The Phoenicia Times - Follow Up on the News

According to most involved parties in the process, from state officials and the developers to environmental organizations that signed on to Spitzer’s AIP and those still fighting it, the resulting document, at 157 pages, is comprehensive and groundbreaking… in most ways.
It also seems that the process of creating the Scope, as the blueprint for ensuring Draft Environmental Impact statements and Unit Management Plans from the developers and state is termed, resulted in some key changes to the project being proposed made during the “scoping process” that included two nights of public hearings and hundreds of written comments.
In particular, the state’s ski area expansion plans have shrunk somewhat, drawing some concern from long-term Belleayre enthusiasts and resort supporters… as well as opponents who were looking forward to the added ski trails on the mountain.
“The scope was significantly broadened with a number of things changing as it reached its final form,” said state DEC Region Three Director Willie Janeway of the document prepared by staff in Albany. “It now include a number of issues not there before, such as a whole new focus on climate change issues, new alternatives, including scenarios with or without the developers’ proposed spa, and the ski trail changes.”
Janeway added that most of those changes came in response to comments heard at the December hearings or received during the written comment period that ended in early January.
Higher up, the state’s Deputy Secretary for the Environment, Judith Enck – who served as the chief negotiator for what would become the current AIP that the scope seeks to address – said in a recent interview that she was particularly proud of the climate change criteria for the private and public components of the Scope, a national first for such things, as far as she knew.
On a private level, the month since the document’s release have been marked by continuing spin from those for and against the Resort proposal.
Opponents of the proposal were joined by the Adirondack Mountain Club and other organizations decrying the size of the resort, while those in favor cried foul about cuts to the ski area expansion and set up a lobbying trip to Albany for March 27… which they said would likely be the first of many such activities.
The document itself is split into three basic sections involving the state’s plans, the developer’s Belleayre Resort proposal, and a discussion of ways to assess the potential cumulative impacts of both. Last time around, before the resort project ended up in adjudication, with appeals, the gap between scoping and final acceptance of a complete DEIS took well over a year. And although the new work on the part of Crossroads Ventures, the resort developers, has been termed a “Supplemental” EIS that can arguably build upon past submissions, the state’s part of the process, which will include its Unit Management Plans for its long-awaited expansion, could take conceivably longer.
The new document even goes so far as to address those critics who spoke out and wrote letters suggesting that the DEC’s review of its own project could be construed as a conflict of interest.
“The Agreement does not change the Department’s legal obligations to create an environmental record in support of its own and other agencies’ permitting decisions, as well as its own facility development or land acquisition decisions,” the new Scope reads. “ Within the SEQR process, the Agreement represents the project proposal and the project sponsor’s preferred alternative. The Department staff is under no obligation to accept that alternative, in whole or in part, but must evaluate potential impacts of that alternative as part of the Department’s environmental review under SEQR.”
Among subjects set to be studied in the pending documents will be the potential effects of diverting waters from the Ashokan to the Delaware River basin via snowmaking, including that water’s potential flood impact; possible traffic impacts on intersections and stretches of road as far away as the Kingston Thruway exchange, including accident trends; possible visual impacts throughout the central Catskills, including all wilderness high peak areas;
Climate change studies will work with recent reports that envisioned winter snowfall changes over the coming 50 years, study means of shrinking the combined project’s carbon footprint, and look into both the viability of ski areas in the SoutheasternU.S. and possible impacts on other privately owned ski areas in the Catskills and New York State.
“Anticipated cumulative impacts of the modified private development plan in relation to the expansion of the Ski Center include, but are not limited to: water quality, water supply, aesthetics, noise, transportation, and community character<’ the Scope notes at one point, although it also goes out of its way to note that matters of strict community character and economic competition concern are not in the purview of state environmental review laws.
“When the present Supplemental Environmental Review Study is completed, in conformity with the new scoping document, the Belleayre Resort will have proven to be the most closely examined private development in the history of New York State,” wrote the project’s private developers in a February 28 press release. “Crossroads Ventures, Inc. is confident that we will be able to mitigate all the issues raised and develop a resort that is in the vanguard of environmental responsibility while giving a lasting boost to the regional economy of the Catskills.”
A March 4 press release put out by the seven environmental organizations that signed onto the AIP last September, meanwhile, praised the scope for having included a section on cumulative impacts of both developments, something they fought for during the previous review process, unsuccessfully, and expressed “general satisfaction with the detail and thoroughness of the final scope, and with the comprehensiveness of the upcoming review that the scope foreshadows.”
They also applauded the State’s decision to drop the proposed Belleayre East trails, a matter that had Joe Kelly, head of the recently renamed Coalition To Save Belleayre and a member of the new pro-resort Patterns for Progress group based in nearby Margaretville, fuming when he found out about it.
Deeper into the signers’ press release came a statement that could be seen as a step back, though.
“The environmental groups’ support of the AIP must not be misconstrued as overall support for the proposed project. Signing the AIP does not commit us to supporting every aspect of the current proposal in full – in the AIP we agreed that the lower impact alternative is preferable to that originally proposed,” the statement read. “We continue to share ongoing community concerns about specific issues – including viewshed impacts, stormwater controls, community character, and the number of ridgeline units – and will continue to closely monitor and actively participate in the ongoing environmental review of the revised project contemplated in the AIP.”
Janeway, for his part, described the process’ next steps, getting the SEIS, DEIS and UMP ready, as “a lot of work for a lot of people. “We will be thorough.”
For more on the scope, including an online copy of the actual document, visit http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/42345.html and follow the links…

The Empire Zone program is a New York State economic development program designed to encourage businesses to locate, expand and create new jobs in the State. The purpose of this program is to enable businesses to operate free of New York State taxes for up to 10 years. In order to qualify for the benefits of this program a business must be located in an empire zone, make new investments within their business and create new jobs.
In Ulster County there are seven existing “sub zones,” the most allowed under program guidelines. They are the City of Kingston, the town of Ulster, Northern Saugerties, Southern Saugerties, the town of Warwarsing, Ellenville and the town of Lloyd.
Finkle said Crossroads could get a sub zone designation if two existing zones were consolidated. Asked which zones would be joined together, Finkle said discussion on that is premature but he believes it can be done.
“There is an opportunity here,” Finkle said
But first, he said, the Shandaken town board would need to pass a resolution requesting the status. The first steps toward that action are expected to take place on Monday, April 7th at Shandaken Town Hall. Supervisor Peter DiSclafaani said he expects Crossroads representatives to give a presentation that evening, and Finkle said he expected to be on hand to provide information. DiSclafani said that no resolution has been prepared yet.
Crossroads spokesman Paul Rakov said Tuesday that the town board knows they are coming.
“We plan to speak at the April Shandaken Town Board meeting and request that the Board indicate its support of Empire Sub-zone designation for the acreage contained in the Belleayre Resort if/when it is presented as an option by the State,” he said. “We have communicated this to all town board members in writing as of two weeks ago.”
Rakov also says this plan is better for the town than the tax break opportunities originally investigated.
“There is no down-side to this Empire Sub-zone designation for the town. Shandaken gets more money and gets it faster.”
According to Rakov, The town would receive 100 percent of the taxes levied on the property from year one. The alternative is the abatement program which Crossroads previously indicated it would seek. Under that plan, first announced in 2003, the standard development abatement program would require only 50 percent of the taxes in year one, increasing by 5 percent each year for 10 years.
“Based on an overall project value of $400 million, and adjusting for non-taxable expenses, the town would receive approximately $23.7 million in general and highway taxes over that ten year period if Empire Sub-zone status is approved,” Rakov said.” If not, the town would receive only $17.4 million – a net loss of $6.3 million – through the abatement program.”
Rakov also suggests that Crossroads is hoping to use the Empire Zone option be cause it’s best for the town even though there are other options better for Crossroads.
“Two alternative, and more favorable, abatement programs exist for developers and for which the Resort would likely qualify. They would result in a net loss to the town of $16.6 million and $22 million over the same 10-year period,” he said.
DiSclafani reserved judgment on the plan this week, opting to wait until he hears the presentation before making any decisions.
Alluding to the long and constant tension about the proposed project, Rakov said the Board can avoid taking sides.
“Indicating support of the Empire Sub-zone designation for the Resort property is NOT an indication of support for the Resort itself. This has absolutely no affect on the SEQRA process nor the approval process of the Shandaken planning board,” he said. “It simply means that IF the Resort were to be approved for construction and operation, the town would seek Empire Sub-zone designation to take advantage of the tax benefits. We are seeking the board’s indication of approval of this designation now as a matter of timing that results from possible imminent changes in our region’s Empire Sub-zone designations.”
Participating businesses are eligible to receive the following tax credits and exemptions:
• QEZE Sales Tax Exemptions: Qualified Empire Zone Enterprises (QEZEs) are granted a 10-year exemption from State sales tax on purchases of goods and services (including utility services) used predominantly in an Empire Zone.
• QEZE Credit for Real Property Taxes: Qualified Empire Zone Enterprises are allowed a refundable credit against business or income tax equal to a percentage of real property taxes paid in the zone.
• QEZE Tax Reduction Credit: Qualified Empire Zone Enterprises are allowed a credit against business or income tax equal to a percentage of taxes attributable to the zone enterprise.
• EZ Wage Tax Credit: This credit is available for up to five consecutive years for companies hiring full-time employees in newly created jobs. For employees in special targeted groups, this credit equals $3,000 per year, with a credit of $1,500 per year for all other new hires.
• EZ Investment Tax and Employment Incentive Credits: Businesses that create new jobs and make new investments in production, property and equipment may qualify for tax credits of up to 19% of the company's eligible investment.
• New Business Refund: Businesses new to New York State are entitled to a 50% cash refund of unused EZ-WTC and ITC amounts. Other businesses may carry forward unused credits indefinitely.
• Utility Rate Savings: Special reduced electric and gas rates may be available through investor-owned utilities in New York State. Businesses that locate or expand their operations in an EZ may receive significantly reduced rates.
• Zone Capital Credit: A 25% tax credit against personal or corporate income taxes is available for contributing or purchasing shares in a zone capital corporation; or for a direct equity investment in a certified zone business; or for contributions to approved community development projects within an EZ.
• Sales Tax Refund or Credit: Purchases of building materials to be used for commercial or industrial real property located in an EZ are eligible for a refund or credit of NYS sales taxes.
• Real Property Tax Abatement: EZs may offer tax abatements from an increased assessment, with the abatement value based on improvements to real property for up to 10 years. This holds true for up to seven years at 100%, decreasing over the last three years of the exemption.
• Technical Assistance: Each local zone office is staffed with professionals qualified to assist businesses locating or expanding in an EZ.

Partly, you can chalk it all up to the season, when a budget for the coming year’s in discussion and candidates are lining up for three school board seats, each set to be fought for re-election against growing numbers of district stakeholders politicized by the Middle School and concurrent high figure bonding issues. But partly, you might also be hearing that it’s all tied, somehow, to the district concerns voiced earlier this month in a privately called-for and held parents meeting in West Hurley.
The relatively-new Onteora Parents Group hosted a community meeting at Hickory BBQ on March 5 where much discussion reached a general agreement that the best way to change the Onteora Central School district is to bring in a new school board majority. The group of 40 or so people who attended the meeting also agreed that a bond is needed to fix the aging facilities, but not the proposed $50-$80 million plan that would consolidate the district and create a 5-through-8 middle school.
Three board members are up for re-election this year: Mary-Jane Bernholz, Rita Vanacore and Cindy O’Connor, all from Olive and all three having voted in favor of creating the middle school that would result in the closure of another elementary school.
Someone noted at the March 5 meeting that five out of the seven board members are from Olive, elected exclusively to follow through on their campaign promise of not voting for the Large Parcel Legislation that would keep Olive’s taxes lower than the other communities. People agreed when someone said that the current board members have little interest in the other communities.
Parents with kids in the 6-7 Middle School that is currently connected to the High School complained about the lack of physical space and wondered if the district were consolidated if these problems would go away. Currently teachers must share classroom space. Children in grade seven have lunch at 10am, because they must use the same cafeteria that the High school occupies.
The group questioned the current lack of space and compared it to the projected population not changing much if an additional school closed. Angered, people said the board does not have a plan to solve such problems.
There was discussion on how to get people motivated to vote in towns other than Olive. Many blame apathy for low voter turnout. They explored reasons ranging from an influx of weekend homeowners, the mascot issue, the closure of West Hurley, taxes and lack of organization or community feeling.
Parent Robert Warren, also known as Uncle Rock, moderated the event and said this was the first of more such community meetings.
On March 11, Onteora’s little-known budget advisory committee then presented sobering statistics and made recommendations regarding the future of the school district. Recommendations included closing an additional elementary and selling two of the schools in the district as revenue, even though the latter would need voter approval… and would most logically be Woodstock. Other cuts included dropping the INDIE program and introducing a program similar to it into the High School, taught as an elective and consolidating the two bus runs into one for the entire district; reducing teachers salaries and increasing employee contributions during contract negotiations to fall in line with other school districts.
The committee also said they felt it was cost effective to create a five-through-eight middle school that would address declining enrollment and renovate the aging buildings that have become an expensive burden. By following through on the recommendations they said the district could have an annual proposed savings of $2.3 million turned over to the annual cost of a $2.2 to $2.5 million proposed bond.
According to district bond projections, an $80 million dollar bond beginning with $1,000.000 the first year would cost each taxpayer differently depending on what community they live in. On a $300,000 home Woodstock would pay $439 annually, Marbletown $403, West Hurley $396, and Olive $295. After the first year the bond cost would decline. The State would reimburse 31 percent of the total cost. Shandaken could not be calculated without an equalization rate.
Assistant superintendent for business Victoria McLaren did not calculate the per-pupil figures, but believed the committee made calculations based on taking the budget $46,775.318 and dividing it by the number of students.
The committee, chaired by Paul DeLisio, said that actual public controlled money is about 3-to-4 percent of the whole budget, with 50 percent committed to salary, 25 percent to benefits and 18 percent to salary and benefits for special education. The average teacher salary is $80,000, entry-level teachers salary with a bachelors degree is $50,900 and master’s degree is $53,687. The committee added that if the board wishes to cap the cost per student, they must reduce the current budget by $12 million over five years.
The committee spent four months reviewing the district budget with Superintendent Leslie Ford. Other members included, Drew Boggess, Jim Stoothoff, Sylvia Liedtke Tinti, and Pam Walkowiak.,,, four of the five being from Olive.
On March 25, Onteora school district superintendent Leslie Ford and assistant superintendent for business Victoria McLaren made their budget recommendation for the 2008-2009 school year. Their $46,775,318 budget proposal would increase by 3.08 percent or $1, 439,077 to $48,215,077. The levy is anticipated to increase to 2.84 percent. This is lower than the State required contingent budget of 3.51 percent.
The school board approved specific projects that will need voter approval on May 20, seeking $1,800,000 to make improvements on the Middle/High school infrastructure, replacing roofing and technology, and asking voters to approve the purchase of two 65 passenger buses at a total cost of $189,127.
McLaren called the budget “lean,” but also noted that State aid will be less this year because of higher property values. The district so far has saved $300,000 through teacher retirement.
General and special education were folded into one budget this year with no specific breakdown of the budget presented to public.
The deadline for handing in petitions to the district for candidates to the Onteora school board is 5pm on Monday April 21. Anyone who wishes to run for school board must collect at least 47 signatures from qualified voters living in the district. The term is three years, beginning July 1, 2008. Three board seats are available.
Incumbents Mary-Jane Bernholz, Cindy O’Connor and Rita Vanacore, whose terms end this year, have picked up petitions at the central office. Four others have picked up petitions, with only one confirmed candidate, Woodstock resident Donna Flayhan.

City Playing Nicey-Nice?

What happened… and is happening?
According to Leifeld, much of it is unknowable. But the dismissal, he added, seemed to be the direct result of the school district’s decision to join the town in its legal defense as an Intervenor. That’s because Acting State Supreme Court Justice Gerald W. Connelly said that he dismissed the City’s suit when it was pointed out to him that they had failed to properly serve notice to the Superintendent of the District and not its Clerk.
A previous ruling on the same case, by the late Supreme Court Justice Vincent Bradley, had similarly thrown out the City’s case after discovering that New York had hired an assessor not licensed to practice in the state. At that time, Bradley had added that he would likely rule, in the future, in New York’s favor were the Town of Olive not to implement a long-awaited revaluation. Which they then did, also taking off their backs a requirement for the Large Parcel law whose placement on Olive taxpayers resulted in a series of protest votes that shifted control of the school district to a more Olive-friendly, and ultimately tax-savvy board of trustees.
A number of years before, Olive and Onteora did lose one of the City’s appeals, forcing local taxpayers to pick up a hefty back tax bill… a scenario no one wants to repeat.
“This Intervenor thing came up and mostly the school pushed the issue,” said Leifeld of the legal moves that resulted in the recent dismissal, which the City could still appeal… although he hasn’t seen such indication of yet. “Our attorneys agreed that if you do it, we would sanction it. But had they not been Intervenors, I don’t think you would have seen this.”
Onteora became an Intervenor as a means of gaining a seat at the table for the legal proceedings that had previously been solely between Olive and the City, with monetary aid from a since-depleted $3 million fund set up at the CWC (with City money) just for the purpose of fighting City appeals of local assessments. Onteora argued, at Olive’s request, that since it would be liable for much of the asked-for tax burden the City was trying to get shifted, it should have a say in the matter.
Connelly’s decision now grants such status, as requested, to Onteora. Olive has also been asking other towns in the school district, and with reservoir lands, to join their ongoing lawsuits.
The City’s senior legal counsel in its Law Department, Tax and Bankruptcy Litigation office, Joseph Kropening, has since released a statement that he and his people “are currently reviewing the decision and deciding and determining the city’s next legal steps.”
Those would normally have included the current assessment appeal against Olive’s revaluated assessment of the reservoir for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, with a third appeal for the completing fiscal year expected, wherein New York is claiming a value of $150 million for the Ashokan versus Olive’s claim for $600 million and the state Office of Real Property Service’s estimate of $340 million.
According to Leifeld, an April 5 date has long been set to discuss the case, with City lawyers, in Connelly’s offices. But now, he said, “The other side seems to be trying to make nicey-nice.”
What has been odd of late, the supervisor added, was that for the first time in memory, New York City was still negotiating, seeming to be open to not only settling their current lawsuit, but also “talking with us on a lot of levels about other issues, including the speed limits along Route 28A. Am I a little skeptical? Yeah…”
Could the City’s actions be a continuing response to Onteora’s having gotten into the act, or maybe even a reaction to the worsening economic climate?
Or could the City’s shift in terms of the newer appeals be tied to shifts in its approach to flood mitigation and other newer issues on its plate, as well as its own increasing investment in such things as the re-opened Waste Channel through the Ashokan Field Campus, local land buys, and the recent difficulties it faced getting a ten year extension on its federal filtration avoidance determination?
“This week will be the third or fourth times we’ve sat down with them,” was all Leifeld would reply to the conjecture in the air, beyond wishing that any coming solution be long-term, and not just based on a continuing stream of individual appeals.. “It’s better than not talking to us… Better we should all bite the bullet and come up with something. Even if the numbers are still the hard thing.”
“I hope this will help us begin to work together for at least a portion of time,” said Onteora Superintendent Dr. Leslie Ford, echoing Leifeld’s statement.
Prompting the supervisor, later, to again state his case for getting other towns in the school district, and across the watershed, to join it in its fight to end New York’s continuing legal threats against it and other reservoir towns in the Catskills. And even suggest that Onteora give it some money for legal costs instead of just moral support, and its own lawyers.
At least, for now, we all saved a little, even if only in would-be future fines. For the moment.