Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects Alliance Energy projects

News

News Articles

2008

2007

Press Releases

2009

2008

2007

Home

Back to News

Times Herald Record

August 10, 2007

Alliance Renewables, Sullivan County Seek Tax Deal With Towns

By Victor Whitman

Monticello - Alliance Renewables is trying to cut a deal with towns to avoid a tax fight.

Sullivan County officials, on behalf of Alliance, recently asked five town supervisors if they'd be willing to hold a closed-door powwow with energy company executives. The stakes are hundreds of thousands of dollars of school, town and county taxes on the Swinging Bridge and other former Mirant holdings.

But if the towns want to chat, they say they've been told to keep their attorneys away. "It isn't going to happen," said Lumberland Supervisor John LiGreci.

"How can you cut a deal without advice from your attorneys?"

County officials and Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther, D-Forestburgh, are pressing for meetings.

Alliance bought the properties, which also include the Rio, Mongaup and Toronto dams, in a bankruptcy court for $5.1 million, and promptly sued assessors for a reduction on all properties. It also has been extending an olive branch.

"Alliance is willing to meet — with or without attorneys — and do whatever might lead to a settlement that is favorable to all parties," Alliance spokeswoman Jane Rubinstein said.

Gunther said she has spoken twice with Alliance President Sam Nappi.

"Rather than get attorneys involved, I would rather them sit down and communicate," Gunther said yesterday. She noted the company reopened the Swinging Bridge Reservoir early, and promises improvements. "I told him (Nappi) we were all fearful of losing all that real property tax."

County Treasurer Ira Cohen is also trying to get both sides together.

"They want to resolve this through negotiation opposed to litigation," Cohen said. "Once that is said, it is a given that both sides have to compromise, and it means, for us, we would certainly expect them to agree to numbers that are significantly higher than they could get in court."