DAILY GAZETTE
Schenectady, NY
October 11, 2003

Study urges fee for lakeside landowners

Edinburg supervisor rebuts contention of engineers

By JOE MAHER Gazette Reporter

EDINBURG - The Hudson River Black River Regulating District's plan to increase Great Sacandaga Lake access-permit fees has drawn harsh criticism from lake area residents. But some people believe a bigger threat looms in the form of a reapportionment study.

That study, which is available on the district's www.hrbrrd.com Web site, suggests that the regulating district find a way to charge property owners a premium for lakefront property.

Opponents of this proposal contend that the district would be taxing them twice, once for an access permit and again because they own lakefront property that is more valuable because of the presence of the lake.

The study by the engineering firm Gomez and Sullivan recommends that the regulating district contract with the state or a private company to appraise the value of lakeshore property and compare it to similar property that isn't on the lake.

The difference in value would then be classified as a "benefit" to those lakefront property owners.

Then those property owners would be classified as beneficiaries and would be assessed a fee by the regulating district, which currently raises its operating funds only from downstream beneficiaries for which the manmade lake was originally built.

"The concern," Edinburg Supervisor Jean Raymond said, "is that there could be an argument made by downstream beneficiaries that somehow the upstream communities and counties are also beneficiaries and , therefore, we should pay part of their bill."

Tom Sullivan of Gomez Sullivan said that the study was completed under his direction but referred questions about the report to the regulating district.

"It's policy that it's not our place to comment on them because these are reports that we do for clients," Sullivan said from his New Hampshire office.

Regulating District Executive Director Willard Loveless has not responded to messages left at the district's Albany office, Mayfield field office and his Northville home since Wednesday and was not in the office Friday, a staff member said.

The staff member said that Loveless instructed her to say that the district would have no comment on the reapportionment study until next week. Chief Engineer Robert Foltan said Friday the district's board has not taken any action on the study and referred further inquiries to district counsel Timothy Foley. Foley did not respond to messages left with staff at his Utica and Old Forge law offices Friday.

Raymond noted that the lake was built specifically for the downstream beneficiaries to control spring flooding in the Hudson River valley and to augment the flow of the river in the summer.

She said the engineers' contention is "a ridiculous argument because the beneficiary is not the person who lives in that property."

"I benefit because I have to pay three times as much for my house? " Raymond asked. "The beneficiaries are the power companies who were behind the building of this dam in the beginning. The beneficiaries are the downstream beneficiaries. That's how they got it built, for their benefit, and they're responsible for it."

Property owners agree.

"The results of this study is they're looking for ways to lay off more costs on the property owners along the lake," said Bob Treat of Ridgefield, Conn., who spends weekends and summers at his family's property on Lakeside Drive in Edinburg. "They're going to nail us once, then they're gong to nail us again. I thought when I brought my property there I was paying a premium because it was on the lake."

Treat and fellow Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee member Peter VanAvery said if the proposal is approved it will especially hurt middle- and lowincome property owners who are year-round residents.

"They're the real losers in this. It could become a rich man's club along the lake because they're the only ones who can afford it," Treat said.

Another concern of lake area officials is the perception that a lot of people are unaware of the reapportionment study.

VanAvery said the study was completed in July, has been on the district's Web site for several weeks but the district didn't publicize the study. He argued that information could have been included in a mailing that the district sent its 4,550 permit holders regarding the proposal to increase access fees.

"Once again the regulating district is operating with arrogance, with contempt for the public, and in semisecrecy," VanAvery said.

"It's not really out there," Raymond agreed.

"I am learning daily about the [district] and all these studies that go with the process," Mayfield Supervisor Carol Hart said.

We're kind of dealing with permit fees at this time," Hart said. "But we know [the Gomez study] is out there and it is definitely a concern should changes start to be looked at more intensely."