BERNE — The Helderberg Lake Community Association, which is attempting to secure $500,000 to repair the Helderberg Lake dam through a town-managed loan, has responded to concerns raised by lake residents unhappy with the way the process has played out.

The association’s response is posted to the Berne town website.

In response to complaints from residents who don’t own lake-frontage property but who would nevertheless be obligated to contribute annual funding toward dam-repair costs because they have deeded lake rights, the association says those residents will be able to surrender their lake rights, albeit with some severe conditions. 

At the first public hearing on this issue, held in December, a number of lake residents who do not have lake frontage found it unfair that they would be expected to contribute funding to the repair of the high-hazard dam that contains the man-made lake at the same rate as residents who do have lake frontage. 

The gist of those arguments was that those without lake frontage are able to enjoy the lake only from a beach that is not open at all hours and that does not have bathrooms or areas to prepare food; this is in contrast to those on lake-frontage properties, who, some residents argued, have more access to the lake.

Lake frontage is distinct from living on the lake, and refers to properties that include lake-water within their boundaries. Several properties are on the lake but have association-owned beachland between them and the lake itself.

As proposed, all residents who have deeded lake rights, regardless of their position about the lake, would be charged annually through a newly created tax district at a rate based on their assessed property value, whether those residents take advantage of their lake rights or not. 

As the association notes, New York State Town Law states that districts such as a park district (which the proposed district would technically be) are to be taxed ad valorem, meaning that the taxes are in “in proportion as nearly as may be to the benefit which each lot or parcel will derive therefrom.” 

Benefit, in this case, is determined by lake rights, with the association arguing, “Every park necessarily has properties that abut it, those that are within walking distance and those that must drive to it for access. The proposed district is no different.”

For residents who are entirely off-lake, though, the association may accept a quit claim deed, its response states, which would nullify “the lake rights of owners who have deeded lake 2 rights and are a distance from the lake. This refers to properties such as those on Pinnacle Road, Gulf Hill Road, Hillcrest Drive and Delaware Turnpike. The quit claim deed will need to include a clause that the owners and their successors, heirs and assigns covenant and warrant not to use the lake as a guest, invitee and the like as it would not be equitable to request to be removed from the District but later seek to use the lake.”

The association also notes that, should the town board declare the district, it will have authority to include or exclude properties that may have been erroneously included or excluded. 

An argument was also made that those who had their lake rights terminated because of some kind of non-compliance (e.g. not paying association dues) should not be determined to benefit; the association argues that such measures are necessary for enforcing its rules — a matter that already played out in court years ago. 

Despite the large number of comments made against the proposed district at public hearings, lake residents largely support the formation of the district, as The Enterprise reported last year.

The number of unique property owners who signed the petition brought around by the association is 41, which, over the total number of properties, represents around 56 percent of the population there. 

In terms of property value, those who signed represent about $4,429,086 — or 69 percent — of the district’s value, which sits at $6,440,876. 

Residents who live on the lake full-time — 38 percent of the population — were less likely to sign than residents who have not designated their lake properties as “primary residences.” Sixty-one percent of primary residents signed the petition, while 78 percent of secondary residents signed it. 

There’s no obvious relationship between property value and willingness to sign. Seventy percent of the owners of the top-10 most valuable properties signed the petition; 80 percent of the owners of the bottom 10 also signed.

A written correspondence from association secretary Tami Bloom to the town pointed out that an incidental presumption the Enterprise made in an earlier article that residents who spoke out against the district “represented the interests of the 17 or so who did not sign the petition” may be incorrect.

Bloom wrote that there were “circumstances that prevented some who are in favor of the tax district, from being able to sign. One example is that one property owner was hospitalized. Another property was under contract to be sold and the new owner expressed that he is in favor of the tax district and would have signed the petition. To say that this small group who opposes represents everyone who did not sign is not correct.”

In this case, the calculations above should be interpreted as the least number of residents who support the district, which still would be the majority.