will get one and who will have to just live with them without getting compensated for them (like the rest of us) now that Scout is reducing the number from 43 to 30. How many of those affected landowners are absentee landowners?

Although Judge Writer says the County has nothing to do with the project—it’s just a private agreement between private parties, and the only role the County has is to enforce the Road Use Agreement—why is the County going out of its way to enter into a road use agreement in the first place? Why is Scout entitled to a road use agreement? If the purpose of the RUA is to make sure the roads are properly maintained because of the damage Scout would cause to them, can’t Judge Writer simply prohibit Scout from damaging the roads in the first place?

Where is that Road Use Agreement? Judge Writer announced he was going to sign it the week of June 24, more than two months ago, but it hasn’t been signed yet (as far as I know). Why not?

Judge Writer’s excuse for not holding a public hearing on the impact on local residents because of the impact on the roads makes no sense. Judge Writer is the elected representative of the people of the County most knowledgeable about the roads and the potential impact on the roads. He acknowledges there will be a significant impact (or else why have a road use agreement with Scout), yet he won’t sit down with his constituents to discuss the situation? Instead, he relies on Scout to do this—who does he represent?

And why hasn’t JP Howerton (in whose District 11 the turbine farm is to be placed) offering to hold a public forum to address the impact? JP Rivett offered to do that for his constituents, and they aren’t even in District 11.

Please consider publishing this as a commentary if you don’t find out the answers to these questions and follow up your story with another.

Thanks,

— George Caudle Carrollton