THE RECORDER
Amsterday, NY
November 4, 2003

Permit fees draw a crowd

By CRAIG CLARK
Recorder News Staff

JOHNSTOWN - The Great Sacandaga Lake's regulating authority got another earful Monday from property owners concerned about the yet-to-be-announced permit fees for next year.

Officials with the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District said Monday that they expect to have a new permit fee proposal ready by December but they don't expect the proposal to be finalized until March.

Beginning with the 2004 season the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District had proposed to drastically increase permit fees for the use of lakefront land.

Due to the public's reaction and the intervention of the New York State Office of Regulatory Reform, the district withdrew the initially proposed fee schedule and permit holders have been waiting for a new proposal to be released.

Many of those permit holders attended the board's regular monthly meeting Monday, which was held in a conference room at the Holiday Inn in Johnstown in anticipation of the large turnout.

If they didn't already know it, the permit holders Monday found out they'll be waiting a bit longer to learn what fees they are to pay for access rights to the land the district owns immediately surrounding the reservoir.

The district owns all the land around the lake creating a strip known as the buffer zone between the high water mark and private property lines. The district then sells yearly access permits to allow for use of the buffer zone land. In the past, the fees increased gradually with the size of the lakefront lot.

Citing their mounting legal fees, property taxes and other increasing expenses outside the the operation of the permit system, the district had initially proposed new permit rates which, for some, called for increases in the thousands of dollars.

The district, however, was reminded by the public that according to district rules and regulations the permit fees are to only cover costs associated with the workings of the permit system itself. Furthermore, the district was reminded, the permit fees are to only cover 80 percent of the system's total costs. The district's initially proposed schedule, which is now off the table, far exceeded that threshold.

The district has been examining the costs associated with the permit system and Monday outlined just what the system is expected to cost over the next three years.

According to a breakdown on the permit system performed by the district, for 2004 alone, the operation of the permit system is to cost a projected $810,511, of which, taking into account the 80 percent restriction, $648,409 the permit fees are expected to cover.

"Getting to a bottom line, that's where we feel we are today," Willard Loveless, the executive director of the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, told the crowd Monday. Loveless said the next step is to devise a fee schedule based on the permit system's expenses.

The expense projections for 2004 exceed the revenue reported to have come from the permit system in 2003 by $376,843.

Officials with the regulating district said Monday they intend to propose a new fee schedule for the permits in time for the district's meeting next month. The meeting is scheduled for Dec. 15 and will be held somewhere in the Sacandaga area, officials promised.

At that time the board will review the new schedule but, according to Timothy Noonan the chairman of the regulating district's board, the new fees won't become final until the early part of 2004.

At the district's meeting Monday, Noonan said the regular renewal letters to district permit holder, which are normally mailed in January, will not be going out as usual this year. The new fee schedule isn't expected to be final until at least March, Noonan said.

"What will appear on our website and what will be available by our next meeting is a proposed permit fee for the permit holders. When that fee comes out it's really the beginning of the process. Not the end of the process, the beginning of the process." Noonan said. "I want everyone to understand that. There will be plenty of time for public comment. It is a proposed fee schedule not something that you will not get to comment on. It is a proposed schedule that will appear," Noonan.

Due to the involvement of the state Office of Regulatory Reform, there are a variety of steps that must be taken after a proposed fee schedule is accepted by the district's board. In October the Office of Regulatory Reform became involved in the matter.

While the Office of Regulatory Reform will not have final say on what the permit fees will be they will be responsible for reviewing the fee proposal to ensure the plan is based on sound justifications.

Public speakers Monday jumped around from issue to issue Monday with most everyone expressing dissatisfaction with the regulating district in some form or another.

Some expressed displeasure with the timeframe the fees will be announced or the process being used while others took the time to publicly rework the district's budget to show how permit holders should all receive refunds.

"Deed us the land," said property owner David Agee, repeating a call that is becoming more and more popular. Agee said deeding the land to the permit holders would save the district paying millions in taxes and the salaries of the people who administer the permit system.

"Why is the Great Sacandaga the only one of five reservoirs with a permit system,?" said Northville resident Guy Poulin referring to the other reservoirs under the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District's authority.

LEADER-HERALD
Gloversville, NY
November 4, 2003

River district outlines costs
By OMAR AQUIJE, The Leader-Herald

JOHNSTOWN - A proposed permit fee schedule for access to the Great Sacandaga Lake is expected to be released by December, said Willard Loveless, executive director of the Hudson River-Black River Regulating District.

"We expect, pending any barriers out there, to have a proposed permit fee schedule in place for December," said the director. "That is the goal right now. We can't go any faster."

This news, however, was not enough to quiet the more than 150 permit holders on hand at the district's meeting Monday.

Permit holders who live around the lake are upset about the district's plan to increase rates. The district previously released a new rate schedule that included some increases of around 1,000 percent. The district withdrew that proposed schedule, however, after people complained.

During the district's Monday Board of Directors meeting, which took place at the Holiday Inn to accommodate the large anticipated turnout, board members provided insight into expenses related to the permits, including a financial report from the district's private auditor.

As part of expenses related to the permits, the district expects to spend $810,511 for the labor and other costs for operating the system.

In the past, the district has used fees from permits to pay for property taxes the district pays, administrative salaries and benefits. Loveless said some of these items have been removed as part of the latest review.

The regulating district has about 4,700 permit holders who pay an annual cost for access to the lake.

In September, the regulating district released a proposed permit plan that would have boosted fees by 500 percent to more than 1,000 percent.

This 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 have seen their fee soar to $700.

The district removed the plan before its October meeting.

Since then, the regulating district has been the target of public outrage and has even drawn attention from the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform. Any proposed permit fee plan will now require the approval of this state agency.

On Oct. 22, the regulating district met in Northville to gather public responses. The responses will eventually be presented to the 4,700 permit holders through a bulk mailing system that is being developed, Loveless said.

On Monday, nearly two hours was devoted to public comment. Some residents spoke from a podium while others shouted from their seats.

"Since the meeting on Oct. 22, I haven't seen a lot of changes," said Larry Hogan, a permit holder.

Joyce Canfield, a resident of Broadalbin, expressed her disappointment and criticized the board for lack of information during its meetings.

"You shortchanged us, and you should all be ashamed," Canfield told the board.

Peter VanAvery, co-founder of the Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee, said that for years the district has lied to residents in newsletters and handbooks regarding how high water levels would rise in the spring.

"You need to restore public confidence in this agency," VanAvery said.

VanAvery made some suggestions, which included selling the shoreline property to the owners and removing the permit system.

As the public comment session continued, members of the audience shouted questions at the board.

"All we get is no answers," shouted one resident.

"You fellas are being paid very well, and we are getting nothing," said another.

The next board meeting will take place Dec. 15. Loveless said the district will try to have the meeting at the same location.

DAILY GAZETTE
Schenectady, NY
November 3, 2003

Lake agency vows new plan for fees
200 attend regulating district meeting; some criticize initial permit proposal

By JOE MAHER Gazette Reporter

JOHNSTOWN — A new proposal for Great Sacandaga Lake access permit fees will be available before the regulating district's Dec. 15 board meeting, its director said Monday.

Some 200 people attended Monday's meeting of the Hudson River Black River Regulating District. Several who spoke criticized the agency, which manages the manmade reservoir in Fulton and Saratoga counties. The meeting was held at the Holiday Inn to accommodate the crowd.

The regulating district had proposed to increase access permit fees by 500 to 1,000 percent. The plan was quickly withdrawn in the face of public opposition about two months ago.

Regulating district Executive Director Willard Loveless said the district is working closely with the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform to develop a new three-year budget and access permit fee schedule. He said that has slowed the process.

"We do expect, pending any barriers, to have a proposed fee schedule in place by December. We can't go any faster," he said. The fee schedule would be "justifiable and defendable," he added. Peter Byron, vice president of the Great Sacandaga Lake Association, thanked the district for providing a forum for people to be heard and for providing information regarding the cost of operating the permit system.

"Up until this point we had a monologue," he said.

Others were less kind.

Joyce Canfield said it was irresponsible of the district to hold public meetings without having firm numbers to discuss.

"You shortchanged us and you should all be ashamed," she said.

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

The current fee for a 10-foot strip of lakefront is $43 and the new rate would have been $200. For 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 district released the results Monday of an analysis of the costs associated with the permit system as requested by critics.

The permit fees are intended to cover 80 percent of the cost of running the system with the district writing off the other 20 percent in recognition of the work that permit holders do on the regulating district's property.

Including labor and general expenses the district expects to spend $810,511 next year to operate the system.

Loveless said that in the past the administrator's salary and benefits were assessed to the permit holders, as were property taxes the district pays. Those items have been removed from the formula as a part of the latest review, he said.

About a dozen people in attendance addressed the board during the two-hour session.

David Agee of the Woodland Beach Association repeated a request first made by Peter Van Avery of the Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee: The district should sell the shoreline property to the adjacent property owners and do away with the permit system.

Guy Poulin noted that the Great Sacandaga is the only one of five regulating district lakes that has a permit system.

John McKee of Schenectady and Edinburg said the district should just do away with the permit system and allow free access to the lake.

Van Avery said the agency has to restore public trust and confidence and again called on the state comptroller's office to audit its books.

The board meets next on Dec. 15.

TIMES UNION
Albany, NY
November 4, 2003

Lake permit holders await fee decision

Mayfield-- Great Sacandaga district pulls back from plan to boost $56 access charge to $400

By LEIGH HORNBECK, Staff writer
First published: Tuesday, November 4, 2003

Marilyn Sargent no longer fears she will be asked to pay $400 for her access permit on the Great Sacandaga Lake next year, a more than 600 percent increase, but she still doesn't know what the permit will cost.

The Hudson River-Black River Regulating District, the state agency that oversees the lake, pulled back from a move to dramatically increase access permit fees last month but made no indication at a meeting Monday what residents can expect in 2004. The lake, built in the 1930s to prevent the Hudson River from flooding Albany and other cities downstream, is actually a reservoir.

The state owns a strip of land all along the water, and private landowners on the other side of the strip must pay for a permit each year for docks and access to the water.

Sargent owns property in Batchellerville and for 15 years has held a permit for 87 feet of lake shore. Hers is among 4,600 permits issued on 125 miles of shoreline. She said her bill from the regulating district hasn't changed much since 1987, always within the $56 range.

The district's executive director, Willard Loveless, said the fee structure is largely the same as it was in the late 1960s and for years has not paid for itself, requiring subsidies from elsewhere in the district's $7 million budget.

Sargent said it was only through legal advertisements that lake residents found out about the proposed increase, but backlash gathered momentum quickly. A crowd estimated at near 1,000 people overflowed the Northville High School auditorium at a meeting the regulating district held in October.

"The feedback has had an absolute influence," Loveless said Monday. "It's forced the district not to go along with the status quo but look into the costs of the permit system."

Loveless said the four-member board gave a report Monday on costs that go into running the permit system, complying with a request from permit holders. Twelve full-time employees were counted in that budget, from secretaries to maintenance workers. Loveless said property changes hands frequently along the lake, and because the permit is not attached to the deed, regulating district employees are required to go out and survey the land.

While Sargent and Peter VanAvery, Batchellerville Bridge Action Committee co-chairman, said they are pleased that the district board appears to be listening, they remained skeptical.

"I don't trust anything the district says," VanAvery said. "You have better luck following a dried pea in a shell game in Times Square than the budget gyrations of this agency."

A revised fee schedule, with increases Loveless said will be less dramatic than those previously proposed, will be presented at the regulating district's next monthly meeting, Dec. 15. The proposal will undergo public hearings and review by the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform Process and is not likely to be finalized until after the first of the year.