The Process Resumes...

Technically, that document would be the long awaited Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), which the agency had originally expected in mid-2008. When received, it will provide the first formal description by the developer of the project’s environmental impacts as conceptually greenlighted by then-Governor Spitzer following his unprecedented suspension of its environmental review process in 2007.
Under the terms of the “Agreement in Principal” (AIP) brokered by Spitzer and announced in September 2007, the state - along with other parties - signed onto a non-binding agreement allowing expanded development plans for 760 acres of Crossroads Ventures landholdings in Highmount, contiguous with the state-owned Belleayre Mountain Ski Center. Under that agreement, another roughly 1,208 acres of company landholdings to the east of the ski center would remain undeveloped, to be acquired by the state for inclusion into the Forest Preserve.
That land sale has yet to be completed due, among other reasons, to what sources report as issues with quitclaim deeds on some 40 acres of the landholdings, which the state appears forbidden by law from acquiring. And as of press time, the actual availability of state funds for the sale couldn’t be confirmed. But assuming such outstanding issues are eventually resolved, Crossroads is expected to receive about $6 million from the sale of those properties to the state. Also, the sale appears to be a precondition to withdrawing opposition to further development, at least for some of the environmental groups that signed on to the 2007 deal.
As for the project as currently proposed, the Spitzer AIP calls for a new hotel, a spa, and new housing construction off County Route 49A in Highmount, including the building of roads and private homes at over three thousand feet in elevation along Belleayre Ridge. Proposed, in total, for Crossroads’ resort complex are approximately 1.2 million square feet of new construction, including 928 hotel rooms and lodging bedrooms. As currently configured, the project’s room count is about 20% larger than when its original plans were first unveiled at a Shandaken town board meeting in October, 1999.
“We are going ahead as we envisioned in the Agreement in Principal,” said Gitter. “We anticipate going before the planning boards of the towns of Margaretville and Shandaken that we are in, and that we will complete that process by the spring of 2011.”
Going forward, however, will be a complex process. Under the state’s SEQRA law, DEC has determined that the review of the proposed resort must be conducted jointly and together with planned changes to, and expansion of the adjacent state-owned ski center. Further complicating things, at least from a regulatory standpoint involving propriety, is that DEC which is serving as lead agency in the joint review, also operates the ski center and is the new project’s co-applicant.
According to DEC sources, when Crossroads does submit its SDEIS, it will need to be reviewed by the department’s staff for adequacy, with any changes requested provided prior to such a determination. The agency will then need to prepare and release its own Unit Management Plan (UMP) for the Ski Center, together with a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for its portion of the project.
Once the UMP is submitted, a public comment period will be established which is expected to include a public hearing. Upon its conclusion, and once the developer’s SDEIS and the agency’s UMP/DEIS are both reviewed and revised for adequacy, DEC will need to produce a Cumulative Impact Assessment, detailing the combined environmental impacts of both projects.
When drafts of all three documents have been deemed complete, the agency will make a determination that they have been accepted for public review. Another review period and public hearing will follow; at its conclusion, DEC will go to work on drafting the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which will be written to reflect public comments. Although that document would substantially consist of materials provided by the developer, once accepted as adequate by the agency it becomes the agency’s document and the only relevant document. If substantial issues remain unresolved at any of several points in this process, legal challenges could require adjudication: effectively a “trial” for the data and analysis under consideration.
So that’s the SEQRA process ahead for the proposed Belleayre Resort and Belleayre Mountain Ski Center, as the joint project moves toward the preparation of an eventual FEIS. How long this process might take is something that no one directly involved in the regulatory community – at least at this early stage – is willing to speculate about publicly.
In addition, however, to DEC and Crossroads Ventures, there are other “involved parties” to the process; principally state agencies and local governments including planning boards which have statutory obligations to review and issue or deny pending permits for the project. DEC does expect Crossroads to submit applications for those permits at the same time as it submits its SDEIS, which is presumably now within weeks. But although these “involved parties” can meet, review submissions and seek information for findings they will ultimately make, they are not permitted to make any findings, any permit decisions, until the entire SEQRA process is completed. Whether that’s actually likely to happen by, say, the spring of 2011 or any other spring coming up soon… that’s something we’ll just have to keep you posted on…

---

Should Belleayre Be Sold?

“Blueprint for a Better Budget: A Plan of Action for New York State” was created for the Albany-based Empire Center for New York State Policy by analysts E.J. McMahon and Josh Barro of the Manhattan Institute, a New York based economics think tank with a decidely limited government and private enterprise slant, and released last weekend with a quiet thud.
“This document represents an effort to develop a fiscally practical, comprehensive approach to putting New York State’s budgetary house in order,” the tome starts soberly. “It explains why and how the state developed such massive budget deficits. It identifies programmatic changes to begin closing the gaps and to put the state’s finances on a more stable footing. It explains how privatization and competitive contracting can help produce more efficient and affordable public services. It proposes structural reforms to improve the state budget process and to reduce costs at every level of government in New York. Finally, it outlines tax policy goals to promote renewed economic growth.”
Then it kicks off with a hefty, “New York State is broke. After decades of growing reliance on taxes generated by Wall Street, the revenue side of the state budget has collapsed to a level from which it will only slowly recover… Like a runaway train, New York’s budget is in danger of running completely off the rails. It needs to be brought under control—before it’s too late.”
What follows looks good in portions, but adds up quickly as it renders everything in its sights to be fiscally unfeasible or redundant. Hspitalize the elderly less, cease paying for optional medical services through public funding, raise SUNY college tuitions more, freeze all public sector salaries, cap mental hygiene spending, then work it down. Stop spending on capital projects. Forget bike and hiking trails, and start cutting public transportation costs. It’s not worth it, in the anyslists’ view.
“New York can (a) raise sorely needed one-shot cash to help finance its transition to more sustainable budgets, (b) realize recurring savings through increased productivity and avoided costs, and (c) tap the innovation and expertise of the private sector to undertake complex infrastructure projects by: selling government-owned assets and enterprises to the private sector, exploring the use of public-private partnerships to develop and maintain major infrastructure projects, and promoting competitive contracting of government services.”
Fine, in theory. But then the specifics hit… the selling off of SUNY campuses, Battery Park City, and other public housing. Finally, it all hits home…
“The state owns three ski areas—Bellayre in the Catskills, and Whiteface and Gore Mountain in the Adirondacks—which compete to a degree with private operators. The Belleayre ski slope in particular, located with a few hours’ drive of the New York City metropolitan area market, would be a prime candidate for a long-term lease to a private operator.”
At which point we started checking to see how this survey was being reacted to.
“They obviously have an agenda that is not consistent with working people in New York,” he said, said union spokesman Stephen Madarasz of the CSEA, noting how the Empire Center is funded by corporations and beholden to their own special interests. He added that union contracts are binding agreements that were fairly negotiated.
Darcy Wells, spokeswoman for the New York State Public Employees Federation, another union representing a large number of state employees, offered an opinion similar to Madarasz’s.
“We don’t feel that the Empire Center is really interested in meaningful debate,” said Wells. “This is all about private business as if that’s all who made up this state.”
Meanwhile, at the State DEC, which owns and operates Belleayre, spokesman Yancey Roy declined comment. Ditto county and school officials whose aid was being threatened with more than just cuts.
Let’s see if this represents an opening salvo of anything meaningful, or is just another hollow boom, in the end…

---

New Year, New Issues

A few housekeeping items needed attention, including approval of the minutes from the re-organizational meeting of January 4, which brought in newly elected, past Council Member Linda Burkhardt, and renewed oaths for re-elected Council Member Bruce LaMonda, Supervisor Berndt Liefeld, Road Superintendent Jim Fugel and Justice Tim Cox.
Under New Business, Supervisor Leifeld introduced an offer by Ed Zellefrow, retired from the cell tower industry and a personal friend of past council member, Helen Chase, to meet with the town to review maps showing current cell coverage. Discussion brought up the possibility of using the Samsonville Fire House as a location for a tower that might offer better and more expanded coverage to that portion of the town not served well by the tower on South Mountain. It was agreed that Zellefrow would be contacted for a meeting at 7:00 PM Jan. 22 in the Town Hall. The public is invited to attend.
Larry Brown, an alternative energy systems consultant, brought up a grant which has become available for small municipalities to reduce their electric dependency and become more self efficient. There is approximately $7 million to be shared competitively in Ulster County. The American Recovery and Investment Act will be reviewing applications for any buildings in the town in need of improvement to make them more efficient, for up to $500,000 in grant money that can be used for a variety of purposes. Each individual project requires a separate application.
Brown will meet with the supervisor next Wednesday morning to take a tour of the buildings and see what might be possible. LaMonda suggested that any funds for Brown’s services might come from the town’s Capital Reserves.
A resolution was approved to proceed with application to the Catskill Watershed Corp for a $50,000 Grant to let the town revamp its long-pending Master Plan. Resolution Number 2 was read in support of the Lower Esopus River Grant concerning reservoir water releases. While Olive is not as impacted by these releases as some, the purpose of the resolution was to lend support for the project, which will be working to effectively control releases to prevent turbidity, flooding and other issues (see separate story in briefs inside).
New fee structures were discussed for the town’s Building Department, Transfer Station/Landfill, and Recreation & Parks Department. Gene Sorbolini of the Rec & Parks Committee presented the board with the Committee’s proposed fee changes, including one new charge. Current fees for using the pool - day use will go from $2 to $3 an adult and from $1 to $2 per child under 12. Season passes will rise from $35 to $45 for singles; and from $50 to $75 for families. Olive’s Day Camp - which enjoys attendance of over 200 children from throughout the town, will see charges will rise from $20 per child for six weeks of activities to $30 for one child; $50 for two children and $70 for three or more children. All transportation is included.
A final recommendation was made to initiate a fee for reserved use of the park. Currently, the park charges a deposit of $200 to each group or person who reserves the park for large functions. This deposit is returned in it’s entirety after inspection of the premises reveals that trash has been removed and everything is in working order. The suggestion is to continue with the deposit with an additional fee of $100 to offset electric and other services.
Immediate discussion ensued with concerns that some families might not be able to afford even the very modest fee increases. Ron Aja, West Shokan, asked if any analysis had been done or any estimate of what increase in revenue these proposed fees might produce. Sorbolini admitted that the Recreation Committee had not gone back through the records to do any such analysis, but that it would be possible because records were kept on past attendance, and records were kept on reservations at the park. It was also noted that no child has ever been denied entrance to the pool or the Day Camp program because of funding.
Everett Cook brought up his concern that certain organizations, like the VFW or American Legion, church groups or other not-for-profit groups would no longer use the park because the fees might be too restrictive. General consensus agreed that the language and fee structure would need to reflect that small groups or families who just want to use the park for an impromptu BBQ or small birthday gathering - including the VFW and other not-for-profit groups - would not be charged.
The proposed fee changes and suggestions were eventually tabled.
Former Supervisor, Vince Barringer made a suggestion that one way to help fund other, necessary services in Olive would be to dissolve the Police Department. He stated that larger towns than Olive have no police departments, including Hurley, Marbletown, and Warwarsing. These towns depend on the services already being provided by the Ulster County Sheriff’s Dept and State Police. UC Sheriff’s Dept. have a substation in Shandaken and there is a three-man State Police barracks in Shokan.
LaMonda argued that the Sheriff’s Department only has one car in our area to cover Shandaken and Olive. And State Police were not likely to patrol our back roads. When Barringer suggested that NYC DEP Police were available, it was brought out that NYC DEP Police have been told not to respond to Olive calls, and therefore, they do not. Barringer asked when Olive had solved a major crime, to which LaMonda responded that the presence of the officers acts as a deterrent to a possible crime.
In other business, the Board approved the reappointment of Richard Wolff to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was noted by Supervisor Leifeld that when an appointed member of a board expresses interest in being reappointed, the board would generally approve that re-appointment, and the position would not be advertised.

---

End Game For Large Parcel Saga?

To dramatize the point a bit, suppose you made an agreement with a day care center to take your toddlers from eight in the morning to noon but the contract you signed left out the part about picking them up. Do they get to keep the kids? That would be analogous to the way Blumstein presents the Large Parcel Law (LPL) in his 36 page case Blumstein v. Paterson, et al , which also includes another 22 pages of documents and appendices.                  

“Basically, the tale is told in the words of the creators of the law,” Blumstein observed, putting emphasis on a line which appeared in the Sponsor’s Memo which introduced the bill to the state legislature, spelling out its purpose to the legislators who would be voting on it, and in a descriptive letter explaining the law to the Governor’s office. The all important line included in the memo but missing in the law was “Procedures are optional and can only be used if all effected municipalities opt to use the large parcel equalization process.”                                                                       

Without that provision, Blumstein asserts, the LPL violates at least 17 other laws, senate rules and portions of the state constitution, including a vital Home Rule code of municipal rights within that constitution. As illustration of senate rule violation, the suit highlights two portions of Section VI of Rules of the Senate which deal with the integrity and timing of how new legislation is introduced. Leaving out that crucial sentence, he adds, invalidates it as law by inserting an adversarial component that involves a question of equity under the law which must, by law, be determined in a judicial venue rather than by legislative or executive decree.                        

Saying his motivation for this legal offensive came from the apprehensions of neighbors each year when the annual Large Parcel option was being considered by Ulster County legislators and the Onteora school board, Blumstein said that, in the current economic situation, tax increases are “already baked into the cake” and that the addition of a 20 or 30% Large Parcel tax increase on top of that would be a crushing blow , especially to fixed-income residents of the effected towns.

“Two years ago, there was a tie-vote at the county level on their LPL option because three legislators were absent,” Blumstein said. “So because of a few absentees, we had a huge tax hike looming over us and my neighbors were extremely worried. I’m hoping that, by Wednesday, I’ll have letters of support from the Olive town board and other effected towns (Andes, Warwarsing, Hurley, Neversink), which represent about 18,500 people.”

A letter from Olive supervisor Berndt Leifeld, who planned to attend the suit’s preliminary meeting in Albany with Blumstein and councilman Bruce LaMonda, speaks of the “severity of impacts” due to the law experienced by 4,800 residents of Olive in 2004. It goes on to state that it “generated wild upward swings in the Real Property Tax levy...of approximately 26% for the school and approximately 51% for the County levy with no provision made to amortize the huge tax levy spikes... (It also) created an annual climate of fear amongst the population of large upward tax swings...(and) a climate of rancor and enmity between the Towns which are members of the Onteora School District causing rancorous demonstrations and school budgets voted down,,,”                             

Leifeld’s letter to the Honorable Thomas J. McNamara of the NYS Supreme Court, who has been assigned the case, also notes that the sponsors of the law had “acknowledged the problem and advised the Town Board that the problem would be resolved by the legislature” but, as Blumstein points out, they “dropped the ball” and that’s why he was picking it up in this lawsuit. In fact, the law’s sponsors DID recognize the problem and its lead sponsor, Senator William J. Larkin, stated emphatically in a letter to a Town of Olive attorney that it was never the LPL’s intention to create a law which could not be negated by an effected municipality’s “nay” vote.                                                                      

How could such a decisive phrase get lost in the lawmaking process? Blumstein suspects it may have been a “typographical error of omission” since the line was situated at the very end of a section of the law.

“Something fell off which entirely changed the nature and function of the law,” Blumstein noted. “It changed it into a law where there could be a matter of equity at stake and a matter of someone having to judge what that equity is and that can only be done in the judiciary... Matters of assessment equity have been settled in Olive in the Supreme Court for at least a century. We’re been in court repeatedly with New York City over values within the town for at least that long.”                                      

And, since members of the legislature said, years ago, that the law would be “fixed,” why hasn’t that been done?                       “

You’re dealing with a dysfunctional organization,” Blumstein replies, citing an influential 2004 study by NYU’s School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice titled “New York State Legislative Process: An Evaluation and Blueprint for Reform” which, despite initial negative responses from former Senator Joseph Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, provided detailed analysis of “dysfunctional” elements of the legislature and its processes that has since sparked reform measures and initiatives within that body, including a contentious battle to define ethical standards. Former Governor Eliot Spitzer had adopted a number of the report’s concerns in June 2007 and conferred with the Center on campaign finance reform. The ongoing reform struggle was updated by the Brennan Center in 2006 with “Unfinished Business: NYS Legislative Reform” and in 2088 with “Still Broken: NYS Legislative Reform.” Blumstein observes that the original 98 page report contains several pages “specifically related to situations like this.”                  I

t is uncertain when Wednesday’s meeting in Albany might produce results.
 

---

OCS Budget Looking Dire

At the January 5 school board meeting at Woodstock Elementary, Assistant Superintendent for Business Don Gottlieb presented figures that were designed to give the board a rough idea of what they would be dealing with for next year’s budget. He explained that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) projections are coming in at zero, with a loss of approximately $800,000 in state aid, and nearly half of interest revenue down. Health care could see an increase between ten and twelve percent, retirement may increase between four and five percent. He also added that BOCES could increase by 2.5 percent.
Taking all of this into account, Gottlieb said, “To get to a contingent budget, you would have to reduce the budget that is presented to you by $2.76 million.” That means making significant cuts on an already lean budget or presenting the voters with an increased tax levy.
“The employee benefits actually account for, believe it or not, 30 percent of our budget,” said school board Trustee Tony Fletcher.
Doing some quick calculations, he added that in the budget Gottlieb presented for next school year, health care eats up nearly half of the projected increases or $1.36 million. Fletcher also pointed out that last year health care spending increased over ten percent.
“Therefore it was 25 percent in the last two years, and that’s with staff giving back a greater contribution as well,” he noted.
Gottlieb outlined decisions that the board may be facing in the transportation department for next year. He said the board would need to decide if they should present to voters in May the purchase of a 65 passenger bus and 7 passenger bus. This would replace two old buses, each with nearly 200,000 miles on the clock.
Gottlieb said that Transportation Director Dave Moraca is proposing the board look into a multi-year contract capped at a three percent increase. A multi-year contract would need voter approval.
“The vendor (Birnie Bus Service) has proposed a five year relationship with a cap of three-percent or CPI, which ever is less,” Gottlieb said, adding that within the contract would be “a number of caveats” for the district to have if they choose to cancel it.
Gottlieb also noted that the projected CPI could increase in a few years as the economy begins to bounce back.
“If you think rates are going to increase dramatically, then this could be a wonderful deal,” he said. “But if you believe they are going to stay very low, then it may not be so wonderful.”
According to law, bus companies cannot set rates beyond the CPI, which for buses is set in May.
Opening up bus contract bids in order to control costs through multiple contracts was reviewed with the board comparing costs in other districts with multiple contracts. Currently, the district contracts out to Birnie Bus Service, who owns small feeder bus companies including Mulligan. Moraca pointed out that Birnie, the largest company in the state, now owns most of the smaller companies.
Trustee Rob Kurnit thanked Moraca for providing the information, noting that in the past contracting to one company has been a contentious issue. Using Rondout School district as an example, Kurnit said, “Based on this information our costs (per routes) may be a little lower than their costs.”
Moraca said that because the district pays per run instead of locking in a fixed route, it works to the benefit of such a large district. The transportation department’s overall budget is over $3 million, with $2.57 million going to Birnie bus.
Craig Lipps, General Manager of Mulligan Bus Company overseeing Onteora, Saugerties and Kingston school districts, said that Birnie has a very good record of keeping costs down, with a very high safety record.
“With the school bus being the safest form of transportation on the planet, we gotta hold that up and we try to stand out above the rest,” Lipps said. “I think you guys can see that over the last year, we have improved in service since Birnie’s taken over and I work with other school districts in the area to make sure this service is maintained and you get a great value for the cost.”
In other news, Gottlieb announced that a cyber attack took place in the Duanesburg school district outside Albany, where someone was able to initially transfer nearly $3 million electronically into various overseas bank accounts. He said $2 million was recovered.
“What I want to do is assure the district, board and community that immediately upon receiving the news release, Monica Kim, your treasurer, and I met and reviewed our procedures with regard to wire transfers and we’ve already been in contact with our banking partners and hopefully it won’t happen here.”
This was Gottlieb’s last board meeting with the district. School board president Laurie Osmond thanked him for his dedicated work. Victoria McLaren will be returning from maternity leave in a couple weeks.

Student representative Susie Sofranko announced High School student survey results. She said on an average of one to five, with five as the best rate, overall student’s satisfaction with the school came in at four. This was based on curriculum, art and sports. Issues they would like to see the district address included cafeteria food, replacing bathroom stalls, beautification of the courtyard and having hand sanitizers in the bathrooms.
Trustee Anne McGillicuddy said the next café chat would be at Sweet Sues in Phoenicia on Thursday January 14 from 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon.
She said no one attended the first two café chats and the board will try to advertise around the towns hoping people will attend.
On Thursday January 21, beginning at 6:30pm in the new High School auditorium, the district is hosting a speaker series titled, “The Role of Local Government in Education.” Guest speakers will be Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, County Executive Mike Hein, Hurley Supervisor Gary Bellows, Olive Supervisor Berndt Leifeld, Woodstock Supervisor Jeff Moran, and Shandaken Supervisor Rob Stanley.
The event will be moderated by Woodstock Times Editor Brian Hollander and will end with a question session.

---

---

---