DAILY GAZETTE
Schenectady, NY
October 7, 2003

Regulating agency blasted over Sacandaga fee proposal

By JOE MAHER Gazette Reporter

ALBANY — About two dozen people blasted the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District board Monday morning over its public relations methods and earlier plans to raise Great Sacandaga Lake accesspermit fees by 500 percent, and to more than 1,000 percent in some cases.

The board members were criticized about everything from the plan itself — which has since been modified in the face of public outrage — to perceived arrogance on the part of the district staff. The board was also criticized for providing inadequate facilities to accommodate an overflow crowd at Monday's meeting.

The fact that the meeting itself was held in Albany on a Monday morning on the Yom Kippur holiday didn't keep people away.

Three times HRBR board Chairman Tim Noonan had to ask those seated in the room to rotate out and allow other public speakers waiting in the hall access to the small room. A number of people who signed up to speak left before they had the opportunity. But everyone who stayed had a chance to speak and it took more than 90 minutes for them to finish.

The comments of Deborah Sheehan, a fourth-generation town of Day resident, were typical.

She criticized board members for attempting to balance the district's budget on the backs of permit holders rather than downstream beneficiaries.

She said the district should look to cut its budget starting with salaries and new-vehicle purchases and said $1 million in litigation costs in the district's new budget should be borne by the hydropower concerns that are involved.

Gerald Fitzgerald, who said he was speaking on behalf of many permit holders, business people and local officials, agreed with Sheehan and said the district's secretive approach to introducing the proposed rate schedule has fostered a sense of skepticism in the lake community.

Peter Biron of the Great Sacandaga Lake Association made two specific requests: one for information regarding legitimate costs of running the permit system; and the advance release of a new rate schedule before an Oct. 22 public comment hearing in Northville.

Noonan, the board chairman, told people that the district would post a new fee schedule on its Website - www.hrbrrd.com - by the end of the week.

"We're taking your comments today and using that to formulate new policy," he said.

Doug Sterling, of Edinburg, said the district's plans to use additional funds from higher permit fees to pay property taxes is contrary to its own guidelines.

Those guidelines state that the fees should fund 80 percent of the cost of operating the system with the other 20 percent written off by the district in deference to the caretaking work that permit holders do on the district's shoreline land.

Bob Smith asked board members if they intentionally left the fee proposal out of their letters to permit holders; if they intentionally waited until the fall, when the seasonal residents are gone to hold a hearing; and if they intentionally set the November meeting for Watertown to inconvenience people.

Smith said the governor is ultimately responsible for appointing board members and said the political fallout could harm his administration.

He said administrators and board members should have seen budget trouble coming and suggested that the district sell its lakefront field office in Mayfield to raise money.

Peter VanAvery, of the Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee, reiterated his call for the district to sell its lakefront property to adjoining property owners. That would make the permit system unnecessary and would guarantee owners access to the lake, which is not the case at present.

Charles Owens of Edinburg said the district "violated the spirit of economic reality" when it added three staff members and granted raises to some staff in excess of 5 percent in advance of the fee-increase proposal.

Earlier, at the beginning of the meeting, Noonan tried to assure people that the board would be responsive to their concerns.

"We're not the enemy. We're on your side," he said.

While acknowledging that there have been "a lot of misconceptions" over the years, he said the current members of the board would respect the permit holders wishes.

The district issues 4,450 permits to various private landowners and commercial businesses, providing them with access to the lake, a manmade flood-control reservoir.

The total fee for residents is the sum of a base fee and a frontage fee.

For example, the current fee for a 10-foot strip of lakefront is $43; $35 for the base fee and $8 for the frontage fee. The proposed new fee would have been $200 — the district wanted to increase both the base fee and the frontage fee to $100.

For residents with 10.1 to 50 feet the total would have risen from $48 to $250; for 50.1 to 100 feet from $56 to $400; for 100.1 to 200 feet from $72 to $700; and for 200.1 to 300, from $92 to $1,000.

The permits simply allow residents access to the lake via state land — regulating district land — along the shoreline.

The lake was built nearly 75 years ago to control flooding in the Hudson River Valley in the spring and to augment the flow of the river in the summer. Before the reservoir was built, flooding was common in cities such as Albany, Troy, and Rensselaer.

THE LEADER-HERALD
Gloversville, NY
October 7, 2003

Lake board eyes new fee plan

By OMAR AQUIJE, The Leader-Herald

ALBANY - Residents will have to wait a week to learn the details of a new proposal by the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District to increase fees for access permits along the Great Sacandaga Lake.

The decision to modify the original proposal, which was first revealed on the district's Web site in September, was made public by the district's Board of Directors on Monday in front of 50 to 60 flustered residents on hand to unleash their complaints.

"The new proposal will be substantially modified and less than the previous proposal," said Executive Director Willard W. Loveless.

The news of a modified proposal was not enough to tame the residents on hand. With more than an hour spent for public comments, many residents questioned the board about what they said was lack of information provided on the fee increase.

They criticized the timing of the meetings and the inadequate room facility to accommodate the large number of people in attendance.

Most residents criticized the board for attempting to address their budget by charging permit holders greater fees rather than downstream beneficiaries. The board was also blasted by residents for the increased costs for litigation, which is projected to run as high as $1 million, and for hiring several employees during a time of budget crunch.

With only about 20 to 25 seats made available, most people were forced to cram the hallway outside. On three occasions, Tim Noonan, chairman of the board, had to ask those who finished speaking to rotate outside to allow others to enter and speak.

Several residents provided letters of complaint along with their public comments. Robert L. Smith, whose family has owned land along the Great Sacandaga Lake for five generations, was one of many who criticized the board.

"When you sent letters to permit holders, why didn't you include the proposed fee schedule?" Smith asked the board. "What you are doing will do more damage to Gov. Pataki's balanced recovery plan than anything I have heard since he was elected."

Peter VanAvery, co-founder of the Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee, suggested the board cut its budget by a third by selling the buffer zone to the permit holders.

"We don't want to be subject to your whims any longer," VanAvery told the board. "We want to remove the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our heads as to whether our permits will be renewed year after year. And we want permits to be transferable from one property owner to another."

No additional action was taken during the meeting, leaving many residents displeased.

At the start of the meeting, Noonan tried to ease the crowd by saying, "We're not the enemy. We're on your side."

Exactly what would the latest proposal consist of, neither the board or Loveless would say. However, Loveless said the board is in the process of creating the new proposal and intends to make it public on its Web site at www.hrbrrd.com within the next week.

The comments taken during Monday's meeting, which was held in the board's Albany office, will be used toward modifying the newest proposal. "We are taking your comments today to use them toward creating a new proposal," Noonan said.

The district regulates the man-made reservoir and sells access permits annually to lakeside residents. About 5,000 permits are sold each year.

The original proposal meant the annual fee for 10 feet of lake property would increase from $43 to $200.

Property owners with a permit for 100 feet generally pay $72 but would see their fee soar to $700.

"The final permit plan will, hopefully, be in place by the end of the fiscal year in January," Loveless said.

The public will have another opportunity to speak with the board during the next open discussion scheduled for 7 p.m. Oct. 22 at Northville Central School.