GIS Planning Inc. is an award‐winning company committed to developing value‐added geographic information system (GIS) Internet applications for municipalities, regional government agencies, businesses, and community organizations that foster enhanced community planning, economic development and e‐commerce.

GIS Planning pioneered the field of Internet GIS from the creation of the very first web‐based GIS program for economic development to our latest suite of applications deployed throughout the United States. Today, GIS Planning‐developed Internet programs are the industry standard for economic development websites. GIS Planning’s work is widely recognized as a model for economic development and is included in the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration’s “Innovative Local Economic Development Programs.”

GIS Planning has a track record of successful implementations with some of the finest economic development organizations in the world working with many of the foremost economic development practitioners in the profession. Our ZoomProspector implementation is a comprehensive strategy that goes beyond the technical product. The company’s history of award‐winning implementations is founded upon economic development policy strategy, experience and industry knowledge.

GIS Planning invented the strategy, process and technology back in 1997 and the following ten years have resulted in the most demanded and successful web‐based GIS site selection analysis program in the industry.

GIS Planning is the most trusted source of effective online economic development programs by your colleagues throughout the United States and Canada. Our ZoomProspector programs are implemented in 28 states, the majority of the largest 50 cities in the USA, and represent over 130 successful projects implemented from coast‐to‐coast.

The reason that GIS Planning is the partner for so many prestigious economic development organizations is that our clients value what we do for them. GIS Planning delivers results, decreases inefficiency, provides needed tools, and makes our clients envied by their competitors.

An effective web site for business attraction is critical. Consider these facts:

·         Currently over 1 billion people use the Internet.

·         85% of site selection searches begin on the Internet (Source: Global Corporate Xpansion 2004).

·         80% of the initial site selection screening is now done by the Internet (Source: ED Solutions 2004).

·         85% of site selection decisions are made without the help of a site selection consultant (Source: U.S. Sites & Development).

GIS Planning’s deep technical expertise and professional experience in economic development enables us to create effective, user‐friendly web‐based GIS applications with a measureable return on investment. Furthermore, our leading‐edge technology combined with the proven experience and training we provide ensure optimal results for our clients. In short, ZoomProspector is a core business application developed by economic development professionals for economic development professionals.[1]

The Downeast Group represents GIS Planning, Inc. in Canada.

Regional Development Alliances or Regional Economic Development Partnerships continue to emerge in communities throughout North America and elsewhere as the latest trend in economic development organizations.

Atlantic Canada is no exception. The Halifax Moncton Growth Corridor, first proposed in 2002, was an early effort in this regard. The Bangor - Saint John Trade & Growth Corridor, essentially a Northeast Trade Corridor, emerged in 2007 and represents a rare, cross-border effort in attracting investment to our collective region.

While these early efforts show promise in terms of marketing our strongest assets in a globally competitive marketplace, much remains to be done to position the Region effectively in the current FDI environment. Some form of regionalization has occurred throughout Atlantic Canada whether you consider regional development authorities in Nova Scotia, RED Boards in Newfoundland or the Enterprise system in New Brunswick.

For more information visit Enterprise Saint John or Eastern Maine Development Coporation online.

www.enterprisesj.com

www.emdc.org

The Downeast Group will develop a new 5 Year Investment Strategy for the Annapolis Digby Region. Working with the Annapolis Digby Economic Development Agency, local business and community stakeholders, the Group will conduct an assessment of the regional economy’s current environment, identify priority sectors for future growth and craft specific, high potential investment initiatives and projects to guide the Agency’s growth agenda for the next five year period.

Assisting Downeast with the assignment will be Jupia Consultants, Inc. of Moncton, New Brunswick and the Eaton Peabody Consulting Group of Augusta, Maine. The group has collaborated on other projects in recent months and brings a truly “Atlantica” perspective and reach to the planning process.

The Annapolis Digby Region has a diverse range of assets and strengths upon which the new strategy will be built. These include opportunities in tourism, natural resources, information technology, geomatics, alternative energy and transportation, among others. An Economic Assets Map will be developed for the Region and should be completed in late August. The full strategy is scheduled to be completed by year end.

“In the long history connecting New York City and the Catskills, the construction of the water supply most directly suggests an imperial relationship, for the reservoirs most clearly represent the ability of the city to control space in the mountains….Not unlike Rip Van Winkle and brown trout, the reservoirs would become naturalized, accepted by locals as part of the Catskill identity, integral to the landscape. Almost immediately upon completion, the reservoirs would elicit both resentment and pride among Catskill residents, conflicting sentiments that represented the complicated nature of the collaboration that made them.”[1]

10.1     Overview

The New York City Water Supply, which provides 1.3 billion gallons of water per day to New York City and adjacent communities, is comprised of two separate watersheds generally referred to as the East of Hudson and West of Hudson watersheds.  Covering over 2,000 square miles of eight counties in upstate New York, the New York City Water Supply is the largest unfiltered water supply system in the world.  Since 1992, New York City has been required to receive and maintain a Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to retain an unfiltered water supply. 

The FAD imposes a multitude of requirements upon the City of New York to ensure the protection, health and safety of its water supply, and has generally been reviewed on a five-year basis, in addition to continual monitoring, to ensure the adequacy of the watershed management programs as well as the Watershed Rules and Regulations.  It was recently estimated that to-date, New York City has spent nearly $1.5 billion since 1997 on watershed protection and management.

Through its compliance with the dictates of the FAD, New York City is able to avoid the construction, maintenance and operation of a water supply filtration facility.  The operation and maintenance expenditures necessary to manage such a facility have been estimated to run over $400 million annually.  New York City Comptroller William Thompson Jr. estimates it would cost $6 billion to $10 billion to build a filtration plant for the Catskill-Delaware watershed. A $10 billion plant would add $730 million per year in debt service expense according to Thompson’s office.[2]

In order to manage the potentially conflicting goals of New York City, seeking to justifiably safeguard their water supply, and the counties, towns and villages which host the New York City watershed which are equally justified in their concern over the continued viability of their communities, these parties, forever deemed partners, entered into a historic Memorandum of Agreement (the MOA) in 1997.  A primary tenet of the MOA being “the goals of drinking water protection and economic vitality within Watershed communities are not inconsistent and it is the intention of the Parties to enter into a new era of partnership to cooperate in the development and implementation of a Watershed protection program that maintains and enhances the quality of the New York City drinking water supply system and the economic vitality and social character of the Watershed communities.”

In June of 2007, New York City received a fourth Filtration Avoidance Determination from the EPA for its water supply system, extending to 2017.  One of the more contentious components of this most recent FAD was the insertion of a $300 million, 10-year Land Acquisition Program (LAP).  While land acquisition has been a component of previous FADs, the scale and scope of the new LAP was entirely unprecedented in relation to earlier FADs issued to manage and regulate the New York City watershed as well as other unfiltered water supply systems in New York State. 

Delaware County, as host to the majority of the land area comprising the West of Hudson watershed, was concerned about the economic and social ramifications that a $300 million land acquisition program might potentially have upon the long-term sustainability of its communities, businesses and residents.  From the perspective of Delaware County, the geographic constraints of the region, in conjunction with the established Watershed Rules & Regulations, provided adequate safeguards for ensuring the compatibility of likely future development with the over arching goals of water quality preservation.  The implementation of the new $300 million land acquisition program was therefore perceived by Delaware County as having the potential to go beyond a “tipping point” whereby the long-term viability of its communities would be endangered.

In response to its concerns, Delaware County commissioned an independent analysis of the potential direct and indirect impacts of the new $300 million Land Acquisition Program.  In light of the fact that no previous assessment of the potential impacts such a large-scale program might have upon local communities had been undertaken, Delaware County sought an independent, unbiased analysis of the potential positive and negative impacts of the $300 million land acquisition program.  

This analysis, conducted by Downeast Development Consulting Group in partnership with Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI), Ekistics Planning and Design and JPH Consulting, has sought to analyze the potential direct and in-direct impacts of the New York City Land Acquisition Program from a completely objective standpoint.  The methodologies employed in this analysis are summarized in Section 12 of this report.  This was augmented by research of documents relating to the 1997 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), past and current FADs, the Watershed Rules & Regulations, articles, papers and other documents relating to the New York City Watershed, public and proprietary economic and social demographic statistics and data as well as information and data provided by the client, as cited within the body of the report, as applicable. A detailed listing of documentation reviewed in addition to sources footnoted throughout the report is contained in Section 13.0.

The analysis of New York City’s Land Acquisition Program conducted herein demonstrates that the LAP may have a potentially negative impact upon Delaware County either directly or indirectly through the exacerbation of existing socio-economic circumstances and trends. There also exists the possibility that the LAP could have a potentially positive impact upon certain industry sectors and local communities that may partially offset some of the negative impacts under certain circumstances (This is predicated on much greater access to City-owned lands than has previously been the case.).

However, despite this possibility, there exist many areas where mitigation measures might prudently be warranted in order to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the LAP upon Delaware County.  Such mitigation measures may reasonably be applicable to other counties, towns and villages that likewise host the New York City watershed however these communities were not included within the scope of this analysis.

 10.2    Baseline Analysis

 The first step in analyzing whether, or the degree to which, the new $300 million land acquisition program may potentially impact Delaware County was to conduct a baseline analysis.  Table 10.1 summarizes the baseline socio-economic conditions of Delaware County, as presented in this report.

Table 10.1 Delaware County Economic Baseline Profile

Indicator	Description	Status	Meaning
Population Growth	Annualized growth (2002-07) in residents based on Census estimates and EMSI model	About -2.0%	County population is in steady decline since 1996
Net Migration	Number of people moving into the county minus the number moving out of the county per year.	Stable and slightly positive in recent past; plunged to -173 in 2006	2006 may mark beginning of population outflow from the county; need to discover causes
Educational Attainment	Percent of 25+ year olds having college degree	Est. 30% and growing in 2008 vs. 34% in US	County lags US in college degree attainment, will need to address this to remain competitive
Job Creation	Annualized growth rate of jobs (payroll and proprietors, farm and non-farm), 2002-07	1.6% - slightly above NY; matches US	Job growth has been steady in the county.
Unemployment	% of labor force not employed	5.6% in Aug. 2008; lower than NY and US. 9.5% in March 2009; higher than NY and US	Historically, the county tended to weather bad labor markets better than average, often through self-employment. Current levels are cause for concern, being a 20+ year high.
Mainstay industries	Manufacturing, Government, Natural Resources	Stable with moderate 2002-18 growth projected	Core economy is stable but highly dependent on sectors with potential future challenges
Emerging Industries	Services; Tourism/Arts/Recreation	Small but fast-growing, also tend to be lower-paying	Emerging industries will create new jobs but also new challenges
Housing Costs	% change in median home value, 2000 to 2007	68% jump in cost or $50,300	Housing costs in the county are rising significantly faster than surrounding counties
Income and Wages	Comparison of County incomes and wage levels with State averages	Per capita income has been  30% lower than State average since 1970	Income and Wages measured by EPW lag State averages in all industry and occupation categories
Proprietors	Individuals who own and operate their own business	Represents 35.6% of employment, one-third of the economy	Above average dependence on self-employment suggests lack of other opportunities, potential weakness to withstand further challenges
School Enrolment	Number of students in the education system	Continual declines since 1980 in total number enrolled	Higher per student education costs, potential threats for quality of education, future consolidation and higher taxes
Land Values vs. Income Growth	Comparison of growth in land values and incomes	Land values have risen sharply since 2001, incomes have kept pace until recently	Despite declining population, new migrants to the County have higher incomes and are putting upward pressure on land values
Building Permits	Local indicator of growth and physical property development	Flat growth since 1992 with approx. 150 permits issued per year	Data suggests zero growth in the pace of development with no significant increases over an extended period
Vacancy Rates	Rate of vacancy indicates supply and demand relationship for housing	35% vacancy rates suggests supply is outpacing demand; 1.94% growth in housing units from 2000 to 2007	High vacancy should indicate lower housing prices over time as supply is taken up however land and home values are increasing faster than neighbouring counties.
Poverty	Percentage of population living below the poverty line	Just over 14% in 2007, higher than national average	Until recently, poverty rates were lower than State averages

 

---

Action Recommendations

 

The following outlines the recommendations of the Downeast Development Consulting Group based on our analysis of the economy, the resulting future growth projections and potential impacts, our stakeholder consultation and the conclusions we have drawn in the previous section. The recommendations are organized in terms of those directed at New York City in relation to amending elements of the Land Acquisition Program, the State and Federal governments in terms of reacting to the findings of our Report and Delaware County in terms of strengthening its partnership with NYC, planning for the future and mobilizing for further action over the short to medium term.

Amendments to the Land Acquisition Program

 

Our recommendations regarding amendments to the LAP focus on economic impacts, property values and their inflationary impact as well as associated tax implications.

Economic Impacts

 

·         NYC should allow for the same access and historical usage of Priority 2, 3 & 4 designated lands acquired through the LAP (in fee land acquisition) as New York State land, without permit requirements.

·         NYC should expand the pilot boating program to other reservoirs.

·         NYC should work to actively promote and increase agricultural, timber and quarrying activities on their lands, revising existing guidelines and regulations if necessary, in instances where such use of the land will not have a significant or non-mitigatible impact upon water quality.

·         NYC should require WAC to complete not only a Whole Farm Plan, but a farm business plan prior to entering into an agricultural easement to ensure the long-term viability of an operational agricultural venture.  

·         NYC should amend the agricultural easement program to operate on a farmland affordability basis (i.e. the farm easement is acquired at market price, less the agricultural value, with the requirement that the property can then only be sold at Ag value to another farmer).

·         NYC should allow for permanent utility easements across acquired and eased lands where such utility easement will not impact water quality.

·         NYC should focus acquisitions on lands that will provide the highest level of protection to the water supply, avoiding the acquisition of lands where potential impacts can be readily mitigated and prohibit the acquisition of lands within or in close proximity to hamlets and villages.

·         Acquisitions in fee or through easements should be subject to local planning board review regarding potential impacts upon local comprehensive and economic development plans.

·         NYC should fund a comprehensive economic impact analysis to fully understand the effectiveness of the agriculture easements program, on retaining farms.  

 

Inflationary Impact on Property Values

 

·         NYC should establish as an acquisition criteria, a requirement regarding the minimum duration of ownership (i.e. in order to be eligible for purchase or an agricultural or conservation easement , the land must be owned by the seller for minimum of five years) except transitioning from farmer to farmer.

·         NYC and the State should jointly fund affordable housing initiatives in and around villages and hamlets.

 

Tax Implications

 

·         NYC should fully fund the Tax Consulting Fund at the Catskill Watershed Corporation commensurate to the size of the new land acquisition program.

·         Outparcels that are created as a condition of easement acquisition should be subject to local planning board approval to comply with local regulations to ensure the outparcel is buildable.

 

Recommendations for New York State

 

·         NYSDOH/EPA should grant NYC authorization and a waiver from FAD requirements to enable a suspension of acquisition and easement activity until issues raised in this analysis can be adequately addressed.

·         NYS should include the legitimate concerns raised through this analysis in the scoping process of SEQR in regards to NYC’s upcoming Land Acquisition Permit application and require NYC to undertake the recommendations outlined above as mitigation measures under SEQRA.

·         NYS should develop an annual reporting program to measure impacts upon the local economy, inflationary impact on land values, tax implications, community character and other items, similar to the monitoring performed regarding the New Jersey Pine Barrens program, to monitor the impacts of the land acquisition program on Delaware County.

·         NYS should work with watershed communities to modernize the assessment process and develop new assessment classifications to enable the development of a water quality lands classification for lands acquired under the LAP that will adequately account for their value in protecting the water supply of NYC.

·         NYS should prioritize funding for the Delaware County Smart Growth Comprehensive Development Plan, as outlined later in this section.

·        NYS should fund affordable housing initiatives in and around the villages and hamlets of Delaware County.

·         The Delaware County Action Plan serves as a potential model on how to address existing and future challenges through partnerships.  The Delaware County Action Plan (DCAP) should be fully recognized within the FAD.

·         The West of Hudson Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is a resource of professional and technical staff that work daily on watershed issues and should be a recognized within the FAD as a technical, planning and programmatic resource to the City on watershed issues.

Recommendations for EPA/NYSDOH

 

·         EPA/NYSDOH should grant NYC a temporary authorization and a waiver from FAD requirements to enable a suspension of acquisition and easement activity until issues raised in this analysis can be adequately addressed.

·         EPA/NYSDOH should conduct a scientifically based cost benefit analysis of land acquisition versus watershed protection programs in regards to their impact upon on water quality and the host communities.

Strengthening the Partnership

 

The Partnership has been impaired by the latest FAD process and the apparent unilateral State decision to greatly expand land acquisition activity over the next ten years. New leadership at the NYCDEP offers the prospect of turning a new page in the relationship and going forward in a more positive, constructive manner. We recommend Delaware County take the following action to exhibit leadership in this critical area and demonstrate their commitment to the Partnership:

·         Public acknowledgement, when and where appropriate, of the City’s investment in local infrastructure, small business support via the CWC, good quality employment and career opportunities for current and future residents;

·         Re-positioning and marketing of Delaware County as an environmentally sustainable community that also happens to be home to the world’s largest unfiltered water supply;

·         On-going communication with NYCDEP to determine areas to expand common interest. The recent negotiations between the CWT, Delaware County and the NYCDEP pertaining to the LAP have fostered an improved working relationship between the partners.  Beyond these negotiations the establishment of protocols and or forums to extend ongoing communications on critical issues would serve the interests of all involved parties.

·         Identifying opportunities to showcase Delaware County as a global leader in integrating economic development, community planning and growth with environmental stewardship and water quality protection principles.

·         Voluntary solutions to problems should be sought that engage critical watershed partners in a process and promote the ultimate buy-in of the solutions generated by the group. Forums at which open dialogue is enabled reduce miscommunication over issues that are often times not as problematic as multiple parties perceive. Concerns over land acquisition program could be resolved in the same manner.  Successful process models for consideration include :

 

·         The effort to pilot a boating program on the Cannonsville Reservoir.

·         A highly notable process to be emulated is the Stream Corridor Program.

·         Bi-lateral inclusion in all aspects of the proposed planning efforts recommended below.

Planning for the Future

 

Our analysis and projections suggest potential direct and indirect impacts in the future stemming from NYC’s land acquisition activities. Delaware County requires a clear strategy and action plan to ensure senior levels of government are presented with both the impact evidence of this Economic Impact Assessment Report and a broad-based Comprehensive Development Plan outlining an approach to future development within Delaware County that seeks to achieve the MOA’s original objective of ensuring watershed protection and preservation of economic vitality and community well-being.

New York State’s Smart Growth Initiative for revitalizing the Upstate Region should be fully tapped and utilized in the development of such a plan. Other sources of assistance may be the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Southern Tier Regional Development Planning Board, New York City and the Catskill Watershed Corporation. The proposed Delaware County Smart Growth Comprehensive Development Plan would consist of the following key components:

Land Use Plan

·         Building collaboration with regard to the integration and utilization of County Land Use Planning instruments by NYCDEP in implementing their watershed protection programs to avoid conflicts with officially adopted plans.

·         Compilation of all current Town-level Land Use Plans into a County Land Use Master Plan;

·         Identification of all land uses and designations important to Delaware County’s continued “economic vitality” such as the recently revised Hamlet Designations, Agricultural Lands, Forestry and Mining Land Use classifications as well as Tourism and Recreation Resources;

·         Identification and designation of all lands vital to the preservation of water quality based on relevant science regardless of current ownership; and,

·         Identification and designation of all lands suitable for future residential and commercial/industrial development within the revised Hamlet Designation Areas as well as other available land resources outside the watershed boundary, regardless of current ownership.

Economic Development Strategies

·         Engage watershed partners in the development of a Sector Strategy focused on key areas of the economy such as Natural Resources, Tourism, Manufacturing and Small Business which are grounded in the above-noted Land Use Plan;

·         Partner with NYC in the development of a People Development Strategy including initiatives to enhance and stabilize the current workforce and grow the County’s population base through increased in-migration or immigration and youth retention and attraction activities;

·         Identification of lands for future business park development in tandem with the above land use planning component and the creation of a Business Parks Development Plan based on eco-industrial and “green” economy concepts (i.e. high-quality, campus-like environments employing environmentally sustainable development principles and new building standards such as LEED certified facilities) to re-position the County’s development efforts in a manner that turns its existing infrastructure, clean environment and stringent watershed regulations to its advantage;  and,

·         Utilization and expansion of the County’s current Business Retention and Expansion program to identify specific growth opportunities within the existing economic base.

Community Development

·         Engage watershed partners in Creating a Community Development Plan focused on addressing and improving the range of social issues both County Officials and residents has raised over the course of the assignment;

·         Complete detailed assessments of County Population, Affordable Housing, Education and School Enrolment, Health and Seniors Issues, Social Services and Volunteerism to identify key areas of concern and develop goals and action items to stabilize and improve these elements of community life.

Stakeholder and Community Consultation

·         The development of the Delaware County Smart Growth Comprehensive Development Plan should engage as wide a segment of the local population and key organizational stakeholders as possible. Consultation activities and benchmarks should be applied as an important component of the planning process to encourage strong buy-in and support at multiple levels throughout the County and beyond. Ultimately, the broader community must own and support the Plan.

·         Completion of a Community Survey of residents to further explore socio-economic issues, validate or challenge findings of the Impact Study and identify the issues which are most relevant to include in the County’s intervention in the pending Scoping exercise the NYSDEC will undertake in response to New York City’s application for a new Land Acquisition Permit in 2010. The survey should be completed in advance of the Smart Growth Plan and its results used to inform the terms of reference developed to guide the Plan’s development in addition to being utilized in the planning activity itself.

Organizing for Action

 

Delaware County must organize for action. The consultation activities undertaken as part of the project clearly indicate a broad base of stakeholder and community support for the County’s efforts to address the New York City relationship generally and the expanded Land Acquisition Program in particular.

The opportunity exists to mobilize this support through the development of the Smart Growth Plan. While considerable effort and resources have been applied to “reacting” to New York City and the activities of their Department of Environmental Protection, the consultation activities, research, projections and potential impacts compiled in the course of the Report set the stage to engage a range of organizations and individuals throughout Delaware County.  We recommend the following to initiate this process:

·         Formation of a Smart Growth Task Team delegated with the responsibility of developing the Comprehensive Development Plan that includes representation from Delaware County Departments, the Delaware County Chamber of Commerce, SUNYS Delhi, Cornell Extension, Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District, Watershed Agricultural Council, Catskill Watershed Corporation, Delaware Tourism, NYC DEP, Health and Education stakeholders as well as other sector organizations as appropriate. Establish the Team Mandate to complete the Comprehensive Plan not focus on the land acquisition issue specifically;

·         Undertake a Public Relations Campaign to communicate the results of the Economic Impact Assessment Report and launch the wider Smart Growth planning process aimed at local residents, organizations, the business community and government officials and elected representatives at the local, City, State and Federal levels.

In addition to organizing to undertake the recommended planning activities, Delaware County must prepare for the Scoping exercise required under the SEQRA Act that NYSDEC must undertake in response to NYC’s land acquisition program permit in 2010. The following is recommended to ensure this is achieved within the available time frame:

·         Presentation of the Report’s conclusions and recommendations to the NYS Department of Health, NYS DEC, the USEPA, NYCDEP and other relevant parties upon its completion and acceptance by the Board of Supervisors;

·         Completion of the Smart Growth Plan by December 31, 2009. This is critical as the designation of lands for future residential, commercial and natural resource development must be formally designated within the Plan in advance of the scoping action under SEQRA;

·         Formal notification should be given to the NYSDEC that Delaware County considers the Land Acquisition Program a Type I Action under SEQRA. Given that the Act’s definition of “Environment” includes resources of agricultural and historic significance, changes in demographics and community character, DEC is required to request an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the New York City DEP in which these additional aspects of the “Environment” must also be addressed. The EIS, by its definition, requires the City to address these other environmental factors and identify measures to mitigate any impacts; and,

·         Commence a process of negotiations with NYCDEP to define acceptable mitigation measures well in advance of their application to NYSDEC for the new permit.

Project Update – Issue # 7

The Adirondack Park comprises roughly twenty percent of the northern land area of New York State.  Slightly less than half that area is owned by the State and is protected from sale, exchange, development, logging and flooding under the State constitution.  About 130,000 people live in the Park, in numerous hamlets, in other clustered communities, and on widespread, privately owned lands intermixed among the State-owned lands.  Millions of additional persons visit annually for vacations, sight- seeing, outdoor recreation and related tourism activities, representing a major component of the Park economy.  Forest management and harvesting occur on the privately owned lands in the Park, representing an additional economic mainstay.

The history of state-land ownership in the Adirondack Park dates back to 1884, when New York State purchased several hundred thousand acres of Adirondack forestland and designated it a Forest Preserve to be “forever kept as wild forest lands.” In 1892, the state designated the area a state park and delineated a “blue line” boundary around the Park that encompassed most of the Adirondack Forest Preserve.[1]

The Adirondack North Country Association in partnership with the Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages and the towns of Arietta and Chester received a Quality Communities grant from the New York State Department of State to complete a planning inventory and analysis study on behalf of all municipalities located wholly or partially within the Adirondack Park. 

The study is intended to provide a foundation for economic development planning for the Park’s towns and villages, and to serve as a beginning point for comprehensive study of community patterns, physical assets (infrastructure) and economic development needs, opportunities and constraints across the Park.  The impact of State land ownership on communities is among the topics to be explored by the study.[2]

The Project studies all towns and villages (“study participants”) located within the Adirondack Park to establish a fact-based assessment of municipal infrastructure and the socio-economic characteristics of each community.  The Project examines the “state of community” in the Adirondack Park and addresses a number of different aspects of municipal and community life including the following:

 

• General Government – Operations, fiscal information and needs;

• Community Life and Recreation;

• Land Use, Ownership and Regulation;

• Highway Department/DPW – Operations and needs;

• Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems;

• Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services;

• Public Schools.

 

Needs and challenges resulting from increased acreage coming under state ownership, increased second home development, stagnant or lagging local economies, and stagnant or decreasing population, particularly in the young adult age demographics, are reflected in the results of the survey and are summarized in the assessment.[3]

 

Commenced in early 2008, the Regional Assessment Project is nearing completion and has reviewed a wide range of issues affecting the Adirondack communities. The following summarizes some of the key findings of the Project:

Population and Age

•       Of the top 10 Adirondack local governments with increasing populations, 8 are “partially within” and represent 54 percent of all growth within the Park. The remaining 2 local governments are “wholly within”, and account for 5 percent of the total growth. In contrast, 9 of the bottom 10 local governments with decreasing populations are “wholly within” and represent 93 percent of the total loss.

 

Housing and Housing Units

•       Based on 2007 parcel data collected from New York State and County Offices of Real Property Services, the number of residential parcels that have identified owner zip codes outside of the Adirondack Park totals 31,978 out of 79,109 parcels. They account for nearly 40 percent of all residential parcels, 45 percent of all residential acreage, and 52 percent of the assessed value of all residential properties.

 

Education

 

•       Since 1970, enrolment in school districts with students in the Adirondack Park has declined by 32%, or nearly 16,000 students. This decline in enrolment over the past 36 years has had a significant impact on the Adirondack Park and dramatically changed the make-up of the Park’s population.

 

Employment and Income

 

•       According to the BLS, growth in average annual employment in the “Government” and “Educational and Health Services” sectors as defined in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) in most Adirondack counties is significantly outpacing employment growth in private sector jobs.

 

Community Life and Recreation

 

•       Most of the responding communities reported that the level of year-round residency is remaining even or in decline. This sentiment is strongest among communities “wholly within” the Park and communities with fewer than 1,000 residents. Most of the responding communities (57 out of 83) reported that the level of seasonal residency is increasing. This sentiment was strong among all types of communities (“wholly within”, “partially within” and all levels of population).

 

Land Use, Ownership and Regulation

 

•       The land use currently comprising the largest area in the Adirondack Park is “Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands and Public Parks”, which constitutes over 4.2 million acres or 76 percent of the total area of the Park.

 

Emergency Medical Services

 

•       Over half the EMS squads reported that EMS coverage extends into two communities or more. While this is not unusual, managing vast rural areas provides a unique set of challenges including staffing and funding. Of the 85 municipalities responding to the survey on EMS protection, 23 had 2 different providers, 8 have 3 different providers, and 2 had 4 different providers. 52.2 percent of EMS coverage is provided by EMS squads, 25.8 percent by joint fire/EMS, and 3 percent by private ambulance contractors.

 

Conclusions

 

•       Population increases within the interior communities, particularly villages, has been at best, modest and in most villages population has been on the decline.

 

•       The younger cohorts of the population age groups have been in decline resulting in decreased enrolment with the Park’s school districts. Moreover, increases in median age are outpacing increases in the state and other rural communities. The long-term implications of population loss among younger people will stress the prospect of maintaining the existing structure of communities and associated services.

 

•       Seasonal home ownership is an increasing percentage of property ownership in the Park.

 

•       Growth in employment in most sections of the Park is found in the public sector while private sector employment is in decline. Within the private sector employment, the data indicates consistently high rates of seasonality on a year-to-year basis.

 

•       The assessment of the land use pattern across the Park, other towns and villages and Public land ownership, particularly in some communities where public land ownership is in excess of 90 to 95 percent of the land area of their municipality, is a significant and exceptionally large contributor to the property tax base.

 

•        The membership levels needed to staff emergency service providers are increasingly stressed, suggesting a correlation to losses among the younger cohorts of the population.

 

The assessment of the data collected suggests an intersection between land use, population and the capacity to fund a modest level of government and education services. A land use pattern, while fundamentally preserving critical aspects of the natural environment, will need to be balanced with the need to provide a diverse and productive series of uses and infrastructure that “re-attract” younger, permanent residents to the region.[4]

 

Action recommendations formed as a result of the study effort include creating an economic development strategy for the Adirondacks to address many of the above-noted concerns as well as the formation of a special commission to review in detail the overall regulatory framework regarding land use in the Adirondack Region. A detailed inventory of municipal water and sewer infrastructure is also proposed.

 

The Adirondack Regional Assessment Project has helped establish a baseline of information and conditions with the Region for future action. Many if its findings provide compelling evidence which will be of value to Delaware County in its efforts to address the land acquisition program and its potential impacts on the community. While differing in size and scope, the findings of the Assessment Project provide possible clues to future economic and social conditions within Delaware County as more lands are removed from private ownership and active use.

 

In our next Project Update we will return to highlighting some of the reaction to our preliminary findings in the Public Meetings as well as characteristics of the Delaware economy before moving forward to present key aspects of our analysis, projections on future growth and potential impacts of the Land Acquisition Program in the future.

We welcome your comments and encourage anyone interested in contributing to the process to post your comments on our blog. This is the seventh in a series of project updates which will be issued regularly over the course of the project. Previous updates and comments can be found on our blog at www.downeastgroup.ca/blog/  Your feedback and comments are welcomed.

 

Project Update – Issue # 6

NYC Watershed Economic Impact Study – Feedback & Action Ideas

Last week’s update summarized some of the findings presented in the Interim Report and outlined progress to-date on Phase Two of the study’s work plan. Over the course of the study, the consultant has received many suggestions and comments on possible future action in response to the expanded Land Acquisition Program. Feedback has been received via interviews, Focus Groups, Public Meetings and comments posted to Downeast’s blog at www.downeastgroup.ca/blog/ .

The following presents some of these comments and ideas and highlights the range of perspectives that have been shared in terms of the watershed’s existence within Delaware County. These comments do not represent all comments received but rather are examples of the different ideas and viewpoints held by stakeholders, residents and business interests within the County on the watershed’s impact on the local community.

NYC Lands and Property Tax Assessment

Land Acquisition Process

·         We need to develop a plan of where they can buy and we need to know what that would look like for future acquisition.

·         Some of the criteria for purchasing could be improved greatly. They need to make things more in line with real water quality criterion.

·         They should abolish the LAP program and put the $300 M in the BMP. We should refuse to participate in further programs until we gain some control over the situation.

·         Delaware County should make it illegal for NYC to buy land. I think they need to take legal action in order to stop it.

·         We should try to stop the LAP from going forward.

·         In a perfect world, NYC would buy the sensitive properties only but they already have much of these lands protected through federal regulations that now exist on these types of lands (i.e. wetlands).

·         They should look at the impact of each parcel prior to the solicitation process.

·         The land acquisition process should have never gone this far and it is a serious concern for us.

·         We should ensure there are long term commitments and we should make a plan with the goal identifying what lands can or should be acquired in advance of acquisition efforts. We must stop the scattered approach.

·         City should not target lands around towns and hamlets.

·         We need to address the LAP

Property Tax Assessment

·         We have to create a scenario to ensure that taxes are ALWAYS paid on these properties. We MUST have tax revenue.

·          We should take an income approach to assessment and tie this to NYC’s water billing system in terms of valuation. Meter the water for their use.

·         The assessment issue must be addressed.

·         # 1 – Resolve the tax assessment issues NOW. The 20 year period banning assessment challenges will soon expire on some properties and we expect NYC to act soon after.

·         We need to take action to prevent challenges of the land value in the future. I’m concerned they will form a trust for the land to avoid taxation.

·         We need to stop the assessment challenges.

·         The # 1 issue is assessment.

Housing & Real Estate

·         We also have to address the housing affordability problem in some manner.

Demographics & Out Migration

·         We must somehow support better population growth to remain a viable community.

Tourism & Other “Green” Opportunities

·         Lands should be opened for recreation including opening the reservoirs for non-motorized boats in a less restrictive manner.

·         They should put in marina and boating facilities on the reservoirs to stimulate more use and encourage tourism. This is something small they could give back to the community without any great harm.

·         The reservoirs should be opened up for boating.

·         If the reservoirs were open, it would help business. We could create opportunities for people to get out on the water; we could do a lot with open access to grow more business.

·         We are much better off than many other areas because of the pristine environment and rural character.

Access to the Land

·         Open up the resources for recreation use.

·         Open access to the reservoirs, the lands and the resources.

·         NYC shouldn’t be allowed to acquire lands without permitting some use of the resources on them.

·         NYCDEP must stop closing access to trails through acquisition of parcels adjacent to or crossing these corridors.

·         NYC needs to fix the recreational use issue.

Watershed Regulations

·         NYCDEP should help with the permitting process not make it too onerous to deal with.

Uncertainty about the Future

·         The current discussion involving modification of hamlet area designations may lead to a compromise that could address some of the economic and social concern raised.

·         The community must take ownership of its future.

Partnerships & Communications

·         Funding should be funnelled directly to the organizations doing the work (local government and infrastructure projects for example).

·         Streamline the working relationships and flow more money to local groups.

·         The CWC is too politicized and should be more representative of community and business interests. The current crowd is representing NYC NOT the community.

·         Prior to the signing of an MOA with the City in 1997, the Southern Tier Strategic Plan reviewed the situation and basically concluded that if the Agreement wasn’t fair then Delaware County would no economic future. I hope that isn’t what is developing in terms of our future.

·         “You cannot serve two masters.”

·         NYC should put money into a fund to address these issues.

·         CWC and WAC both have to change in order to improve the situation. CWC is too conservative and is behaving like a conservative bank with the $60M. WAC needs to focus more on ensuring the economic viability of farming operations in addition to environmental controls and waste management.

·         The previous FAD had money for consultation and disputes but this pool was exhausted fighting NYC. The 2007 FAD did not re-fund this pool which is a huge problem for local ability to defend its interests.

·         We need to get NYC talking to us

·         I think Delaware County residents, governmental leaders, and businesses should celebrate what they have – which is a lot – and work together FOR the future not just fight against the City or other groups. They do themselves a disservice by using energy and limited resources for “the fight.”

Support for Business

·         The eCentre concept was a good stimulator for the community; we should expand it to all areas of the County.

·         The City has done a good job for the farmers and this will help our long-term stability but it’s now time to do something similar for the small businesses to ensure they remain viable and grow.

·         In terms of WAC, we need real farm business planning made available to farmers.

·         Continue to educate and support local businesses.

·         More grants and loans to business would be good too.

Planning

·         We need inclusionary zoning that supports a variety of business and commercial activities.

·         NYC should put funding aside to support cluster development planning. The City asked for towns to expand their boundaries; some have responded, some have not.

·         NYC should work with local planning boards to involve them more in the process.

Economic Development

·         We also need more money to address some of the social and economic issues we are facing.

·         We need economic growth.

·         We need things such as the growth some gas development could provide; otherwise Delaware will eventually become a place just for the very rich.

·         I think we need to be more aggressive with gas and energy.

Other Issues

·         Address the flooding issue by lowering the reservoirs in the spring so they can handle the run off.

·         I would like to see “good neighbour payments’ based on the last FAD.

·         I like the idea of one tenths of their savings for NOT building a filtration plant.

 

As is evident in the above suggestions, comments and ideas, no one single perspective exists on the issue. Many excellent ideas have been received on possible new approaches to the watershed issue and how Delaware County could deal with them in the future. In our next Project Update we will highlight some of the reaction to our preliminary findings in the Public Meetings as well as characteristics of the Delaware economy before moving forward to present key aspects of our analysis, projections on future growth and potential impacts of the Land Acquisition Program in the future.

We welcome your comments and encourage anyone interested in contributing to the process to post your comments on our blog. This is the sixth in a series of project updates which will be issued regularly over the course of the project. Previous updates and comments can be found on our blog at www.downeastgroup.ca/blog/  Your feedback and comments are welcomed.

In our last update we provided an overview of the feedback received during the Key Informant Interview process undertaken as part of Phase One. The major themes of respondents’ reaction were as follows:

·         NYC Lands and Property Tax Assessment

·         Housing and Real Estate

·         Demographics and Out Migration

·         Tourism and other “Green” Opportunities

·         Access to the Land

·         Watershed Regulations

·         Uncertainty about the Future

 

Phase One was concluded with the completion of the Interim Report and its presentation to the Delaware County Board of Supervisors on November 4, 2008.

 

The preliminary conclusions of the Interim Report were summarized as follows:

 

·         Delaware County remains relatively stable but with several potential future problem areas

·         Population has trended downward sharply in the very recent past, part of a longer-term decline

·         Impact of rising real estate values just becoming evident

·         Manufacturing remains King in Delaware County

·         The Delaware County economy is in transition

·         Small business sector a cause for concern

·         Agriculture appears to be continuing its decline

·         Further diversification could  buffer some of the shifts underway in the economy

·         Delaware County ‘s economy  is integrated with the Regional economy and is influenced by external factors

·         Development Scenarios project impacts and declines in resource-based industries but economic growth in Tourism, Recreation and Leisure / Hospitality sectors

·         Total accumulated job loss with the next Land Acquisition Program projected to be about 927 jobs across all sectors

·         Natural gas could be a lost opportunity representing further stagnation of economic conditions

·         Trends in real estate could have widespread impacts on population, work force and economic stability

·         Tax assessment appears to be one of the greatest threats to long-term economic health

·         Successful future NYC tax assessment challenges could result in a significant increase in tax load for residents and local businesses

 

Phase Two commenced with a Planning Workshop with Supervisors, County Staff and the Project Advisory Panel, a three-member panel of university-based subject matter experts in watershed management, community development and environmental law.

 

The workshop and subsequent review of the Interim Report by Staff and the Panel provided a series of comments and suggestions on refining the analysis, providing additional context to many of the economic and social issues and generally improving the study’s methodology and sharpening its findings and conclusions.

 

The Workshop was followed by a week-long series of Focus Groups and Public Meetings which presented the Interim Report’s findings and stimulated public discussion of the issues and concerns associated with the next Land Acquisition Program (LAP) of the NYCDEP.

 

The Focus Groups were organized around key groups or interests such as environmental and agricultural issues, social agencies and departments such as Health, Social & Community Services and the Elderly, the Business Community, senior government agencies and political representatives. Community meetings were held in Walton, Delhi, Stamford and Margaretville and were well-attended with considerable discussion, debate and comments being shared with the Consultant and County Staff.

 

The results of these consultation activities will be incorporated with previous feedback from the key informant interviews to form the basis of our findings on socio-economic concerns, community character and well-being and other potential impacts or influences of the LAP on the future of Delaware County.

 

The remainder of Phase Two involves completing and refining additional research and analysis to incorporate suggestions and reaction to the analysis presented in the Interim Report, compiling and presenting data on potential impacts of the LAP and developing conclusions and recommendations for the future. The Phase is concluded with the submission of a Draft Final Report in late February.

 

We welcome your comments and encourage anyone interested in contributing to the process to post your comments on our blog. This is the fifth in a series of project updates which will be issued regularly over the course of the project. Updates and comments can be found on our blog at www.downeastgroup.ca/blog/   your feedback and comments are welcomed.

 

In our last update we provided an overview of the interview process and questions regarding interviewees’ perspective on issues related to the watershed, the economy and social conditions within the County.

The interview process provided the Consultant with a brief window on the communities and people of Delaware County. While no one can gain a complete picture of a community’s mindset or psyche through the perspectives of fifty or more individuals, the interviews served to educate the consulting team regarding the issues of greatest interest and contention in terms of the Watershed’s presence in Delaware County.

Many common responses were received which assisted in a fairly straightforward assessment of Respondents’ concerns, the opportunities they see and the common ground Delaware County shares with New York City and other key partners in the Watershed on some fundamental issues .

Foremost in this regard was the practically universal commitment to both water quality and environmental stewardship of the County’s landscape. Even the most ardent opponents of NYC’s presence in the community were simultaneously proud of Delaware’s role in the water supply system and the pristine environment of much of the County. All Respondents conveyed a justified pride in their community and a strong sense of place within the greater Catskill Region.

The following summarizes the general themes that emerged over the course of the interview process.

NYC Lands and Property Tax Assessment

The issue of property tax assessment of New York City lands was a consistent theme across many of the responses. There is widespread concern that the City will embark on a process of challenges once they are in a position to do so under the terms of the MOA. This is generating uncertainty about the future in the minds of some respondents.

Housing and Real Estate

The increase in housing prices and land prices generally was noted by many. Employers noted this in some cases as an obstacle in recruiting employees to the area and others raised the issue as a possible cause of some out migration on the part of younger families. Affordable housing was mentioned as a social issue in many instances and also as a potential threat to economic conditions.

Demographics and Out Migration

Many interviewed felt the population was declining at an increasing rate in recent years and in many cases cited out migration as the reason for a decreasing number of volunteers for local community services, clubs and churches. Concerns about changing demographics were also evident in terms of the growing number of second home buyers in the County and this appears to be a negative issue for some and an opportunity for others.

Tourism and other “Green” Opportunities

Interviewees were asked about potential growth opportunities for the economy. Tourism was the most often cited sector where growth could occur. Many other suggestions revolved around recreational uses such as boating, hiking, hunting and fishing and environmentally-friendly opportunities within the resource base. Telecommuting and eCommerce were also often cited as future growth opportunities.

Access to the Land

The inability to access the lands held by NYC was mentioned time and again by interviewees. Restricted access was cited as an impact on traditional land use, the outdoor economy and a negative outcome of the MOA. The recent issuance of new regulations by NYCDEP was also cited as a positive action on their part and step in the right direction in terms of the relationship.

Watershed Regulations

In terms of general impacts, not surprisingly, watershed regulations were cited in almost all interviews. Many felt the regulations were restrictive and partly responsible for slower development. In other cases, interviewees weren’t so much concerned about the rigour of them as they were about their administration and implementation by the City.

Uncertainty about the Future

Many respondents expressed concern about the future in terms of cost of living, availability of housing, employment opportunities and the extend of land controls under the latest FAD.

We welcome your comments and encourage anyone interested in contributing to the process to post your comments on our blog. This is the fourth in a series of project updates which will be issued regularly over the course of the project. Updates and comments can be found on our blog at www.downeastgroup.ca/blog/   your feedback and comments are welcomed.

Delaware County has retained the Downeast Group to conduct an economic impact analysis of NYC’s Land Acquisition Program (LAP) on the local economy. The Study’s Work Plan includes the completion of a series of key informant interviews focused on the current economic environment within Delaware County.

 The purpose of the key informant interviews is to compile a broad cross-section of opinion and perspectives on issues related to the economy as well as the direct and indirect impacts of NYC’s past and future land acquisition programs. Key informants consist of local elected representatives, businesspeople, community organizations, representatives of the underserved and State and City officials. Interviewees include a mix of individuals both supportive of and in opposition to the further implementation of the Watershed LAP and care has been taken to objectively capture their comments and explore key issues in a confidential manner.

The following questions comprise the interview process:

        1.       What type of key informant should you be considered?

2.       How long have you lived in the area or been involved in NYC watershed issues?

3.       How familiar are you with Delaware County and how the NYC watershed protection programs are carried out there?

4.       The New York City watershed protection program includes such actions as regulation, land and conservation easement purchases, and financial support.  Have these affected communities in the watershed, and if so, how?

5.       The 1997 MOA and the Watershed Agricultural Council provide funding; and the MOA provides mechanisms for consulting about needs and issues.  How well do you believe these are working for Delaware County?

6.       New York City has purchased land and conservation easements to eliminate the possibility of development of that land and to restrict ongoing uses.  Over $300 million has recently been budgeted to expand these programs.

How might current and future land purchases and conservation and agricultural easements affect local people and communities?

7.       Tell me about the economy of Delaware County?

8.       Do you think NYC watershed programs affect the business and economic climate of Delaware County?  (may prompt about jobs, shopping, services, local taxes)

9.       What do you perceive are the growth opportunities for the economy of Delaware County?

10.    What do you perceive are the greatest threats to the economy of Delaware County?

11.    Tell me about the social conditions within Delaware County?

12.    Delaware County is experiencing a shift in property ownership both in terms of lands being acquired in fee directly by NYC and the increase in non-resident land acquisition. Additional lands are being “conserved” through agricultural easements. Do you believe the NYC watershed programs affect land use in the County?

13.    Population trends, land ownership changes, and regulatory changes affect the availability and sustainability of community services such as fire, medical and schools.    Do you believe that NYC watershed programs affect the availability of services?

14.    Do you believe NYC watershed programs affect home ownership and the cost of real estate in Delaware County?

15.    Do you believe NYC watershed programs affect property taxes and the sustainability of municipal governments in Delaware County?

16.    Do you have any other comments about the current social issues or conditions within Delaware County?

17.    Tell me about the various stakeholder groups, government departments and programs, business, community and environmental interest groups with a stake in watershed issues within Delaware County?

18.    Tell me about the current state of the partnerships involved in watershed issues?

19.    Do you have any comments or suggestions regarding possible future concessions, program changes or alterations to the Land Acquisition Program which could alleviate or address some of the economic and social issues being raised by local stakeholders?

20.    Do you have any other comments you wish to share?

The Work Plan projected the completion of 30 interviews and to-date over 38 different sessions have been completed. In addition, over 20 informal interviews were also conducted during the Consultant’s initial visits to the community. The next project update will present some of the findings of the interview process, identify themes and trends in responses and summarize strategic issues for further discussion and analysis.

We welcome your comments and encourage anyone interested in contributing to the process to forward your own responses to the above questions or post your comments on our blog. This is the third in a series of project updates which will be issued regularly over the course of the project. Updates and comments can be found on our blog at www.downeastgroup.ca/blog/   your feedback and comments are welcomed.