"The North Country Family Health Center provides services on a sliding scale based on income parameters established by the federal government."

A success story: Agency set to help Samaritan reshape delivery of health care

A page from the website of the Jefferson County, NY Board of elections:

Election Day Workers

Help Needed
You must be:
  • Democrat or Republican
  • At least 18 years old
  • A Jefferson County resident 
When are you needed? 
Just a few days a year: Training Days, September's Primary Election and General Election Day in November.

What tasks will you perform as a poll worker?

  • Prepare the Polling place for voting
  • Set up the Voting equipment
  • Process Voters
  • Demonstrate voting procedures to voters
  • Close the Polling place
  • Canvass and Report the results
  • Assist Voters when requested by the Voter 

You are eligible to serve as a poll worker if you:
Are a registered Democrat or Republican and a resident of Jefferson County.

Will you be paid?
Yes, by the Board of Elections. We are committed to fulfilling our responsibility to the citizens of New York State by providing fair and accurate elections. This responsibility and the credit associated with it must be shared with the many dedicated workers that help make elections successful. You can get involved and become a proud participant in a process that is the foundation of democracy in our county.

For more information
Please Contact:

Michelle LaFave – Deputy Commissioner – Democrat
(315) 785-5119

Trina Kampnich – Deputy Commissioner – Republican
(315) 786-7462


Do you think a Galloo Island wind developer should receive over two million dollars in PILOT benefits for each of the eight jobs provided to Jefferson County?

Time to give PILOTs more thought

Cape Vincent town board should oppose JCIDA's most recent proposal to extend PILOTs to 20 years.

JCIDA makes controversial pitch to increase maximum tax break to 20 years

More and More, industrial wind is receiving a big fat NO!

Irasburg voters say ‘No’ to wind project   

 By Charlotte Albright | Vermont Public Radio | October 2, 2015 | vpr.net 

Residents of the Northeast Kingdom Town of Irasburg voted overwhelmingly Thursday night against a developer’s plan to put two 500 foot wind turbines atop one of its most scenic ridges.
274 voters said ‘no’ to the plan, and only 9 supported it.
The non-binding vote was spurred by plans by David Blittersdorf, founder and CEO of All Earth Renewables, to erect two wind turbines atop Kidder Hill, where he owns a cabin. He has not yet formally made an application to the Public Service Board, which must give approval for such projects.

Western NY braces for the kind of community division that Cape Vincent is still struggling to overcome and leave behind.

Wind Turbine Debate Divides Orleans County Town

Incumbent town supervisor John Belson won the Republican primary against anti-wind project candidate Jim Simon, but only by seven votes. Some have accused Belson of aligning with the project’s developer, Apex Clean Energy.
“This is a a very controversial topic, a very hot topic,” Belson said. “It’s being looked at critically by both side of this. There have been a lot of accusations that have been made that aren’t actually correct. We don’t really have much control over that. The town board’s just trying to do what’s best for the complete town of Yates.”
Virginia-based Apex is signing leases with local landowners to build dozens of 600-foot-tall wind turbines. The company says the project would generate clean power for more than 50,000 homes, and create revenue for the landowners and for the town.


Cape Vincent's MetalCraft Marine awarded $10 Million contract.

Stefanik Applauds U.S. Navy Contract with MetalCraft Marine

October 2, 2015  
Press Release 
Glens Falls, N.Y. – Today, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY-21) issued the following
 statement applauding the U.S. Navy’s decision to award a contract to MetalCraft Marine in
 Cape Vincent, N.Y.:
“This is great news for our North Country community and the Jefferson County
 economy,” said Congresswoman Stefanik. “MetalCraft Marine has a long history of 
manufacturing high quality boats and the U.S. Navy has chosen well by awarding them 
this important work.”
In September, Congresswoman Stefanik sent a letter of recommendation on behalf of 
MetalCraft Marine to the U.S. Navy. The contract will keep 15 to 20 people fully employed
 for the next 5 years in addition to increased business for suppliers.
RWiley Photo

Last June, I was invited aboard this Brooklyn fireboat built by MetalCraft at their Kingston facility.
MetalCraft Marine Snags $10 Million Contract

The U.S. Navy has awarded a Cape Vincent-based manufacturer a $10 million contract for oil spill-related equipment.
The award to MetalCraft Marine was announced by the Department of Defense this week. 
The money - $10,158,923 - is going for 20 "oil spill response boom platforms" and 50 utility boats.

Mrs. Shadow, on a beach in sunny California, says hello to JLL readers.

MShadow iPhone selfie

A sign of good things to come for Town of Cape Vincent voters.

RWiley Photo

Cape Vincent's County Leg, Michael J. Docteur will step down from his role as vice-chairman of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators.

Docteur will continue to serve Clayton and Cape Vincent as District #1 representative.

Jefferson County Board chairman discussion still up in air

Henderson resident strongly objects to sacrificing Jefferson County's Golden Crescent and Galloo Island to industrial wind.

The newly submitted revised PIP (Link here) provides requires several new comments
that are in addition to those I originally posted which further serve to
Comment No. 1 ---2.2 Project Summary has a very misleading statement
“...in lake Ontario, 6 miles from the mainland in the Town of Hounsfield...”
The project is 6 miles from the Town of Henderson on the mainland. The
project is located in the Town of Hounsfield.

Comment No. 2 --- 2.2 Project Summary “The Island is comprised
predominately of vacant land” This statement is extremely disturbing to
justify a project on one of the few unique Great Lakes Islands. Take note
that the Grand Canyon Park, Adirondack Park and Yosemite Park are also
predominately vacant land.

Comment No. 3 --- Wind Project Study Area, the applicant has conveniently
justified the destruction of what should be a protected island by stating there
are good wind resources there. Again take note Grand Canyon Park,
Adirondack Park and Yosemite Park also have good wind resources. Further,
even the applicant recognizes this site as “unique” in their description.

Comment No. 4 --- 2.5 Project Purpose, Need and Benefit,
How will this project satisfy regional energy needs and offset fossil-fuel
generation, when the region is predominately renewable based and base
load carbon free nuclear already?

The existing imports to our region of New York State are extremely low-cost
renewable energy from Quebec and the potentially the proposed 1000MW
CHPE. The first are existing assets that provide base load power, the second
is privately funded and will also provide base load power. The Hudson
Energy Galloo Wind Farm is peaking power, contributing nominally 30MW on
the average and requires substantial public funds for construction.

Regarding the RPS and 2009 State Energy Plan commentary, as stated
above, this area of New York State has contributed very heavily into
infrastructure that is either renewable or carbon-free already and is a net
energy exporter throughout the state. This project proposed by Hudson
Energy has no public need. The initial attempt to populate Galloo Island with
a wind energy facility failed because there was no public need (e.g. no PPA

Comment No. 5 --- Exhibit 5 – Host and Adjacent Landowners – it is
extremely upsetting the see that the NYSDEC is listed as Host Landowner
parcel 95.00-1-5. The Hosting Agreement between NYSDEC and Hudson
Energy Development should be posted on Hudson’s website (when
operational) but more immediately on the PSC DMM site. The NYSDEC has
conflicted itself within the Article 10 Siting Process now that it is a party to
the project.
The 15-20 mile Visual Impact Study for this project is essential, and likely
one of the main objections by the majority of dissenting parties. The last
project proposed by Upstate NY Power had much shorter turbines, but a
greater density. However, since the Hudson turbines are both taller and
have larger rotor diameter’s the visual impact will likely be greater. SHPO
provided comments to Upstate NY Power which should be updated and
considered by Hudson Energy Development, regarding the various Historic
Resources Evaluation (see attached SHPO June 23, 2009 comments).

It is very disappointing is that the Town of Hounsfield, and the Village of
Sackets Harbor promote the sacrifice and tainting of a unique region and
Great Lake Island, when they have previously had a tremendous role in
upkeep and preservation of the various Historic Resources in their Town, to
the point of very restrictive zoning in their own Village Historic District.
If Hudson Energy Development insists on pursuing a project on Galloo
Island, the following is from Exhibit 9 Alternatives to the Article 10 rules:
"(g) an identification and description of reasonable energy
supply source alternatives including but not limited to alternatives to the proposed facility consisting of renewable generation, distributed generation, transmission, and demand-reducing alternatives, except that an applicant may limit its identification and description to alternatives that are feasible considering the objectives and capabilities of the sponsor or its affiliates; 
"A solar alternative would remove the majority of concerns for visual impacts and it would also alleviate a number of the most important environmental concerns as well.

Hudson Energy Developments’ website has both solar panels and turbines in their masthead, and touts its expansive renewable development expertise:
"Hudson is focused on developing new energy supply projects that seek to integrate some of the emerging technologies most critical to the radical transformation now underway in the electric power industry. Low-cost, utility-scale solar and wind energy systems..."

More information regarding Hudson’s extensive solar initiatives can be found at 

I object to the proposed wind energy project on Galloo Island.
Robert E. Aliasso, Jr. 8748 State Route 178 Henderson, NY 13650 RAliasso@twcny.rr.com 

2009 letter from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation contradicts the compatibility of a Galloo Island wind project with Jefferson County's Golden Crescent.

Tom Hagner
Upstate NY Power Corp. 950-A Union Road, Suite 20 West Seneca, NY 14224-3454
Dear Mr. Hagner:
June 23, 2009

Hounsfield Wind Farm (Galloo Island)
84 Turbines/252 MW
Galloo Island, Hounsfield, Jefferson County 07PR06733

Dear Mr. Hagner

Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as it is our understanding that the US Army Corps of Engineers will have some permitting role in this project. These comments are those of the SHPO and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources. They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland or state owned historic sites that may be involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental review of the project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and/or the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York Environmental Conservation Law Article 8).

This letter confirms that we have received a request from your project consultant to evaluate properties for potential historic/cultural significance. The request was submitted for one portion of the larger undertaking, specifically the Galloo Island turbine field. The second portion of the undertaking, which is not included in this material or our evaluation, is the underwater and over land 230kV transmission line. This proposed line will connect the island to the mainland at Henderson, Jefferson County via underwater cable then continue 41.61 miles over land to Mexico, Oswego County. The line will utilize approximately 384 new monopole towers. This portion of the undertaking will be fully reviewed when all survey material has been received.

You can continue to read the 2009 letter by visiting the following link to the New York State Public Service Commission. The letter is included in a comment by Robert E. Alliasso, Jr. 8/29/2015.

While you are visiting the PSC site, please consider adding your own comment to the public testimony regarding the need and environmental compatibility of the proposed sacrifice of Galloo Island and Jefferson County's Golden Crescent to Industrial Wind.


Samaritan Medical Center is exploring plans to transfer ownership of its Cape Vincent facility.

Samaritan Medical Center Looks To Get Out Of Clinic Business

 Watertown's Samaritan Medical Center (SMC) is thinking about getting out of the clinic business.

SMC is exploring plans to transfer ownership of several of its primary care clinics to the North Country Family Health Center (NCFHC).

The proposal includes clinics in Adams, Cape Vincent, Clayton, LeRay, Sackets Harbor and Watertown.

Let's hope that Jefferson County, NY does not allow it's Golden Crescent and Galloo Island to become destroyed as a result of a fantasy cure for climate change.

Industrial Wind vs. Rural America, Electricity Markets

By Mary Kay Barton -- August 12, 2015
“If you have no conscience, no morals, no aesthetic sensibility, no understanding of free markets; if you hate wildlife, people and the natural landscape, if you loathe private property… then the … wind industry is undoubtedly the place for you…. Only the Taliban at Bamiyan or ISIS at Palmyra can really come close to matching the wind industry’s scorched-earth zeal…”
The destruction of rural America is ongoing, thanks to all who continue to push industrial wind energy as a fantasy-cure for ‘Climate Change.’  Trillions of dollars have been spent on ‘renewables’ worldwide, yet CO2 has NOT been significantly reduced, while rural America is paying the ultimate price. Our countrysides, wildlife, and Constitutional private property rights are being sacrificed on the altar of ‘green’ energy for NO net benefit.
U.S. taxpayers and ratepayers need to awaken to the environmentally-destructive, wealth-transfer and corporate land-grab that IS industrial wind energy, before more of our priceless American countrysides and wildlife are destroyed.

JLL reader brings us up to date on "future of energy overhaul".

JLL Reader Comment: I am not sufficiently familiar with all the moving parts in Congress right now to be able to make a well-informed guess as to how the information below might affect the prospects for a resurrection of the Wind Power Production Tax Credit (PTC). 

But if a new level of partisan gridlock is now getting even further hardened in the Congress regarding energy, I would hope that would dim the prospects for bringing the PTC back to benefit proposed projects that do not even meet the already stretched IRS rules that allow eligibility for the PTC with only preliminary construction planning and financing arrangements being worked out. (Galloo would not qualify under current law -- even under the liberal IRS interpretations of that law.)

The fate of the PTC may hinge more on what happens in the taxing committees of Congress than in the energy committees, but the tensions described in the paragraphs below do not point to an atmosphere conducive to bipartisan dealmaking. In the context of the PTC, at least, that's a good thing.

POLITICO Morning Energy

Future of energy overhaul grim as lawmakers go partisan 
By Eric Wolff | 09/30/2015 10:00AM EDT
With help from Jenny Hopkinson, Andrew Restuccia, Darius Dixon, Darren Goode, and Alex Guillén
FUTURE OF ENERGY OVERHAUL GRIM AS LAWMAKERS GO PARTISAN: House lawmakers pulled the plug Tuesday on reaching broad bipartisan agreement on a four-part energy strategy, likely dooming any long-shot chance as well that this Congress will produce the first major update in energy law in at least eight years.
We had a deal! Chairman Fred Upton and Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone initially had a bargain that the two sides would agree on all changes to the bill. But in the end, Democrats wanted stronger language addressing climate change and Republicans may not have felt compelled to push hard on even a modest bipartisan agreement ahead of next year's elections. "Now, were faced with a contentious markup that could have been a bill with a very bipartisan product," Pallone said yesterday in his opening statement at a committee meeting. Panel Republicans, including Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield, retorted that Democrats were not being honest brokers. "I think we all had great hopes and expectations," the Kentucky Republican said. "And to be truthful about it, the fact that we were not able to reach an agreement says a lot about this institution and where we found ourselves for whatever reason."