2006-02-27 MTG7
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 515
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING Mtg #7
TH
FEBRUARY 27, 2006 Res. 115-138
7:00 P.M. LL#1, 2006
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR DANIEL STEC
COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR
COUNCILMAN RICHARD SANFORD
COUNCILMAN JOHN STROUGH
COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
TOWN COUNSEL
BOB HAFNER
TOWN OFFICIALS
Jennifer Switzer, Budget Officer
Marilyn Ryba, Executive Director of Community Development
Mike Shaw, Director of Wastewater
Bruce Ostrander, Superintendent of Water
PRESS:
Glens Falls Post Star, TV-8
SUPERVISOR STEC called meeting to order….
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER
PUBLIC HEARING – Year 2006 West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc.
Ambulance Service Agreement
Notice Shown
7:00 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, I’ll open this public hearing. The West Glens Falls Rescue
Squad had a one year contract whereas the other two squads had signed on to a two year
contract. So, the other two squads, Bay Ridge and North Queensbury continue to operate
on a contract in their second year right now. So this is a new contract for West Glens
Falls Emergency Rescue Squad Incorporated. It includes, the town right now as most
people I think are aware of, includes funding for paid daytime service. Actually there’s a
paid element for all three rescue squads, however the way that its structure financially the
payroll services for all three squads actually flow through West Glens Falls EMS. So
although there’s money included in their budget, it certainly isn’t all for their use but it’s
also used in Bay Ridge and North Queensbury. In addition to that, the town and the
squad have resolved the whole issue as far as how much funding is going to be in place
for a new building which will hopefully start construction here this spring, so their new
debt is factored in there as well. The town looks at the three, we break down a lot of the
way we look at our emergency services to an operations budget, a debt budget and in this
case additionally a paid daytime service portion of the budget. The operations budget for
West Glens Falls EMS over last year is up approximately eight percent and Jen right
now, what I’m trying to find right now is the number.
MS. JENNIFER SWITZER, Budget Officer-It’s Exhibit A, it’s going to be the second to
last page.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Total two seventy-one one hundred.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Operating Expenses are one sixty-five four hundred for
2006. Insurance, twenty-two thousand, Debt Service eighty-three thousand seven
hundred for a total contract budget of two hundred seventy-one thousand one hundred.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 516
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, so again, that’s a summary of where we are. Again, this is a
one year contract with West Glens Falls Emergency Squad. The public hearing is open
so if there’s any members of the public that would like to comment on this public hearing
for this contract we just ask the you raise your hand, I’ll call on people, bring you to the
microphone, ask you to state your name and address for the record and make any
comments that you would like. Anybody? I’m not sure; I don’t see anyone from the
squad.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Dan, I did get a call late this afternoon from Sandy
Boucher and she was not able to attend tonight.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay and again, this is not a surprise, the town has been talking
about this with the squad for a while and it’s been involved in a couple of workshops and
we set the public hearing a couple of weeks ago for tonight. Is there any public comment
at all or any questions about this proposed contract? Any Town Board comment or
discussion? One more time. Is there any correspondence on this Caroline?
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anybody from the public on West Glens Falls Emergency
Squad’s 2006 budget? Okay, I’ll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND WEST
GLENS FALLS EMERGENCY SQUAD, INC. FOR 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 115, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
§
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law 184, the Queensbury Town Board may
contract with ambulance services certified or registered in accordance with Public Health
Law Article 30 for general emergency ambulance service within the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town and the West Glens Falls Emergency Squad, Inc., negotiated
terms for a new one-year Agreement for general emergency ambulance services, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law
§209(b), the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons
concerning the proposed Agreement for emergency ambulance services, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 517
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the emergency
ambulance service Agreement between the Town and the West Glens Falls Emergency
Squad, Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor to execute the Agreement and directs the Town Supervisor, Budget Officer and
Town Counsel to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this
Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING – Fire Protection Service Agreement For North Queensbury
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. For 2006
Notice Shown
7:05 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, the next five all have to do with the Fire Company contracts
for this year. There’s always discussion as to length of contracts and what not for all five of
these. What’s being proposed is a one year contract. The first one, the one that Caroline
just read into the record is for North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company Incorporated and
again, it’s a one year contract. I believe the language in their contract is the same as it’s
been in the past so really the only difference that we’re talking about is in the financial
figures. The total contract amount is for three hundred thousand dollars which represents,
the operations is a hundred and ten thousand eight-fifty.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-No, it’s a hundred and twenty-five thousand eight-fifty.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Oh, I’m sorry, a hundred and twenty-five eight-fifty, same error I’m
carrying forward which is up front an adopted contract last year of a hundred thirteen one
seventy-two. With that, the public hearing is open, if there’s any members of the public that
would like to comment, again North Queensbury’s Fire Contract for 2006. Again, we just
ask that you raise your hand and I’ll call on people individually.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Did you mention the total amount?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Did you mention the total amount on that?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I did, three hundred thousand.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It was the first number I through out.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Alright.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 518
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any comments on North Queensbury’s proposed 2006 contract? Mr.
Fraiser, we just ask that you come to the microphone and state your name and address for
the record.
MR. PETE FRASER-Pete Fraser, President of North Queensbury.
MR. DAN DAVIES-Dan Davies, Assistant Chief North Queensbury.
MR. FRASER, President-As per our previous negotiations with the town we stated in the
contract that we were asking for three fifteen, as per your negotiations you cut us back to
three hundred. At a previous meeting we asked for either three hundred and ten and the
payment schedule or three hundred thousand payable up front and eliminate the payment
schedule and we didn’t see that in the contract.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I know what you’re talking about. Jennifer, we had, that’s something
that we have the flexibility to discuss here tonight Bob is the payment schedule? Sure, it’s
the total dollar amount that we’re less flexible on by law.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Right.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So what you’re suggesting again is the three hundred, the number
that we proposed for tonight is three hundred thousand and you’re suggesting as opposed to
three separate payments in the payment schedule that you talk about, is have it all up front,
that’s what you’re asking the board to consider?
MR. FRASER-Essentially.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why would we, why would you want us to do that rather then
the payments?
MR. FRASER-To compensate for the interests that the town’s making on the money that we
could have up front and we could have it in our accounts making that interest money.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other, anything else at this time?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Geese, I wish you guys hadn’t gone first.
MR. DAVIES-Well we also wanted to state for the record that the three hundred or the three
fifteen, three fifteen is less then we proposed last year, we came in with a lower budget.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You did.
MR. FRASER-And we were chopped down by the town.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You were.
MR. FRASER-And as part of the compensation for taking a cut, we thought it would be in
our best interests that, this is the way that it was done years ago, somehow it got changed
over before my administration but we thought it would be some what of a equal ground.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And just, I mean and I know that you probably recall this but for the
public that might be interested, I know, again prior to my arrival here a few years ago that
the town did change it to a payment schedule and I don’t know if that was a change, a
significant change or not but I do know that the payment schedule had been put in place not
necessarily saying that it’s been an issue for North Queensbury but the payment schedule is
really to provide some checks and balances as we meet certain wickets during the contract
year to make sure that we’re getting certain things from the rescue squad or the fire
company, whatever they may be. You know, sometimes a financial carrot is a good
motivator so that’s, I think that’s the rationale why that was put in there and I understand
what you’re saying. I understand the interest question and the fact that you’re going to say
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 519
we’ve never had an issue with meeting our contractual obligations, and I’m sure that you’re
saying and it’s probably accurate.
MR. FRASER-Not that I know of Dan, I think we’ve always been pretty prompt.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You have. No complaints here. Anything else right now? We’ll
give you a chance to come back, I’m just thinking of the public.
MR. FRASER-No I think those, that’s what we brought up previously and we didn’t see it
addressed in the contract and that’s why we’re here tonight.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Fair enough. Alright, thank you. Is there anyone else from the
public that would like comment on the North Queensbury Fire Contract public hearing?
Anybody at all? Yes, Mr. Carr.
MR. EDWARD CARR-Edward Carr, Assistant Chief North Queensbury Fire. Just in
regard to the payment schedule, that was approved by the town in 1994 for a lump sum
payment for us because I believe you cut our contract because we have the lowest debt of
any of the fire or rescue squad companies and one way that we have the lowest debt is
we’ve negotiated loans with lump sum payments and in 1994 when we negotiated with then
Evergreen Bank the town guaranteed us that they would still fund us up front and then they
unilaterally changed that after the fact. So, that’s one of the reasons why we’d like to see the
money up front.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you. Anybody else this evening, North Queensbury’s Fire
2006 Contract? Discussion from Town Board Members? Anybody from the public again?
Alright, I’ll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:11 P.M.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Do we want to amend it as
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll entertain a motion.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Alright, I’ll move that we amend the language such that they get
the entire amount, I don’t know on what date we would want to do that.
MS. SWITZER-That’s completely up to the Town Board.
COUNCILMAN SANDFORD-I’ll second it for discussion, I think it’s worthy of some
comments.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
AND THE NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER
FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 116, 2006 WITHDRAWN
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION:
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You have to pick a date after today but you could pick
tomorrow.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 520
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-They’ve already got one third.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-No, they’ve gotten two twelfths.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-When’s the next payment?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The first payment is usually due in April, March, Jen?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-What we would do is, it would be divided into thirds. So, it
would be one third less, the two twelfths they’ve already been paid that they would be
receiving after signing the contract right now. And if you so decide, it would be the full
amount less the two twelfths on whatever date you would like.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-What date do we usually issue, the one-twelfth, one-twelfth,
one-twelfth?
th
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-That would be the first audit in March, March 6 when
they would get the next twelfth.
th
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-So basically what we’re saying is that on or before March 6
the rest of what we owe them.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes.
COUNCILMAN SANDFORD-The concern I have is not so much with their request in
terms of how the dollars work out, it’s consistency. I think if we do one lump payment with
North Queensbury, what’s going to be the rationale not to do one lump payment for all the
other fire companies. And while I appreciate their point of view because we were all
present during the negotiations and I think they had a compelling argument for perhaps
receiving greater then what we awarded, I don’t feel comfortable in going lump sum with
one and then perhaps not agreeing to do so with the others and I think that any fire
department would rather receive the lump sum simply because they then deposit and earn
the interest. So, while I second this motion for discussion I really don’t support it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I agree and I don’t support it for the same reasons. Where we go
from here as far as Roberts Rules, we could either vote on this or then come up with the next
one or we can amend this one or we can withdraw this one.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let me ask a question of our Budget Officer, is there any way that
on the last payment which is, is that August?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-August.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-August, can we, is it appropriate and would it be prudent to add
interests that’s accrued on the amounts of the balances?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer -I would say no because once again, you’re bringing up the
same argument that’s going to come up with the other four fire companies.
COUNCLMAN BOOR-No, what I’m saying is I don’t mind giving all of the companies the
interest.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-I can tell you that part of the entire emergency fund budget
is based upon cash flow and this past year, how we budgeted, I did not budget to lose all of
this money up front so we would be decreasing our interest revenue that we would earn to
support the entire emergency fund services.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is there any other method that you can think of?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-There’s various ways of maybe not a hundred percent of it
but increase the percentage, instead of a third, a third, do fifty percent and fifty percent.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 521
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess I’m more interested in knowing how much you account for
with regard to retaining interests for emergencies or for, is that actual operation?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-It’s the actual operations.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The public hearing had three hundred thousand as the
amount, if you include the interest that’s earned, that’s a higher number and you’d have to
do a new public hearing, it’s just the way it’s written.
SUPERVISOR STEC-What’s the pleasure of the board?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m going to probably withdraw it then because as I pointed out
when they first came up, obviously every company is going to do this, I would do it…
SUPERVISOR STEC-So are we withdrawing the motion?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, and you withdraw your second?
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Yea.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll move this as written.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ll second it.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
AND THE NORTH QUEENSBURY
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 116, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the
Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury
Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West
Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire
Company and the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town and the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have
negotiated terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law
§209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons
concerning the proposed Agreement, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 522
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting
and is in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection
District, hereby approves the Fire Protection Service Agreement between the Town and the
North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this
meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town
Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate
the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING – Fire Protection Service Agreement For Bay Ridge Volunteer
Fire Company, Inc. for 2006
Notice Shown
7:20 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, our next fire company contract for 2006 is Bay Ridge. Bay
Ridge, the number for this contract the grand total was three hundred and sixty-two
thousand dollars which is down from last year’s total of three hundred and sixty-six three
hundred and operations is actually down about point four percent from a hundred and
eighty-four six seventy-five to a hundred, from a hundred and eighty-five three-fifty. So,
it’s approximately a flat budget or actually slightly down. The public hearing is open, if
there’s any members of the public that would like to comment on Bay Ridge’s proposed
2006 contract, we just ask you to raise your hands please.
MR. JACK PERNA-Good evening, Jack Perna, Treasurer Bay Ridge Fire Company.
MR. DOUG COONS-Doug Coons, Board of Director of Bay Ridge Fire Company.
MR. PERNA, Treasurer-We didn’t receive your updated contract until the beginning of last
week. Our attorney is out of town for two weeks so at present we’re unable to sign a
contract tonight until we have attorney review and get through our process as far as that
goes.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. Alright, any other questions? Alright, thank you both. Is
there anyone else from the public that would like to comment on Bay Ridge’s proposed
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 523
2006 contract? Anybody at all? Any Town Board Member discussion or comment? Any
correspondence Caroline?
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Any other public comment? Alright, I’ll close this public hearing
and entertain a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:23 P.M.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND THE
BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 117, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the
Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury
Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West
Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire
Company and the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town and the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have negotiated
terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law
§209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons
concerning the proposed Agreement, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting
and is in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection
District, hereby approves the Fire Protection Service Agreement between the Town and the
Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 524
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town
Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate
the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING – Fire Protection Service Agreement For Queensbury Central
Volunteer Fire company, Inc. For 2006
7:24 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, I will open this public hearing. Queensbury Central 2006
contract, the proposed amount, five hundred and fifty-five thousand dollars which is up
approximately, in operations approximately eight and a half percent from last year. Their
operations portion of that five fifty-five is two hundred seventy-two thousand four eighty-
seven.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Two eighty-two four eighty-seven.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m sorry, two eighty-two four eighty-seven.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Mr. Brewer has your sheet.
SUPERVISOR STEC-He does have my sheet, you gave him my sheet.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Yes he does.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I stole it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You stole it, that’s fair enough. Alright, and last year’s operations
was two fifty-five one sixty-five. So, the proposed amount is for five hundred fifty-five
thousand dollars. In addition to the number, the town after review and after meeting with
Queensbury Central did add additional, one additional sentence I believe was contract
language referring to the use of their current restricted vehicle fund balance which runs
approximately a hundred thousand dollars and the Town Board had decided that they want
to put language in the contract that would require that balance be used to offset the amount
financed for the previously approved tower truck that the Town Board approved last year in
a resolution. So that is a language change that was communicated to the company and that’s
the summary of this contract. If there’s any members of the public that would like to
comment, again, sir? Mr. Goedert.
MR. DICK GOEDERT-Dick Goedert, I’m the Assistant Secretary Queensbury Central.
The only thing I would ask is that you keep the public hearing open and allow us to have
one more negotiation session with you. Our president is sick tonight, he couldn’t be here
and I think he sent a letter to each and everyone of you requesting that and hopefully you
can leave it open and let us finalize our negotiations.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to
comment on this public hearing, again 2006 contract for Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire
Company? Any Town Board discussion or comment? We did receive Mr. Goedert, just for
the purpose of the record, I did receive and I’m sure the Board did President Kasselbaum’s
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 525
letter and it did request basically what you asked us for tonight. We’ll see what the will of
the Board is. John, were you going to say something?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-These are amendable, right?
SUPERVISOR STEC-The contracts?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Not once we vote on them.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Contracts are always amendable. I mean, you know three months
from now we could always, I mean the will of the Board and the will of the company.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But I mean, if we approve this tonight just for consistency
purposes as Mr. Sanford points out and we sit down and talk with Queensbury and we agree
that they have, you know argument, we could come back and amend it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s a true statement.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-If we don’t necessarily agree with them, then we leave it
status quo.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And there would be an offer on the table for them, you’re correct.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And can I just clarify, if you make a substantial change the
contract, you need to go through this process again.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If it’s not substantial, that’s within here.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well, I think know what part their talking about.
TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The amount has to have public hearing.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Correct. Is that the will of the Board?
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I’m not sure what the will of the Board is?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think John is suggesting that we, all due respect to the request that
we got, he said, I don’t want to put words in your mouth but I’m thinking I’m hearing John
suggesting that we consider closing public hearing, acting on this bearing in mind that if we
do decide down the road that we want to entertain what Central’s asking us to entertain now,
later that we in fact can do that and I agree, it’s entirely possible. But I think that’s what I
heard you suggest.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well that’s what I was asking if those options were available
to us.
SUPERVISOR STEC-They are available to us.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And then I would suggest that.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would agree only because if we were to make the exception then
I don’t know why anybody who would like to keep negotiating not make the same offer or
ask the same questions so maybe we should vote on it but in writing tell them that they’re
more then welcome to come in and discuss any issues that they, they feel that they’d like to
change.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-And I’m willing to do that.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 526
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anyone feel strongly in an opposite opinion on that? Alright, then I
will close the public hearing and I will entertain a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:28 P.M.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
AND THE QUEENSBURY CENTRAL VOLUNTEER
FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 118, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the
Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury
Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West
Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire
Company and the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town and the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have
negotiated terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law
§209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons
concerning the proposed Agreement, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting
and is in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection
District, hereby approves the Fire protection Service Agreement between the Town and the
Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this
meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 527
Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate
the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING – Fire Protection Service Agreement For South Queensbury
Volunteer Fire company, Inc. For 2006
Notice Shown
7:30 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, South Queensbury had a busy day today, although I do see
some of their leadership here, their chief and their past president and treasurer and I think I
saw their president around. But anyways, they had a very busy day today, anyone that’s
been driving around Dix Avenue today there was an ammonia spill that they had to evacuate
a good part of that neighborhood for a good part of the day. The individual involved in the
spill was burned and I guess there were two firefighters that needed some treatment and I
did speak to Chief Lettus on the way here this evening and he did say that they are both
doing well and back home so apparently their injuries were minor but we are thankful that
they’re well. So, I know that they had a busy day today. South Queensbury Fire, by way of
an update currently is operating under an old contract, they have been for the last sixteen
months or fourteen months or so while we sorted out the difficulties involving some audit
problems and there was some personal criminal issues to deal with that was separate from
the company itself. The company also did undergo a management change; Chief Lettus,
President Jason Waters and the new President Dave Jones have done a very good job
speaking on behalf of myself and Jennifer who had been meeting on about a monthly basis
as we move through this under different kind of level of scrutiny. They did a very good job
for the last fourteen months but unlike the other companies, this isn’t really a renewal of
what they had, it is a new contract, the contract language matches the other four companies’
language in the 2005 contract. I mean, they basically were operating although not under
contractual obligation, they were operating for the last fourteen months as if they were
underneath the provisions of that, under contract as far as the way that they conducted their
business and from what Jennifer and I had been able to see they did do an admirable job
with that. Now, with that said the dollar amount that the Town Board is proposing tonight is
a hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars total, seventy-five thousand and fifty-eight
dollars of that is operations. I don’t have a very good comparison to compare to for 2005
because again, we didn’t have a contract in 05 but I know that the one eighty-five number is
comparable to what our total experience was for 05 as far as when we added up all the
money that the town authorized throughout 05 for their operations, that the one eighty-five
is in the ballpark of what they actually spent last year. So, that’s the update on South
Queensbury. I’ll open the public hearing, if there’s any members of the public that would
like to comment or ask any questions on this public hearing on South Queensbury’s
contract, we just ask that you come forward, raise your hand and I’ll call on people.
Anybody? Any Town Board Members like to comment or add anything? Any
correspondence Caroline?
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-No.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Once again, any members of the public like to comment on this
public hearing? Okay, I will close this public hearing and entertain a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:32 P.M.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 528
RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
AND THE SOUTH QUEENSBURY
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 119, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the
Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury
Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West
Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire
Company and the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town and the South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have
negotiated terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law
§209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons
concerning the proposed Agreement, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting
and is in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection
District, hereby approves the Fire Protection Service Agreement between the Town and the
South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this
meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town
Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate
the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 529
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING – Fire Protection Service Agreement For West Glens Falls
Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. for 2006
Notice Shown
7:33 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, I’ll open this public hearing, this is the fifth of the five fire
companies contract renewals. What is offered is another one year contract for a total of four
hundred and thirty thousand dollars or approximately and I didn’t calculate the new number,
approximately a ten percent increase in operations. Their operations number for this year
would be, oh thank you Tim, thirteen percent increase in operations from two hundred and
sixteen four thirty-eight last year to two forty-five two fifty-nine this year. The rest of it,
again the contract language is the same as last year so its just a monetary difference and with
that said, again the public hearing is open, if there’s any members of the public that would
like to comment or ask any questions about this public hearing? Yes, in the back, we just
ask that you please come forward, state your name and address for the record please.
MR. SCOTT NUSSBAUM-Scott Naussbaum, President West Glens Falls Fire.
MR. BOB DUNN-Bob Dunn, Vice President West Glens Falls Fire. Actually, we were
thinking that we’d like to go along the same lines as Queensbury Central just requested. We
th
understood that when we met with you on the 13 that the public hearing would be extended
until a different date. We didn’t get our answer back on what the new contract was for I
believe three days after that meeting, we haven’t had a chance to meet with all the directors
yet and go over the budget figures and decide whether or not we can accept that or not. So
we were going to ask for an extension on the public hearing tonight also.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Anything else?
MR. DUNN, Vice President-We did have some prepared remarks for tonight but we’d
actually like to hold them for, if you’re going to extend the public hearing which it doesn’t
appear that you’re going to.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I don’t believe we extended the public hearing for
Queensbury Central.
MR. DUNN, Vice President -Right but it was stated at the last Town Board Meeting that if
th
we met again with you on the 13 that the public hearing would have to be held off to
another date other then tonight.
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-If the numbers have changed.
MR. DUNN, Vice President-If the numbers have changed, right.
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-Which they did.
SUPERVISOR STEC-They went up ten thousand dollars.
MR. DUNN, Vice President-Right.
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-Still that means that the numbers changed so the hearing date
should be changed also.
th
SUPERVISOR STEC-We set a public hearing on the 13 for tonight, that’s all I know that
we committed to.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 530
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-I believe that Mr. Sanford was the one that brought it up, that
you would have to change the date of the public hearing if the numbers had changed. Since
th
the numbers had changed for us and Central, the 27 would have been out.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I don’t recall that.
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-Asking the question.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-That should be a matter of fact whether or not by changing
those numbers if automatically invalidates the public hearing. Mr. Hafner?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-There was another that was addressed, you approved a
th
resolution for that to go out to be posted publicly, the Town Clerk did that on the 13 so we
th
met our deadline, our time line for the 27. If you had not done it on that night, yes in fact
you would have to extend that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think I could shed some light to bring some clarity here to this
th
misunderstanding. We met with you in a workshop on the 13, at the tail end of that
workshop the Town Board did vote again to set, with the new number the public hearing.
thth
So we passed a second resolution, we had passed on the 7 or the 6 of February and that
was the one that you said, well if we change the numbers, that night after you left and after
we conducted the rest of our business towards the tale end of our open meeting we did pass
another resolution that’s what Jennifer is referring to, to change the numbers for your
contract and for Centrals’. So, the longest short of it is we are in accordance with the law
and the procedure of how we can conduct the public hearing tonight, I guess is what the
short answer is.
MR. DUNN, Vice President-We just weren’t aware of that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I understand, I understand.
MR. DUNN, Vice President-I’d like to read a prepared statement we have then for you.
First of all, we’d like to thank Councilman Sanford for his efforts and other Board Members
in their attempts to make a realistic look at our needs. We would however like to remind
you that we will be back this summer with our hat in our hand due to a lack of funding. We
also support Councilman Sanford’s linear slope tax approach and had advocated for the
exact same thing in the last two years by requesting multiple year contracts and purchasing
items over fewer years. All of these requests were turned down. We also asked for three
year contracts budgets over the last two years in a row. These were agreed upon and
discussed but then dismissed both times. We also have been asked for a five year capital
plan and replacement plan for vehicles; we don’t know what the point of this is when we
have one year contracts. How many corporations survive on a year to year basis without the
ability of strategic planning? Is this the way the town is run with no future forecasting and
no reserve? We also agree with Councilman Sanford again, this late start every year for the
last several, causes problems with the tax rates. It doesn’t foster planning; this is why we
have requested specific language in our contracts for earlier start in negotiations with
specific duties but it was turned down. We don’t feel that a failure to plan on the board’s
part should constitute any emergencies on our part which seems to be just what is
happening. It’s not appropriate to compare Fire Company to Fire Company especially since
we all have different needs yet that is happening time and again. We should take out the
several MMA reports that have been done over the last few years and let the people of the
town know what we really need once and for all. Our needs have not been met; this is
evidence as we’ve used our fund raising dollars to cover costs that rightfully should have
been covered under the contract terms. And why haven’t the terms and conditions of the
contract language been open for discussion? Early negotiations would have allowed for
this, we feel we’ve been bullied again and not even allowed to discuss items that were
normally allowed in any contract discussion. We’d like to apologize in advance to the
following organizations if we are unable to support their activities again in our hall this year
due to a lack of funds. These organizations include the Warren County DPW, Warren
County EMS Captains Association and Warren County Fire Coordinator, Queens Victoria
Grant, Queensbury Little League, South Glens Falls Pop Warner, American Red Cross,
Glens Falls Hospital Mammogram Van, Cub Scouts Pack 16 & 17, Brownies and Daisy’s of
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 531
the Girls Scouts and Mothers and Daughters, Warren County City ARC, West Glens Falls
Chapel, Hope Community Church, Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association, any voting for
the primary and general elections and anyone else that may have a need for our requested
hall. That’s the end of our statement.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you.
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-I have a question. Mr. Strough you asked how come the
contracts weren’t the same and you were told it was just formatting and I believe that to be
true. There is a different paragraph in one contract that none of the others have and if you
are striving to maintain them as all the same, I’d like you to take a careful look at all of them
to see that they’re not all the same and that there is a paragraph in one contract that allows
for them to open negotiations up to renegotiate certain terms and conditions for a mortgage I
believe. So, I’d like to know why he was told that they are all the same, that it was a
formatting the reason it was run onto a different paragraph, to another page, it’s not correct.
We don’t all have the same contract. Anybody have an answer for that?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well you’re going to have to be a little more specific, I mean
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-Take a look at the contracts and read them for yourselves.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I mean, you pointed out, I’ve got them all right here if you
point it out, we’ll look at it right now Scott.
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-The very last paragraph
COUNCILMAN BOOR-In which contract?
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-Of Queensbury Central’s contract.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Oh well, there you go.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Under the assumption that you’re correct; it was merely a
mistake on our part. We believe them to be identical
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-You wouldn’t know it but the other individuals in this room
who are on this committee time and time again do know it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do know what Scott?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is it like page 12? I mean
MR. NUSSBAUM, President-That there’s a different paragraph, that there’s a different
paragraph for negotiations.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll offer an explanation because I did look into this after that meeting
and what happened was in last year’s Queensbury Central contract the board negotiated with
Queensbury Central a requirement that they refinance their mortgage.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right.
SUPERVISOR STEC-And so they agreed to do that and so that sentence was unique to
their contract and their contract only. In preparing the 2006 contracts the same sentence was
held over accidentally in Central’s contract about requiring them to refinance their
mortgage. I believe that the contract that we sent to Central indicated that we, the one that
where we changed the language on them saying you will use your restricted fund, when we
made that change, I had Pam also remove that other sentence because it was in there. That
is what happened. It is very simple. There was an explanation.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It is not in this copy. These are probably newer than what you got
Scott, that is all I am saying.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 532
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Everybody said it was a formatting thing.
MR. NUSSBAUM-It is not a sentence it is a paragraph and it happen in more than one year
though. It is just a point.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Everybody said it was a formatting thing, there you go.
MR. NUSSBAUM-It is just a point, I am trying to make.
SUPERVISOR STEC-To be thorough though there were no changes made between ‘05 and
‘06 contract for anybody that was the problem there should have been one other than the
dates.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But there was a difference in contract.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-John was right.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That is not right, that was not what was asked.
MR. NUSSBAUM-The point I am trying to make is that we have asked on more than one
occasion for contract language to be open we agree with you on the contract language to be
open to start sooner, the sooner you start with specific duties, we could have sat down had
all this discussion in place, linier slope everybody have the tax rate in mind you could have
better planning in place and gone forward. As far as your discussion earlier with interest we
are being taxed at two separate rates fire and ems. If we are being taxed at two separate
rates the money is coming in at two separate rates the money should be expensed at two
separate rates. If you are gaining interest on one account that that money is being taxed at
two separate rates I would like to know how it is being expensed at one rate and if it is not
being expensed at one rate and you are getting interest at one rate.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-We are getting interest at one rate I suggest you call the
local State Comptroller Office 793-0057 I have had this conversation with them as many
times as you have brought it up, it is legal under the law not just you
MR. NUSSBAUM-I have not brought it up.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-It is legal under the law this is how this was set up Scott
MR. NUSSBAUM-I have not finished my question.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-I am just going to tell you that’s
MR. NUSSBAUM-Have I finished my question?
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-Go ahead.
MR. NUSSBAUM-No I haven’t.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-Go ahead.
MR. NUSSBAUM-Like he got cut off the other night. I have not finished my question.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-Again, go ahead.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Please finish your question.
MR. NUSSBAUM-You are getting interest at one rate on the one account, we are talking
thththrd
about getting payments the 12 the 12 the 12 or a 3 if you are going to pay out that
money it should be paid out at two separate rates. Even if the money is coming into one
account with one interest rate. So, what we are asking for is an accounting of how the
money is being paid out to us at the two separate rates. That is all we would like to know,
and what is left over at the end of the year and where is that money going to us. That is
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 533
what we would like to know. If you are planning on having x amount of dollars at reserve at
the end of the year and the interest is accrued on that total amount how do we know what the
break out is of what is ours and what is ems.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-Ok, first of all there is no what is yours and what is ems. It
is emergency services fund you are under contract with the Town of Queensbury, therefore
the money that you get is for fire protection for the district that you are in. The rest of the
money that the Town gets from taxes that we earn from interest is for the entire emergency
services fund budget. We are audited on an annual basis and those audits are available in
the Town Clerk’s Office. I would suggest that you get a copy from the Town Clerk.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Is there any other public comment this evening from you two
gentlemen or any one else? Anybody else in the public? Any other Town Board Member
comments.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well, just a quick comment that I agree with a number of
things that they said and I would encourage that the fire companies and this board begin
discussing financial arrangements for 2007 as early as perhaps June because this exercise
was a time consuming exercise and here it is now knocking on March and they are just
resolving it. So, we do have to accelerate it you have to get in ahead of the .. and if we do
need to make adjustments we will have ample time to do it concerning tax rates and things
of that nature.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-I just want to point out if you do want to meet earlier with
them right now their contract stipulate that they get budgets to us in July
th
COUNCILMAN BOOR-July 15.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-Right,
COUNCILMAN BREWER-When did we get those budgets, Jennifer?
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-We got them in September, September and October it was
varying times during the fall that we got those.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, we will just have to make it a point to start in July
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-My point is that if you want that to be changed then you
have to address that in this contract right now.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think our contract is adequate we need to make sure that everyone’s
playing by the contract. Any other public comment on this public hearing? Mr. Frasier.
MR. FRASIER-North Queensbury Fire I think one point I want to bring up right now was
that now might be a good time for you guys to look at districts, to eliminate a lot of this
problem with the Town Board in dealing with the Fire Companies like the rest of New York
State as they have gone to districts that might be a good time right now that, take a look at it
and see what you deal with and go from there. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you Mr. Frasier, thank you. Any other public comments on
this public hearing? Mr. Schonewolf
MR. PAUL SCHONEWOLF-Director of North Queensbury. After listening to whatever
we have spent on this the two things that you talked about the most were interest and when
budgets are due. If these people were a fire districts that question would not come up.
th
Budgets are due September 20 it is State Law, correct? And tax payments are due to the
st
fire districts January 31 or when the money is paid, is that correct? There is your answer,
lets stop fooling around.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That will be a conversation that we certainly will have later this year,
but not tonight. Any other comment on this public hearing? Ok. I will close this public
hearing.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 534
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
7:50 P.M.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
AND THE WEST GLENS FALLS
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 120, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, fire protection services are provided to the Town of Queensbury by the
Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., Queensbury
Central Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., South Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., and West
Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., in accordance with agreements between each Fire
Company and the Town, and
WHEREAS, the Town and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., have
negotiated terms for a new one (1) year Agreement for fire protection services, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Law §184 and General Municipal Law
§209(b), the Town Board conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons
concerning the proposed Agreement, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Agreement has been presented at this meeting
and is in form approved by Town Counsel,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, on behalf of the Fire Protection
District, hereby approves the Fire Protection Service Agreement between the Town and the
West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., substantially in the form presented at this
meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to
execute such Agreement and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 535
Counsel and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate
the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
ABSENT: None
SUPERVISOR STEC-All six of these contracts the five fire contracts and the one rescue
squad contract all they all passed, Pam will print them tomorrow and I will sign them by
close of business tomorrow. They will be ready for your corresponding Presidents to come
and pick up and sign at your leisure.
BUDGET OFFICER SWITZER-Once we get a signed contract basically I need about a
days time to turn a check around for them for the balance.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-While many of the volunteers are here I want to thank you for
opening your fire houses and manning them for twenty four hours and offering food for
those people who are suffering as a result of the power outage. I as one Town Board
Member would like to speak for the community and thank you for that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I was going to say I am sure the whole Board seconds those
sentiments and I am glad you are still here and rather than waiting until Town Board
discussions since you are still here and we have you all here and you are all in a great mood
we do want to thank you all for the efforts. I know that all five companies were ran ragged
that entire four day event in particular Friday and Saturday last, and I know that North
Queensbury in particular for the geography and just the amount of wind blow that you had
that you probably took it the hardest although there was power outages through out the
entire town. Not only were you out there where we needed you but you also opened your
fire stations to people that might have needed it in the cold weather. I know that they
appreciated it so on behalf of them as well we thank you all.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes, I was going to be during Town Board discussion I had a little
bit of a diatribe that I was going to essentially say the same thing, but since it has been put
out there now I would like to also thank the Fire Departments. I did have the opportunity to
go to North Queensbury and I think the thing that struck me the most I got a little tour of the
area and you know as a resident you drive around and you see the trees down and you see
the power lines down and that is the visual impression that you have. But, I think the real
destruction and the real damage and the real pain and suffering is much greater than the
visual, it is the elderly, it is the young going for extended periods of time without power,
without electricity. It is people who are living essentially in their most expensive asset and
the clock is ticking with regards with frozen pipes. There were huge blocks without power
and as much as every fire department did a great job North Q, I cannot say enough you
know with the jockeying the generators from house to house firing these people up I am sure
that the dollar savings would be very hard to figure out but it would be excessive I am sure
and the fact that the station was open more than 24 hours open I think four days they were
serving hot meals just an admiral effort. That is not to diminish any other fire company
because I know I saw the Mellons driving out when Sunnyside was out, one thing about this
storm was its ability to knock out isolated areas and a lot of them so I think that’s what made
it one of the worst ones we have had because it wasn’t just a main power line down where
they had to work on the one power line fire up and get it all back it was sporadic, it was
everywhere. It was all over the place, and I think from National Grid standpoint I am sure
they did not know which way to go it would have been very confusing and I think it is going
to create an interesting argument when they continue to fight us on bearing underground
cables on Main Street. I think that is the direction we need to move in. I would hate to
assess what the actual dollar cost of this storm was; I bet it is a lot more than what it would
cost to bury cables on Main Street. I am hoping in the future residents also will start putting
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 536
pressure on Nation Grid to reconsider their stance. We need to look to the future and what
is really going to save us money here is that continuing to maintain these over head power
lines or doing what just about every other State is doing and they are starting to put them
underground. Out west it is all underground. So, I am hoping that this will provide an
example whereby they can re-think what they are doing.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Just to finish my thoughts on the power outage for everyone, you hit
the nail on the head it was not just a single main line that was down that took out big chunks
of people, it was dozens and dozens throughout the Town and throughout the many county
area that were without. Little pockets, people on one side of the street had power, half a
dozen homes on the other side of the street didn’t, it was little pockets like that. There were
at one point thirty-six crews in Queensbury running around from National Grid trying to
restore power, they were working double shifts. Their argument will be, is thirty-six
enough. How efficient are you at the tale end of a double shift and working outdoors and
whatnot. I know that Senator Little and Assemblywoman Sayward have pressured National
Grid. I do have a meeting scheduled with them, National Grid and other County
Supervisors later next week to discuss exactly these concerns. We want to make sure that
from the county’s end; certainly I think our emergency services had it covered but from the
county government end from the National Grid end, was everything that could have or
should have been done, done. I think those questions are going to be asked, they’ve been
asked already and I think there will be more follow up next week. That aside, the rescue
squads and the fire companies in particular did us all proud and we appreciate what you did.
COUNILMAN SANFORD-Okay I’ll weigh in, I might as well. This was an extraordinary
storm and I think it was great the way that so many agencies and companies came together
to take care of this emergency including National Grid, Verizon, the fire, the town, etcetera.
I was out of power for going on four days, it went out Friday at noon and came back
Monday at noon and I had six broken poles down in my neighborhood. I’ve got to tell you,
I was a little bit concerned and upset when I started reading all the finger pointing because I
was watching those crews working, the poles coming in, being put up and I think they did a
great job and you’ve got to understand, this wasn’t a thunderstorm that took this out, this
was one heck of a storm and you’ve got to expect that this kind of thing is going to happen
from time to time and I think everybody did a great job in trying to restore and help people.
I think there’s been a bit too much made about National Grid but that’s my own personal
opinion.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – Proposed Local Law To Amend Queensbury
Town Code Chapter 179 “Zoning” to Amend Language Concerning The Purpose
And Establishment Of Professional Office Zones And The Amendment Of Town
Code Tables 1, 2, And 4 Concerning Such Zones
Notice Shown
7:55 P.M.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, this public hearing is following a lengthy public hearing that
rd
was left opened. The Town Board took public hearing comment on January 23, about
two and a quarter hours worth. Caroline, was that your’s or was that Karen’s?
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-That was Karen’s meeting.
SUPERVISOR STEC-So Jennifer, I think you can expect to see a workers comp claim
filed for Carpal Tunnel for poor Karen O’Brien who had to type it all verbatim. But
anyways, we’ve taken a lot of public comment on this already. We do have
recommendations back from the County Planning Board of no county impact and from
the Town Planning Board recommending that we enact this. So we have all the
information that we are statutorily required in order to act, I believe that the Town Board
is prepared to act this evening. But what we’re looking, the public hearing is still open, if
there’s any members that want to comment, we would, I would personally prefer that
we’re looking for new information and not a rehashing of a two hour public hearing that
we had a few weeks ago but certainly anyone that feels that they need to be heard, we’re
going to hear you. So with that, the public hearing is still open and if there’s any
members that want to comment on this public hearing, I just ask that you raise your hand,
we’ll call on you one at a time, will receive your comment and when we’re done, we’ll
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 537
likely close the public hearing and take action. So, with that said, is there anyone that
would like to comment on this public hearing this evening? Miss Sonnabend.
MISS KATHLEEN SONNABEND-55 Cedar Court I am glad to see this finally come to
a vote, I think this has taken up everyone’s time for far too long. The intent of the
community leaders who created this comprehensive land use plan and the zoning code is
well known. When they said professional office shall be located in the first one thousand
feet they did not mean residential. Probably the reason that a lot of developers and their
attorneys figured that they could put residential in that professional office zone is because
of the language in referring to it as professional offices with a residential look. They
were referring to the offices across from ACC. A lot of doctors and dentists and
therapists and if you look in that neighborhood it looks like a residential neighborhood, it
is very attractive it is not at all unpleasant to drive by there. The zoning really is clear but
since so many people don’t want to accept it as being clear I think this clarification of the
professional office zone is very important. In addition to passing this clarification I
would urge you to consider thinking about a moratorium both on subdivision, residential
subdivision development as well as a moratorium in the professional office zone. We
have got the PORC,
SUPERVISOR STEC-Planning Ordinance Review Committee
MISS SONNABEND-Thank you. I know that they do not like being called pork.
Working for months now, many months with cost of consultants, numerous workshops
and meetings countless hours for the public as well as the planning people. I would
really like to see them have a chance to get their work done. They are looking very
carefully, and thoroughly at how development should occur in Queensbury. The best
places for light industrial, professional office, residential etc. I would sure like to see
them have a chance to get that done before we are left with very little land left to develop.
We are very fortunate to be in a part of the State that is growing so quickly and has
demand for people wanting to live here and work here. I do not think we have to be in a
rush to fill up every single square inch especially with the Nano Tech Park coming in
down in Malta. I would also encourage us to consider thinking about the original
language relating to our village center. For years planners have been talking about
making the village center more of a quaint kind of setting. Where the strengths of
Queensbury are encouraged, where our open spaces our trees, our mountains our vistas
instead of just filling up every space with large commercial and office buildings. It
would be nice not to see large story buildings or leveling of land and getting rid of the
terrain and a lot of the trees to try to maintain us as Queensbury instead of making us turn
out to look like another Clifton Park. Thank you.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR BREWER-I guess in Dan’s absence is there anyone else that
would like to comment? No? Yes?
MR. BOB VOLMAN-Gurney Lane I do not want to rehash some of this stuff but I
would like to make one statement. I would urge you to vote yes on this wording change
proposed for professional office zoning. At a previous Board Meeting I presented a
petition with more than one hundred and fifty signatures requesting that the change be
made. I think in light of the confusion caused recently regarding the proposal to put
ninety four townhouse apartments on a property at the corner of Gurney Lane and West
Mountain Road this wording change is necessary. If you will recall the owner of this
property had requested a fourteen unit subdivision on a sixteen acre plot of land that was
zoned one acre residential. The Board refused this as I understand it on the grounds that
this property was going to be rezoned professional office, and again at the request of the
Town, not the landowner. The reason given for this change was that the Town wanted to
increase the tax base that professional offices would provide. As I understand it
professional offices generate tax income that requires, or excuse me, as I understand it
professional offices generate tax income because they only require thirty seven cents of
services for every tax dollar they pay as opposed to a dollar sixty seven in services
required for each tax dollar derived from residential use. My numbers might be a little
off but I think I am in the general ball park on that. It does not make much sense to
rezone property to increase the tax base and then turn around and allow an even bigger
drain on tax dollars i.e. ninety-four units vs. fourteen units to be built in its place. The
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 538
current wording is ambiguous it is unfair to the developer who expends money to develop
plans that he feels is appropriate and it is unfair to the Planning Board which is trying to
interpret the law. Therefore I think it is most appropriate that this wording change be
made to clarify the meaning of this zoning category. Thank you.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR BREWER-Is there anyone else? Board Members? Close it?
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-You might as well.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR BREWER-Okay, we’ll close the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8:05 P.M.
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR BREWER-Comments from Board Members?
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-At this point in time I think we have had a lot to say, I am
speaking for myself here, but I am anxious to move it to a vote.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Same here.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Same here, we’ve said a lot, two years, I think the public is
DEPUTY SUPERVISOR BREWER-And I’ll just have one short little comment. I agree
we’ve all said a lot and we’ve had a lot of discussion and heated discussion at that. My
only comment is that this particular zone encompasses three different areas of the town.
It has been my feeling and my thoughts and I’ve said it publicly, that we ought to let the
PORC Committee look at this, come up with a reasonable number whether it be, there’s
some lots that are in this PO Zone that aren’t a thousand feet deep, so I do not know how
you can restrict something to a thousand feet. Having said that, I would just as soon get
this over as well.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well, you are in charge.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MARILYN RYBA-I
just wanted to go through a number of the technical things for the benefit of the record
and for the public. A recommendation was received from the Town Planning Board and
from Warren County we received that information, it was no impact from the County and
then a motion to recommend approval by the Town Planning Board. I also wanted to
mention that before those referral due dates that the long form environmental assessment
form was completed, we had some internal discussions and felt it was a more
conservative approach and a better approach to go through that process. One of the
things that the Town Board does need to do is you do need to declare the SEQRA Type
and go through that environmental assessment form. What has happened in the past is
the petition for zone change questions have been asked and reviewed after that SEQRA
form is complete and then the vote is taken. There’s no requirement that you do that, I
know it’s been discussed quite a bit, it’s really up to the Board but the requirement
definitely is for the SEQRA.
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following into the record:
Queensbury Partners
2 River Chase Drive
Rensselaer, NY 12144
Dear Mrs. Ryba:
Queensbury Partners presently has Site Plan Application 56-2004 for
residential development of a 34± acre parcel located at the corner of Bay and
Blind Rock Road and has made two separate presentations concerning same. The
Town is now considering amending its Zoning Ordinance with respect to the
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 539
Professional Office (PO) zone which may disallow residential development at this
site.
We have asked the owner of the site, our Seller, not to submit a Protest
Petition as we believe such action would be disadvantageous to all concerned.
We will be amending our Application in the very near future but will
commit to the Planning Board by this letter that such Amended Application will
be for development solely of office space along the Bay Road frontage. This
would allow the Town additional time to consider permitted uses for the
remainder of the site.
We ask the Town Board defer consideration of any amendment of its
current Zoning Ordinance in light of our commitment to develop solely office
space along the Bay Road frontage of this site. We understand that the Town is
undertaking a review of its Master Plan with a goal of adopting zoning changes in
the fall of 2006. We are willing to wait for these changes before submitting any
proposals for the development of the balance of this site.
By copy of this letter to Town Clerk, Darleen Dougher, we submit same as
public comment for the Public Hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the
Town’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 179) for the Professional Office (PO) zone
and Tables 1, 2 and 4. It is our understanding that the Public Hearing on this
issue will be opened for comment on Monday, February 27, 2006 during the
Town Board meeting.
We are hopeful that we can work together in achieving a result which will
be beneficial to all concerned.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Queensbury Partners
Neil S. Swingruber
(letter on file in Town Clerk’s Office)
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development led the Town Board
through the following:
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II
IMPACT ON LAND
NO
1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site:
Examples that would apply to column 2
Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of
length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%.
Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet.
construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles.
Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of
existing ground surface.
Construction that will continue for more then 1 year or involve more than
one phase or stage.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 540
Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of
natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
Construction in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs,
NO
dunes, geological formations, etc.)
Specific land forms:
IMPACT ON WATER
NO
3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
Examples that would apply
Developable area of site contains a protected water body.
Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected
stream.
Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body
Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland.
Other impacts:
NO
4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
Examples that would apply
A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more
than a 10 acre increase or decrease.
Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area.
Other impacts:
NO
5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will require a discharge permit.
Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval
to serve proposed (project) action.
Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45
gallons per minute pumping capacity.
Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply
system.
Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater.
Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do
not exist or have inadequate capacity.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 541
Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day.
Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing
body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to
natural conditions.
Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products
greater than 1,100 gallons.
Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or
sewer services.
Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may
require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage
facilities.
Other impacts:.
NO
6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would change flood water flows.
Proposed action may cause substantial erosion.
Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns.
Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AIR
NO
7. Will proposed action affect air quality?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour.
Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse
per hour.
Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat
source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to
industrial use.
Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial
development within existing industrial areas.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
NO
8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
Examples that would apply
Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list,
using the site, over or near site or found on the site.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 542
Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat.
Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for
agricultural purposes.
Other impacts:
9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species?
NO
Examples that would apply
Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory
fish, shellfish or wildlife species.
Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest
(over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation.
IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES
NO
10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
Examples that would apply
The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land
(includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.)
Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of
agricultural land.
The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of
agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres
of agricultural land.
The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land
management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip
cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain
poorly due to increased runoff)
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES
NO
11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
Examples that would apply
Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in
sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made
or natural.
Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic
resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the
aesthetic qualities of that resource.
Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening
of scenic views known to be important to the area.
Other impacts:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 543
IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES
12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
NO
paleontological importance?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially
contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of
historic places.
Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project
site.
Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for
archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or
NO
recreational opportunities?
Examples that would apply
The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.
A major reduction of an open space important to the community.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS
14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical
NO
environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)?
List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA.
IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION
NO
15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
Examples that would apply
Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods.
Proposed action will result in major traffic problems.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON ENERGY
NO
16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form
of energy in the municipality.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 544
Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy
transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family
residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use.
Other impacts:
NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS
17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action?
NO
Examples that would apply
Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility.
Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day).
Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient
noise levels for noise outside of structures.
Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH
NO
18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety?
Examples that would apply
Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of
accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge
or emission.
Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form
(i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.)
Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or
other flammable liquids.
Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within
2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
Other impacts:
IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR
NEIGHBORHOOD
NO
19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
Examples that would apply
The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is
located is likely to grow by more than 5%.
The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will
increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project.
Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals.
Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 545
Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or
areas of historic importance to the community.
Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g.
schools, police and fire, etc.)
Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects.
Proposed action will create or eliminate employment.
Other impacts:
20.Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
NO
environmental impacts?
RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 1OF 2006 TO AMEND
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” TO
AMEND LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE PURPOSE AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) ZONES AND
THE AMENDMENT OF TOWN CODE TABLES 1, 2 AND 4
CONCERNING SUCH ZONES
RESOLUTION NO.: 121, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider adoption of Local Law No.: 1 of
2006 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled “Zoning,” to:
§
1)amend language in Town Code 179-3-040 entitled “Purpose and establishment
of zoning districts,” concerning the purpose and establishment of the
Professional Office (PO) Zone;
2)amend Town Code Use Tables 1 and 2 to require setbacks for residential uses
within the PO Zone to be sited a minimum of 1,000 feet from Bay Road,
Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue or West Mountain Road;
3)amend Town Code Use Tables 1 and 2 to require all non-residential uses within
the PO Zone to be sited only within 1,000 feet of Bay Road, Sherman Avenue,
Western Avenue or West Mountain Road;
4)amend Town Code Use Table 2 to provide that personal service businesses are
allowed as accessory and subordinate to a professional office and that any
service facilities shall be located/housed within the professional office building;
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 546
and
5)amend Town Code Use Table 4 to clarify the density for multi-family dwelling
units and clarify the floor area ratio requirements for office uses; and
WHEREAS, this legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State
Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and Town Law Article 16, and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Local Law has been presented at this
meeting and is in form approved by Town Counsel, and
rd
WHEREAS, the Town Board duly held public hearings on January 23 and
th
February 27, 2006 and heard all interested persons, and
WHEREAS, as SEQRA Lead Agency, the Town Board has reviewed a Long
Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Local Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board, after considering the proposed
Local Law, reviewing the Long Environmental Assessment Form and thoroughly analyzing
the Local Law for potential environmental concerns, determines that the Local Law will not
have a significant effect on the environment and the Town Board hereby authorizes and
directs the Town Supervisor to complete the Long Environmental Assessment Form by
checking the box indicating that the proposed action will not result in any significant
adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board approves a SEQRA Negative Declaration and
authorizes and directs the Town Clerk’s Office and/or Community Development
Department to file any necessary documents in accordance with the provisions of the
general regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 1 of
2006 as presented at this meeting to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179 entitled
“Zoning,” to:
§
1)amend language in Town Code 179-3-040 entitled “Purpose and establishment
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 547
of zoning districts,” concerning the purpose and establishment of the
Professional Office (PO) Zone;
2)amend the Town Code Use Tables 1 and 2 to require setbacks for residential
uses within the PO Zone to be sited a minimum of 1,000 feet from Bay Road,
Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue or West Mountain Road;
3)amend the Town Code Use Tables 1 and 2 to require all non-residential uses
within the PO Zone to be sited only within 1,000 feet of Bay Road, Sherman
Avenue, Western Avenue or West Mountain Road;
4)amend Town Code Use Table 2 to provide that personal service businesses are
allowed as accessory and subordinate to a professional office and that any
service facilities shall be located/housed within the professional office building;
and
5)amend the Town Code Use Table 4 to clarify the density for multi-family
dwelling units and clarify the floor area ratio requirements for office uses; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this Local Law shall be effective immediately and shall apply to
all property in the Town’s Professional Office Zone other than any project which has
received all necessary approvals and for which actual construction has already substantially
commenced prior to this Local Law’s effective date, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury
Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance
with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law
will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Boor
NOES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
ABSENT : None
LOCAL LAW NO.: 1 OF 2006
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 548
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 179 “ZONING” OF
QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE TO MAKE REVISIONS TO THE
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) ZONE AND TABLES 1, 2 AND 4
BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS:
§
SECTION 1.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” 179-3-040 entitled
"Purpose and establishment of zoning districts" is hereby amended as follows:
§ 179-3-040. Purpose and establishment of zoning districts.
D.Other Districts.
(1)Mixed Use MU. The MU District encompasses areas where mixed residential and commercial
uses are encouraged. By mixing uses, the Town hopes to restore the vitality and vibrancy of
these urban neighborhoods. The purpose of this zone is further to allow for a transition in a
manner which permits the widening of the West Main Street arterial route, encourages safe
traffic patterns, an aesthetically pleasing environment and safe pedestrian circulation.
(2)
Professional Office PO. The PO District encompasses areas where professional offices are
encouraged. These are located along arterials adjoining residential areas where compatibility
with residential uses is important. The Town desires to see development of high quality offices
where structures and facilities are constructed with particular attention to detail including but not
limited to architecture, lighting, landscaping, signs, streetscape, public amenities, and pedestrian
connections. The PO District can function as a transition zone protecting residential zones from
more intensive commercial uses, while providing convenient professional services to residential
neighborhoods. Office and residential facilities should be sited and built to demonstrate
compatibility with adjoining uses and to minimize any negative impacts on adjoining land uses. It is
the intent of the PO District to locate residential uses setback a minimum of 1,000 feet from
roadways as outlined in the dimensional tables and behind professional offices. It is further the
intent to locate all non-residential uses only within 1,000 feet of roadways.
SECTION 2.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” Table 1 entitled
"Summary of Allowed Uses in Residential Districts" is hereby amended as attached and
made part of this Local Law, to require setbacks for residential uses within the PO Zone to
be sited a minimum of 1,000 feet from Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue or
West Mountain Road and all non-residential uses shall be sited only within 1,000 feet from
Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue or West Mountain Road.
SECTION 3.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” Table 2 entitled
"Summary of Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts" is hereby amended as attached and
made part of this Local Law, to require setbacks for residential uses within the PO Zone to
be sited a minimum of 1,000 feet from Bay Road, Sherman Avenue, Western Avenue or
allonly
West Mountain Road, professional office/office buildings shall be located within
1,000 feet of the arterial roadway, personal service businesses are allowed as accessory and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 549
subordinate to a professional office and any personal service facilities shall be
located/housed within the professional office building.
SECTION 4.
Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179, “Zoning,” Table 4 entitled
"Summary of Dimensional/Bulk Requirements" is hereby amended as attached and made
part of this Local Law, to clarify the allowed density for multi-family dwelling units and
clarify the floor area ratio requirements for office uses.
SECTION 5.
The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph or provision of this
Local Law shall not invalidate any other clause, sentence, paragraph or part thereof.
SECTION 6.
All Local Laws or ordinances or parts of Local Laws or ordinances
in conflict with any part of this Local Law are hereby repealed.
SECTION 7.
The provisions of this Local Law shall be applicable to all properties
in the Professional Office Zone, including any for which applications are currently pending,
unless all necessary approvals have been obtained and actual project construction has been
substantially commenced.
SECTION 8.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the
Office of the New York Secretary of State as provided in New York Municipal Home Rule
Law §27.
CORRESPONDENCE
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER noted that two letters from Peter Brothers were
received and filed in the Town Clerk’s Office and copies were distributed to the Town
Board Members. Also received and filed in the Town Clerk’s Office the Annual Report
for 2005 from Town Historian.
INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR – NONE
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
8:15 P.M.
MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Would like to support Mr. Sanford’s comments concerning the
work that the utility companies performed during the recent power outage… Would like
to comment on the areas of planning and zoning which deals primarily in North
Queensbury, noting there’s a wrath of projects coming through the Zoning Board of
Appeals and the Planning Board. These are projects that are billed as either renovations,
remodeling, call it what you will but it’s nothing more then new construction. We have
developers, their agents who parade a project past these boards that involves the knock
down of the complete living area, the structure retaining only the foundation and we’ve
got to come to grips with this. Noted that he has written to Zoning Administrator Craig
Brown looking for interpretations on some of these matters, the letter was dated January
th
19 and noted that he has not received an answer yet. The Town Board has been copied
on that as well as others including the Seaboyer project. That project is bizarre, it’s been
mischaracterized by the Planning Staff, it’s been misinterpreted by the ZBA and it’s
moving forward and it’s a sin. Take an in-depth look at this and if there’s one ordinance
that we need addressed in this town and it’s not a part of the Planning Ordinance and
Review Committee agenda, it’s the waste disposal, sanitary and sewer ordinance.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 550
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Both of the cases that you’ve sited are very relevant, of huge
concern to me too. One we haven’t had to deal with yet, and the other one we granted a
variance which I would love to take back because it was mischaracterized to us as to what
their intent was and clearly they’ve gone in a direction it was very counter to how they
portrayed what their project was all about. I’m in the process of recommending and I’ve
talked with Mr. Abbate who is the Chairman of the Zoning Board and Mr. Vollaro who is
the Chairman of the Planning Board that in the future I want to make sure that when this
Board acts as a Board of Health that the minutes of that meeting and that portion of that
meeting are directed to both chairmen’s. I think it’s imperative that they have a very
clear understanding of why we granted a variance and what we were told when we
granted it…
MR. SALVADOR-The waste disposal ordinance variance that you refer to Mr. Boor was
misrepresented, it had nothing to do with what their future plans were…
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’m appreciative of that and I’m not happy about it.
MR. SALVADOR-The codes are clear, it’s the interpretation.
MR. RICHARD LINKE, 214 Gurney Lane-Referred to the issue involving the land at
Gurney Lane and West Mountain Road, noted that a number of citizens were talking
about the idea of keeping that green space and questioned how one would go about the
process of getting that idea rolling or is this already being considered.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-We’d all love to see that preserved as woods but there are
other properties closer to Rush Pond that some of us are investigating, looking at buying
developing rights or maybe buying the property outright and they’re more sensitive then
this one.
MR. LINKE-I’m asking is this in process to be considered?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No.
MR. LINKE-There was an awful lot of people who would like to see this happen so how
do the people come before the board with this request?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Just like you are right now or letters or petitions.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And as we go through the process of rewriting the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the zoning, there are a lot of meetings and input is
taken there and certain locations of town have been identified. So that process, we’re in a
time frame where we’re doing the very thing you’re asking, we’re just not doing it for the
particular property you’re interested in but that doesn’t mean something can’t be looked
at on that property.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Agreeing with what Roger said, but I’m also trying to put a
note of realism here, we can only do so much, we can’t buy every single piece of
property that people would like us to buy. I would like to but that’s not realistic and it’s
not going to happen.
MR. LINKE-That I would disagree with, for you to say that this is not going to happen.
I’m just looking for, where do I send a proposal, to the Town Board, to the Planning
Board?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Communicate it to your Town Board, the Town Board is the body
that is authorized to purchase property.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Also suggested attending the Saratoga Associates Meeting
on the town community planning process of updating the Town of Queensbury’s
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations being held this Saturday at ACC, the
Scoville Center, there will be ample opportunity at the meeting to express your thoughts
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 551
and feelings about these preliminary plan ideas and the town’s future. What happens is,
nobody shows up.
MR. LINKE-Where does this get announced?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s on the website.
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-There’s a flyer right there
on the table.
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s been in the newspaper.
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-For the public, first off the
flyers are available making that announcement. Secondly, the Town Board in July 2003
did adopt an Open Space Vision Plan and Map and that does outline quite a bit in terms
of, and there was an extensive public participation process there, of some of the priorities
and the desires of the community.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ll also point out in addition to adopting an Open Space Plan in
2003 which was as you pointed out very well attended by the public, the Town Board, I
can’t remember the year created the Queensbury Land Conservancy which is a private
non-for-profit that we created, the Town does enter into a contract for services with them
to provide them some operating funds. However they are non-profit and they can also be
contacted and they have the authority to acquire and purchase properties. I know that
they usually prefer to receive donated properties however if you can talk them into
buying one and there’s interest and people want to contribute funding to the Land
Conservancy, that’s another option beyond taxpayer money for projects such as these.
Mr. Tucker, before you start your five minutes, I do have good news. Bob Hafner did
receive from the attorneys of National Grid a proposed deed for the two properties that
you’ve been asking about for several years. He did receive them, he reviewed them and
he had some questions which he communicated back to them today.
MR. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 Division Road-By authorization from the Town Clerk, I
attended a meeting called by Harry Guthiel with Moreau State Park and I asked three
questions. One, do you have any money to do any of the stuff you’re talking about and
they went into a long spiel about the budget process and when they got all done I asked,
do you have any money to do any of this and they don’t. They’re updating the master
plan, we had a master plan put together in 1998, 1999 and in that master plan it included
a boat launch at the bottom of Hartman Hill, right next door to where all the PCB’s were
removed. I asked why we couldn’t get the boat launch put in and the answer I got from
the gentleman who was in charge was, we don’t own the property.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is that where they fenced it in about three or four years ago?
MR. TUCKER-Yes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-All the PCB’s aren’t out of there as I understand it.
MR. TUCKER-No, they’re not, the gentleman explained to me that they didn’t own the
property because of the PCB’s and that National Grid owns the property and now I’m not
too sure that this piece that we’ve been working on might not be contaminated with
PCB’s, it’s all in the same entire piece. So, that’s what came out of this meeting, that and
seven or eight people I guess trying to hang onto their job. The next question, Dan when
will you be able to talk in public about this problem with South Queensbury?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think it’s mostly resolved. We authorized a contract this
evening. The criminal thing has worked its way through the courts, there’s been a
conviction and a sentence handed out. There was a grand jury report; I got the indication
at the sentencing that Judge Hall when the time was appropriate he was going to consider
releasing the grand jury report. As far as the company itself, we authorized the contract
for 2006 with them today…
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 552
MR. TUCKER-What’s been bothering me, and you’ve been quoted several times in the
paper about it, a hundred and fifteen thousand dollars missing and no way to trace it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s about the sum of it. There’s a hundred and fifteen thousand
dollars over a three year period, that could not be properly accounted for and I want to
make sure that we’re clear on that, that is not to suggest or to say that all a hundred and
fifteen thousand of it was criminally handled.
MR. TUCKER-Or any of it.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well, apparently some of it because there is a felony conviction
now, a very small part of that hundred and fifteen thousand but most of the rest of it, they
don’t know.
MR. TUCKER-The auditor found this problem.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, this is all in the auditor’s report.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-There’s a copy of that audit on file in the Clerk’s Office,
it’s a public document and it allows the various areas and the concerns.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Pliney, I feel confident that a large majority of it is sloppy
bookkeeping.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I would agree.
MR. TUCKER-Was that money that the town paid the fire company for services or is it
money that they earned on the side which you have no control over?
SUPERVISOR STEC-No, no that was contractual money, originated as town money.
MR. TUCKER-It’s hard for me to visualize there’s no paper trail. Why can’t they find
this thing?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Pliney, it’s not what they found, it’s what they didn’t find, that’s
the issue and its old history and it doesn’t do any good to rehash it. It was in the courts, it
was settled.
MR. EDWARD CARR, Woodchuck Hill Road-When I was treasurer of North
Queensbury Fire Company in 1995 I think the town contract required all of the fire
companies to switch over to a unified budget and more or less a computerized
accounting. We’ve also for as many years as I’ve been a member of the fire company
submitted independent audits to the town and if there’s a hundred and fifteen thousand
dollars missing over three years time, it’s not South Queensbury, it’s the Town Board
that’s not doing their job because it’s up to you gentlemen to see where the money’s
going and if there’s a problem one year, that’s when you’re supposed to cut it off. I know
your positions are taxing and maybe this is a time we might better switch to
commissioners.
MR. GEORGE RYAN, 955 State Route 149-I heard you all talk about the storm and I
had intensive storm damage, one of the reasons why they got the power back on, they
didn’t have to get building permits. So here I am sitting with these buildings of mine
damaged, I’ve been to the Town Hall and I made an appointment to talk to Craig Brown,
it’s been five days and I still have to give him time. But if you were to uphold those
same rules for the private individuals like you do for them, I think we’d get a lot more
done. I see your roof’s fixed, I don’t know if you had to get a permit but there was
somebody up there repairing your roof.
MR. SCOTT FRAISER, Route 9L-Referred to the power outage, noting they were out of
power for five days, from Friday morning to Tuesday evening. We had people in that fire
house twenty-four hours a day and it was open to the public. The ladies from Friday
noon time were serving hot meals and the figures that I got, there was well over a
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 553
thousand meals to people in the community. We had nice hot dinners, there was a good
variety and probably the cost to us up there that were not looking for would probably
come close to the interest that we could have gotten on the money that we had asked for
before but I thought they did a good job. Some of the fire guys were out at two and three
in the morning gassing up generators for people so it was literally a twenty-four hour a
day operation up there, it was a great team effort on behalf of the whole crew up there. I
thank you guys for coming up and taking the tour.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thank you for doing your job, it was above and beyond.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Thank you for all your effort, we appreciate it greatly.
MS. KATHLEEN SONNABEND-I’ve heard great things about what the fire departments
did also and it was great knowing that if my power had been out for a long time, I had a
place to go. I do have a question about the fire school that was mentioned in the paper
last week, apparently it’s being proposed for the ACC campus and I’m just wondering
what we know about that and if we have any say in where this fire school gets placed. If
we’re talking about a five story cinderblock building with fire and maybe vehicles set on
fire, I’m not sure that this is really the part of town that we really want to see it in, it
sounds like something that’s more appropriate for an industrial area. What do we know
about this?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s a county project, it’s been in the work for a couple of decades.
MS. SONNABEND-But not at ACC.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, actually. The best two people if you’re looking for
information is to ask the Chairman of the Fire Prevention Committee which is Supervisor
Bill VanNess or Marv Lemery who is the Warren County Fire Coordinator. Those are
the two people that know more about this then anybody.
MS. SONNABEND-I would say to the board to be proactive about this rather then sit
back, wait until it’s forced upon us.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I would suggest that we be more proactive then wait until
they have a proposal. I’ve been getting a number of calls on it, perhaps we should
arrange a discussion with the community college and talk to them and get a better
understanding on where they’re heading with this and whether or not they’ve thought it
through in terms of what location makes the best sense for this kind of an activity…
MS. SONNABEND-Whose really the driving force behind this?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Warren and Washington County… You need to talk to the Fire
Service Committee.
MR. GEORGE DRELLOS, 27 Fox Hollow Lane-This is a question for Dan and Tim, I
noticed that you voted no on the fire budgets and if I’m not mistaken you voted no on all
of them.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Tim voted no on all of them, I voted no on three of them.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay, is there something in these contracts that you guys don’t like? I
mean, why did these three vote yes and you two voted no?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-These three decided what money went where, in essence
that’s what happened. I just disagreed on how they came up with the dollar amounts and
where the dollar amounts went.
MR. DRELLOS-So it’s the money.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Absolutely it is.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 554
SUPERVISOR STEC-For me, my concern was on two of them it was the money, on one
of them it was a little more complicated. The language hasn’t changed from year to year,
I just think it’s a level of funding that some of us are comfortable with, I don’t want to
speak for anyone else but I’ll speak for myself, the funding levels were my main concern.
MR. PETER BROTHERS-Would like to give special thanks to the people in the North
Queensbury Fire Department, Rescue, they did a great job last weekend and certainly
helped our family out especially a lot and it’s greatly appreciated… On this subject, with
regard fire companies I hope we can get some resolution, hope that the Board considers
his suggestion in regard to the fire company…. Should mention with regard to fire
companies and this has been brought up in the past with regard to the shortage of
volunteers, we’ve seen this in the paper not only locally but in the national papers as well,
myself would be in favor of a property tax exemption for volunteers… With regard to
zoning, my letter was mentioned earlier, the Barrington Devine property on Assembly
Point, necessary to bring up because it has been a sore point for a lot of people with the
way that things are progressing. When people decide to demolish their own parcels and
build new ones, that’s fine, that’s an individual’s decision, no problem with it, we even
renovated our place. But at the same time, the way the state law is it impacts other
people, we were very careful in our own situation to try to take measures where it
wouldn’t impact other people. Unfortunately the types of people in many regards that
we’re getting now are just coming in here and just bulldozing their places and coming in
here and trying to ramrod things down our throats and we have to subsidize their
improvements. And specifically the Barrington Devine, they hire well connected real
estate attorney who is able to just forcefully, shove things down people’s throats and the
rest of the people in the immediate community have to subsidize the approval that is
granted. Unfortunately people are often of course loath to challenge such an individual
for fear of retaliation or retribution. These same individuals their concerns are then
ignored and their treated as radicals for raising legitimate concerns and I think that this is
something that needs very serious discussion moving forward because we are going to
see more of this…. Regarding the proposed Authority Dan, based on information that we
know about Authorities, they operate in secrecy, notorious for bad fiscal management,
how do you feel about an Authority being created here to shift the debt of the Civic
Center from Glens Falls onto Warren County property owners?
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’ve never been accused of being quick to subsidize the City of
Glens Falls with Queensbury taxpayer money. I’ve got a pretty strong track record on
that that I’ve actually been criticized for but with that said, the devils in the details of
what legislation is drafted and asked for and passed by the legislature if it is drafted. I
can tell you that from what I’ve seen so far, a lot of the points that you raised in your
letter to the editor today were inaccurate, as a matter of fact I was at the County today
and there was a lot of people that took great exception to them. There was an open public
meeting last Thursday on it that wasn’t well attended by people and perhaps
understandably so but in any event we’re at the very beginning of a process that’s a long
way from being done, there’s still more details to be worked out before I can fully sign on
board. But with that said, the draft legislation that went out prohibits the use of general
fund money and it only authorizes but does not require the use of occupancy tax money.
So the County Board still has full control over what if any occupancy tax funds could be
used for an Authority but no general fund money can be used for the Authority. There
are issues with Authorities out there, some are good and some are bad and I don’t know
enough about the several hundred of them that are in New York State to pass judgment
on all of them but again, it’s still in its early stages.
MR. BROTHERS-With regard to sending it on for legislative approval, I think is a huge
mistake until the public gets to discuss it or the representatives involved were to talk with
their constituents, ask them how they feel about it instead of just liberally just spending
our taxpayer dollars without any accountability.
MR. DAVE STRAINER, 1124 Ridge Road-I was at that public hearing last Friday at ten
o’clock, to have public hearings in the day time when the majority of the public who pay
their taxes work and can’t go, to me kind of defeats the purpose but that’s my personal
th
feelings… I saw with great interest in the Post Star in February 13 that there was a
stigma placed on renters and I’ll read what your quote was Dan. “I know there are a lot
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 555
of people that say a lot of negative things about people who rent and that bothers me as a
human being, it bothers me that people are that way that they’re so class conscience” and
I can’t agree with you more. This is the first time that you’re probably ever going to hear
it Dan but I agree with you totally; to be that way towards renters is an awful thing… A
couple of comments on the fire tower, for one thing the price tag, one point seven million
was extremely high I thought but I think the thing that bothered me most about it was the
fact that, and I agree, they do need a training center. It is much easier to learn to interior
tact and stuff from a training center, it’s a much safer environment but when I read it, it
stated that they were going to use theatrical smoke and they weren’t going to use real fire
and I was under the belief that staying with the state courses for the beginning fire
fighters, that they had to take two classes where they fought a real fire, had to be in that
real kind of situation. Then I read that we’re going to spend one point seven million, it’s
the EMS and Fire Building, now I thought we were just spending one point five million
dollars for an EMS training facility at West Glens Falls and then the next thing I read is
we’re going to build another one up here, it’s kind of a little too much and not needed.
But anyways, the whole thing that I thought the fire training center was going to have real
fires so these people could be involved in real situations and to just do theatrical smoke,
they can do that in their stations. To just have classes, they can do that in their stations. I
mean, we’ve got some very nice fire houses… Last comment is on the Authority, I don’t
take it quite like Mr. Brothers but the one thing that bothered me with it was the type of
people that they were looking to put on to the board. We’ve got a banker and an
accountant, we haven’t talked about putting people that actually bring events here, people
that actually work in that industry, we’ve kind of totally left them out and it makes no
sense to me….
TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS
9:10 P.M.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Would like to recommend that TV-8 put the
www.queensbury.net right on the screen to avoid the Supervisor having to do it for every
meeting.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You’re right and it was recommended to me also that we put the
date of the meeting on the screen too.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Would like to state that National Grid did do a great job, great
effort, just think that in the future I’d like to see the infrastructure go in where it can’t be
damaged as easily… The other thing I wanted to bring up, Dan and I had talked in his
office with Mike Shaw who is a head of Wastewater for the Town of Queensbury and
Bob Hafner our attorney, doing a Map, Plan and Report for Surrey Fields with regards to
this property here and running back and I wanted to inform the rest of the Board that that
was something that we would be considering and Mike would be authorized to choose the
engineer… On another matter, I think we don’t have enough workshops. There are four
resolutions that we’re to vote on tonight, 6.3, 6.11, 6.15 and 6.19 that I would have loved
to have some discussions with, I’ve got a lot of questions I’d like to ask.
SUPERVISOR STEC-You’re right, we usually have two workshops a month and because
of the holidays in January and February, we’ve had one each so it does make it difficult
but not impossible.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Noted that he’s received a number of calls from concerned
citizens about their neighborhoods and the aesthetics, it comes down to aesthetics. I think
over time a number of neighborhoods in this town have gone down hill. I inquired of the
town as to what could be done and after going that route for a week or so, I kind of
concluded based on what I received from Mr. Brown, not a whole lot, the response I got
was there’s no law against being a slob. Well perhaps we should look at laws to try and
improve our neighborhoods; I’m going to asking Marilyn’s department to do some
research on this. I think what we need to do as a Board is go beyond and look at what
other communities are doing to try to preserve the aesthetics… In the same lines, a lady
called me up, her husband unfortunately is suffering from a cancer and there’s a person in
the neighborhood who owns a tractor trailer and starts it up regularly and the fumes
bother a number of the people who live near this person. I called on that one as well and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 556
the answer was, unless we catch them in the act, there’s not much we can do. Well, you
could certainly knock on the door and you can talk to the person about it. I think
Queensbury has to deal in a very real way with enforceability and I don’t know if we
have or not up till now. I know it was also an issue on isolated cases when I was on the
Planning Board. I’m not trying to use this as a reprimand but trying to merely encourage
that we all come together and we try to address some of these issues. We are in affluent
town, probably the most affluent town in the County of Warren and I think we have an
obligation to our taxpayers to address some of these issues…
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-I’d be happy to sit down
with you and talk about a few things.
th
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Another issue, a letter here dated January 17 from Mr.
John Salvador regarding an appeal for his Foil request which were denied by this Town
Board presumably sometime last year because I wasn’t on the board when it took place.
I’d like to make sure that we, in a very prompt matter perhaps this next Board Meeting
schedule a public hearing or whatever so we can address this appeal and resolve it one
way or another. Does that request go to you Dan?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes, I’m going to need a copy of that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Gave an update regarding the senior’s events for the
upcoming month… Would like to thank Marilyn Ryba for bringing the summary with
the slide show, Building Walking Back Into Our Communities, glad you gave us
feedback on that and reviewed check list of how walk able your community is…
Questioned status of county’s project of West Mountain Road?
SUPERVISOR STEC-It’s still on hold from last year.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Let’s keep it on hold for a while.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just a couple of quick things, previous to the snow storm we
had I got a call about brush. The Highway Department was out picking up brush
throughout the whole town, there was no particular schedule they were out scouring the
town. For those residents that have branches down from the last storm that we had, it’s
almost impossible to put out now because they’re buried in snow but when that snow
goes away, they will be around picking them up… At our next workshop, I’d like to talk
about the lighting district extensions that have been put off… Lastly, I was on the phone
with NIMO or National Grid, Mike McCarthy, John Murphy and both of them were very
helpful. I had residents over in Ward 4 that were without power and Ward 3, they were
very helpful. The poles over there are unique, they’re in everybody’s backyards so they
were hard to get at but they did manage to get over there and fix them… Along with all
the thanks for North Queensbury, Bay Ridge, West Glens Falls also had their fire house
open, they all did and I just want to mention and make sure that we didn’t forget any of
the fire companies or the emergency squads.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Regarding the power outage, again is thirty-six crews in town a
reasonable number, I sure don’t know. I know that there are people asking those
questions and I’m going to find out but I do know that the thirty-six crews that were
working we’re working their tail off and they did a great job. I am personally satisfied
also with the communication that I had with the leadership of National Grid as far as
keeping me updating as to what their status was and where they thought they were going
as well as our Highway Department. I think we almost overlooked, I know none of us
meant to the Highway Department and Rick Missita, there were some roads that were
closed and they had to go in there once the power was safe to go and do their thing to
reopen roads… Noted www.queensbury.net, a lot available on that website…
Announced the upcoming Comprehensive Land Use Plan meeting scheduled for Saturday
th
March 4, Scoville Learning Center at ACC from 9:30 to noon… I do want to say that it
is not practical nor in my opinion is it wise for any municipality to try to address solving
a controversial land use problem by buying the property. We’ve been asked to do it
before, I wouldn’t say we’ve never done it before but certainly other municipalities have
found themselves in trouble by taking properties off the tax rolls. I don’t think that that
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 557
will be an issue any time soon in Queensbury but certainly as other members of the board
have pointed out, it’s very difficult to say we’re going to buy the property that’s in your
backyard and not in somebody else’s and you set dangerous precedent when you do these
things. It’s not a decision to enter into lightly; it’s not to say that we won’t ever do it or
that we shouldn’t do it if it’s an appropriate fit… Would like to thank TV-8 and Glens
Falls National Bank for sponsoring our televised Town Board Meetings… Would like to
thank Jennifer for all her patience with the Town Board over the last few months as we
meandered through yet another iteration of fire contracts. I appreciate Jennifer’s
vigilance and crunching the numbers… The last thing I want to say, if I’ve said it once
I’ve said it a couple dozen times, if there are questions with items on the agenda, these
agendas are placed in Town Board Member’s boxes by the close of business Thursday
afternoon, if there are questions, the staff, myself but in particular the Department Heads
are all ready, willing and certainly more then qualified to answer them in advance of
these meetings especially when we do have difficulty scheduling workshops. So, if
there’s going to be a problem, just in the future
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan, these weren’t there Thursday, just so you know.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I was told they were there Thursday. I was told they’re there
every Thursday.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-They weren’t there, I picked it up Friday.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Caroline is nodding her head it was Thursday.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I picked it up Friday from Pam in her office.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t mean to be argumentative about one meeting either.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well don’t say that they’re there on Thursday when they’re not.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well my experience is they’ve been there on Thursday.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well I pick them up and I picked it up on Friday at one in the
afternoon.
SUPERVISOR STEC-In any event, over the weekend or today there are opportunities to
call me and I didn’t get any calls from any Board Members about any item. With that
said, let’s go ahead and move onto resolutions.
RESOLUTUIONS
10:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR 2005 SERVICE AWARD
PROGRAM RECORDS FOR
WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INC.
RESOLUTION NO.: 122, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement of
PENFLEX, Inc., to provide the 2005 Standard Year End Administration Services for the
Town’s Volunteer Fire Companies Service Award Program, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 558
WHEREAS, as part of the Service Award Program, it is necessary that the Town
Board approve each Fire Company’s Year 2005 Service Award Program Records, and
WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor’s Office has received and reviewed the records
from the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. and found them to be complete,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve these records,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the 2005 Volunteer
Fire Company Service Award Program Records for the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire
Company, Inc., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor and/or Town Budget Officer to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms
of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF LAUREN CARR TO
WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
RESOLUTION NO.: 123, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested
Town Board authorization to hire Lauren Carr to work part-time for the
Department as a Water Safety Instructor Aide, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 559
WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed
and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees’ relatives
and Lauren Carr is the daughter of Elise Carr, a Town employee,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
hiring of Lauren Carr to work for the Town’s Department of Parks and Recreation as a part-
st
time Water Safety Instructor Aide effective March 1, 2006 at the rate of pay of $6.85 per
hour, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Director of
Parks and Recreation, Town Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to complete any forms and
take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN HOVEY POND PARK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #146 AND WITHDRAWAL FROM
CAPITAL RESERVE FUND #64
RESOLUTION NO.: 124, 2006 PULLED
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
DISCUSSION HELD:
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I’ll introduce it for discussion purposes. I would like to
table this for a workshop where you could meet with us and have a more detailed
discussion rather then doing it tonight. I spoke with you today was it?
MR. STEVE LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-Yes.
th
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I did receive this dated the 13 it was from you addressed
to Jennifer and I’m not saying its necessarily not good value but I was concerned that we
have three particular projects here with forty thousand dollars of landscape architecture
service all being awarded to Jim Miller of Miller Associates without competitively
pricing these out and again, it could very well be there’s good value there but it’s
something I want to have a and I think a workshop would be the more appropriate time to
discuss this but I think that when you have that kind of magnitude especially in terms of
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 560
the amount of these engineering services visa via the other costs associated with the
project. In the case of the Gurney Lane one, professional services to Miller would have
been sixteen thousand whereas the site work and the new park structures associated with
that project are thirty-eight thousand four hundred. So, you’re talking about a huge
percentage of professional services in terms of total project costs. And again, I don’t
think I want to bog down this meeting, I would rather hear from you at a workshop and I
think we’re going to probably have one next week.
SUPERVISOR STEC-No we have a regular meeting next week.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We could have a special one.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Yea.
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-If I could just clarify one thing, in
terming the professional services all going to Jim Miller that’s not correct. The
professional services numbers that I’ve used are merely estimates and it’s not all going to
one firm Jim Miller. Professional services could be surveying, could be any kind of
things that need to be engineered or also landscape architect. So, it’s not all going to Jim
Miller per se, these are things that we have a good idea what the cost is but there’s also
some things built in there that we don’t know that might pop up, surveying services,
surveying can be very expensive. If something is being built it needs to be engineered, if
we need to get special specs before it’s built, those things are kind of built in there. But it
is actually an estimate, it’s not a hundred percent this is what it’s going to cost you for
professional services.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Again, two things that I thought I had mentioned to you
and I thought you were agreeable to show up at a workshop to go over it. I wanted to
have a better understanding of just what was being done even though this was helpful.
And then two, I did want to specifically focus in on, on how the town, not just in your
case but in general awards projects and makes expenditures of professional services. As I
mentioned to you, I’ve been on the Planning Board for four years preceding this and
there’s a familiar cast of characters that come in front of the Planning Board often, they
also seem to be doing a lot of business with the town as well and I just want to make sure
that we’re giving other companies the opportunity to be competitive and to perhaps get
some of this business as well.
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-I would be more then happy to come
to a workshop meeting.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Today you indicated timeliness of actions in particular of Hovey
Pond, is this going to cause, I mean if we don’t act on this tonight, I don’t see us acting
th
on this unless we act in a special workshop, until the 20.
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-If you don’t act on it then the time
table in order to go out to bid and start a construction period will obviously be delayed,
I’m not sure when the next meeting is but until we have approval and have the funding
and the project accounts set up, we can’t go out for bid and start construction.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is this not recreation money or are you using town funds?
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-This particular bunch of money I’m
requesting from CIP, the Commission is requesting from CIP funds.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why would they use CIP rather then their own funds?
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-The balance in the Recreation
Assessment Fund is about a hundred and forty-three thousand.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, we did take a big bite out of that last year.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 561
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think it’s probably going to be something I like and when I
used to sit in on the Recreation Committee Meetings I would know what you guys were
doing all the time. In this instance, it’s the first I’ve seen of it and I would have just liked
to have seen some maps or some ideas of what you were doing…. I just want to have a
better understanding of what we’re doing; I think it’s a good project I just
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-I’m a little new to this process.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is this amendable to everybody if we were to go ahead and
th
set the timing into gear, Steve could come in on the 13.
SUPERVISOR STEC-That’s our next regularly scheduled workshop.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We can have a special workshop.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Or before that, it doesn’t matter.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-We can set it at a special workshop.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea lets just have a special workshop.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I think we need one.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-There’s four total on here I’d like to talk about in a workshop.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I think a special workshop would make sense.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Let’s name the four resolutions and get them pulled off the
agenda if that’s what they’re going to do.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-6.3, 6.11, 6.15 & 6.19.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not 6.4?
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Yea 6.4 as well… 6.11 is an important one we have to talk
about, probably sooner rather then later too.
SUPERVISOR STEC-6.11 is very vanilla, I can explain that.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well it’s not.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-It’s not, I had an hour long conversation with Bill Montfort and
it’s not.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Steve, it might not be a bad idea for in the future when they
do projects and I do attend some of your meetings when I can, so I probably am more
familiar with what you’re doing and it’s great things but having a presentation to the
public at the same time to the Town Board in the future for some of these is probably
good. It’s good for the Park and Recreation to show your efforts and the commission
and their efforts in which you work together and what you’re doing for the community, I
think it’s a good thing to air that. What you’re planning on for Hovey Pond and what
you’ve done up at Jenkinsville and what you’re planning on doing up at Gurney Lane are
all great projects and I think that the public would be as proud of you as I am.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So we’re talking about pulling 6.3, 6.4, 6.11 and 6.15.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And 6.19.
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-If I could just interject something on
6.4 which is the resolution for Gurney Lane, there are some things in there that are
critical that we do need the money for and that is pool repairs. Filters, a hundred and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 562
twenty filters had to be pulled and have to be sent off to a company to be repaired and
remanufactured, that’s going to take a couple of months to do.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I didn’t have a problem with that one, just so you know.
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-I thought you said 6.4 you wanted to
pull.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, I don’t have a problem with that.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well somebody said 6.4
COUNCILMAN BOOR-6.3, 6.11, 6.15 and 6.19.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why do you want to pull 6.19?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I want to talk about it.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-How much do you want to talk about it? I mean, can’t we
have discussion tonight about it?
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Listen, I think we’re over due for a workshop.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood, this is a street light, what can you talk about,
it’s a street light.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-They’re not all of the same priority Tim but again, if you
know we’re all of the agreement that we’re overdue for a workshop and if we can
schedule a workshop maybe even later this week.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You know, I’m dead set against 6.19, it’s a street light for
god’s sake, its safety. What do you need to talk about?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I’ll tell you in the workshop.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Steve is up here and this is totally unrelated if you don’t
mind and Steve has requested that we consider 6.4 because it specifically talks about
repairs that need to be done on the Gurney Lane pool and not much else.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We’re doing that one tonight.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We’re not pulling that, tabling that on.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well it wasn’t made clear.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We have a motion and a second on 6.3.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-6.3, I think we have agreed to table that.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Let me recap where you’ve brought us.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Not me.
SUPERVISOR STEC-We have a motion and second on 6.3, if the mover and the
seconder want to remove their motion and their second, that is the correct procedural
thing.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Yea, I’m the one who made the motion for discussion and I
do want it to go to workshop so I will withdraw it.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 563
SUPERVISOR STEC-Just as a Roberts Rules Of Order tidbit, a tabling motion does not
authorize discussions so if we wanted to table these, you make a motion and a second to
table them, there is no discussion and then we vote on tabling them and we would have
saved everybody ten minutes of their life tonight.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I thought it was important that we have a discussion on
why it’s important that this be discussed in workshop.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I’m one hundred percent with Tim that I don’t see the town
coming to an end on a street light that the Highway Superintendent is recommending that
we install on Sherman Avenue.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-We’re talking right now
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let’s stay on 6.3
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Stay on 6.3.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-6.3 Dan, we’re on 6.3.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright so we’re on 6.3 again. If you want to make a tabling
motion, make a tabling motion.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-No but did you know
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We’re pulling it. We’re pulling it, Dan.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Did you know what 6.3 consisted of?
SUPERVISOR STEC-Yes.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay well you knew but you didn’t share it with any of us
so okay.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Again, make a phone call.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-You’ve got the resolutions to read.
SUPERVISOR STEC-an email, a courier pigeon.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I made five phone calls to you, I never got one of them
returned.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Not in the last week.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I’ve given up.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well you’re going to have to try again.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Call Steve, it’s his resolution.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I did call Steve.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-We did.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I called Steve and I told him I thought we’d want to have
workshop discussion, he didn’t seem to have a problem with it today and I also went into
some detail as to why I thought it was appropriate to do that and went into the concern
with the professional services.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright, unless there’s an objection, I’ll pull 6.3
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 564
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thank you.
SUPERVISOR STEC-6.4
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-And the workshop is going to be
when?
SUPERVISOR STEC-To be determined.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING GURNEY LANE RECREATION
AREA EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #157 AND
WITHDRAWAL FROM CAPITAL RESERVE FUND #64
RESOLUTION NO.: 124, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously established a Capital Reserve
Fund known as the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Fund No. 64 for future capital projects,
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to withdraw and expend moneys from such
reserve account in the amount of $54,400 for specific capital improvements and certain
items of equipment for the Gurney Lane Recreation Area Expansion and Improvement
Project to consist of:
1.development of a Park Master Plan;
2.reparation and upgrading of pool (pool resurfacing/filter repairs);
3.construction of shade structures for pool patrons;
4.construction of second pavilion for rental usage; and
5.professional services for all of the above;
and
§
WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law 6(c), the
Town Board is authorized to withdraw and expend funds from Fund #64 subject to
permissive referendum,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the recreation
project known as the Gurney Lane Recreation Area Expansion and Improvement Project
and authorizes expenditures in the total amount of $54,400 for the work described in the
preambles of this Resolution, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 565
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the establishment
of a separate capital project fund for such Project – Gurney Lane Recreation Area Project
Fund No.: 157, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes a transfer from Fund No.: 64
in the amount of $54,400 to fund such Project, such funds to be placed into the Capital
Project Fund No.: 157 to be established in accordance with this Resolution and the Town
Board further directs that in the event there are funds remaining in such capital project fund
after completion of the Project or in the event that the Project is not undertaken, the moneys
in the capital project fund shall be returned to the capital improvement fund, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby establishes initial appropriations in
Expense Account No.’s: 157-7110-4403 in the amount of $16,000 – Professional
Services; and 157-7110-2899 in the amount of $38,400 – Capital Construction; and
estimated revenues in Account No.: 157-0146-5031 in the amount of $54,400, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby finds that the withdrawal and expenditure
for the Gurney Lane Recreation Area Expansion and Improvement Project is an expenditure
for a specific capital project and items of equipment for which the reserve account was
established, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this Resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in
accordance with the provisions of Town Law Article 7 and the Town Board hereby
authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post such notices and take such other
actions as may be required by law.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 566
ABSENT : None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I see in this one there’s professional services in the amount of
thirty-eight thousand four hundred dollars, a rather specific number. Do you know off the
top of your head whose being paid the thirty-eight four hundred?
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-Professional Service is sixteen
thousand for Gurney Lane, that’s for the development of master
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Oh, oh okay I’m reading, I’m reading
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Capital Construction.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay, who is the professional services for sixteen thousand
for?
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-The professional services, the only
thing that’s been allotted so far is forty-eight hundred dollars for Jim Miller to come up with
a master plan and then the rest of the money is set aside for surveying work and any kind of
engineering work that may or may not need to be done in the future in order to implement
the master plan that he develops.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-So Mr. Miller is the go-to guy.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Can I just interject something here.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Go ahead, please.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Maybe it will make this whole process a little bit more
understandable. This is actually just setting the budget; it’s not actually awarding anything
to anyone. So the first step in order for the monies to be expended or to be set up in this
account, this is the first step. So where Steve may have a good idea of, not even a good
idea, a fairly good idea of how much this will cost nothing has been awarded to anyone. So,
I don’t know if that helps in any of these discussions.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was my point with the previous resolution, if we set the
public hearing we can still do that before the public hearing we can have the workshop, all it
does is set things in motion.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Alright, 6.3 has already been decided Tim.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Understood but
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-6.4, I appreciate that but the same question only what Jennifer
is saying gives partial explanation, good enough explanation for us to move forward. Again,
it begs the question, you’re utilizing Mr. Miller and I don’t know if you’re competitively
pricing any of this.
MR. LOVERING, Director of Parks and Recreation-Well the bid that he put in or the quote
that he gave us is under the five thousand dollar threshold for going out to bid for
professional services so since it didn’t reach the five thousand dollar limit we weren’t
required to go out for competitive bid so that was not done.
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 28 ESTABLISHING
THROUGH HIGHWAYS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 567
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, NEW YORK
SUPERVISOR STEC-Alright there is one correction that I think we need to make before we
can properly consider this. Under item number one, the first one the Tee Hill Road and
Country Colony Road, it is Country Colony Road there is no upper or lower. This should be
properly described as the western intersection of Country Colony Road, not upper Country
Colony Road.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I’ll introduce the resolution with that correction Dan.
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 28 ESTABLISHING
THROUGH HIGHWAYS AND STOP INTERSECTIONS IN THE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, COUNTY OF WARREN, NEW YORK
RESOLUTION NO.: 125, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has in effect Ordinance No. 28 - Ordinance
Establishing Through Highways and Stop Intersections in the Town of Queensbury, County
of Warren, New York and this Ordinance lists the stop intersections and signs located within
the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to consider amending Ordinance No. 28 by
adding stop intersections at the following locations:
1.a three-way stop intersection at the intersection of Tee Hill Road and
Western Intersection of Country Colony Road;
th
2.a four-waystop intersection at the intersection of Caroline and 5 Streets;
and
3.a four-way stop intersection at the intersection of Hudson Pointe Boulevard
and Hyde Court;
and
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to set a public hearing concerning this
proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 28,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 568
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing
th
on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay
Road, Queensbury to consider the proposed Amendment to Town Ordinance No. 28, hear
all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by law, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to
publish and post the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting in the manner
provided by law.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REBUILD OF #4 HIGH LIFT
WATER PUMP VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE
AT WATER DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION NO.: 126, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing
procedures which require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of
$5,000 or greater up to New York State bidding limits, and
th
WHEREAS, by Memorandum to the Town Board dated February 16, 2006, the
Town’s Water Superintendent advised that during 2005’s emergency replacement of the #3
high lift transformer at the Water Treatment Plant, it was discovered that all of the Water
Department’s remaining low lift and high lift drives should be scheduled for rebuild, and
WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has received a quote from Robicon to rebuild
the #4 high lift pump variable frequency drive at the Robicon facility and install it at the
Queensbury Water Department for an amount not to exceed $29,986., and such cost is
included in the 2006 Town Budget,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 569
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the
repair of the #4 high lift pump variable frequency drive at the Robicon facility and install it
at the Queensbury Water Department as delineated in this Resolution for an amount not to
exceed $29,986., and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs that payment be made
from Account No.: 40-8320-4350, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor, Water Superintendent and/or Budget Officer to take such other and further
action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING ON C.J. BECKOS AND
GEORGIA BECKOS-WOOD’S APPLICATION FOR
VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST FROM SANITARY SEWER
CONNECTION REQUIREMENT CONCERNING THE MONTCALM
RESTAURANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415 STATE ROUTE 9
RESOLUTION NO.: 127, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136
§
to issue variances from 136-44 “Connection to sewers required” which requires Town
property owners situated within a sewer district and located within 250’ of a public sanitary
sewer of the sewer district to connect to the public sewer facilities within one (1) year from
the date of notice, and
WHEREAS, C. J. Beckos and Georgia Beckos-Wood (Applicants) have applied to
§
one year
the Town Board for a variance/waiver from Town Code 136-44 for an extension
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 570
of the Town’s connection requirements to connect their Montcalm Restaurant property to
the Town of Queensbury’s Route 9 Sewer District, as the Applicants state that there is a
change of use issue pending on the property, the current sewage disposal system is working
fine and it is regularly maintained, as more fully set forth in the Applicants’ application
presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
th
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board will hold a hearing on March 20,
2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to
consider C. J. Beckos and Georgia Beckos-Wood’s sewer connection variance/waiver
1415 State Route 9
application concerning the Montcalm Restaurant property located at ,
Queensbury (Tax Map No.’s: 288.-1-52 and 288.-1-53), and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town
Clerk to send the Notice of Hearing presented at this meeting to the Applicants required by
law.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-Eighteen months.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, it just, is there a reason why?
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Well change of use.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I think yes but I mean it’s usually, I think it has to be one or two
years.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea and I didn’t know if we did eighteen months.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Do we know what the change in use is going to be, that’s
what I thought your question was going to be.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, that it’s eighteen months. Unless that’s when they, they
actually have a time frame that they’re going to be working in.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-So do you want to make it a year or two years?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, I just want to make sure that we can do that and I’m sure we
can.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 571
SUPERVISOR STEC-Well I’m not sure that we can, that is exactly my question. I think
we’re required to pick one or two years.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I go with twelve months.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Right, why don’t we change that if the mover and the seconder are
fine with amending that to a one year extension?
COUNCILMAN BOOR-That’s fine, yes.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-They can always come back.
SUPERVISOR STEC-Okay, we’re going to change that eighteen months to one year.
Town Board agreed.
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
LOCAL LAW NO. __ OF 2006 TO AMEND QUEENSBURY TOWN
CODE CHAPTER 179, “ZONING” ARTICLE 16 ENTITLED,
"ADMINISTRATION"
RESOLUTION NO.: 128, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 67, 2000, the Queensbury Town Board enacted
Local Law No. 1 of 2000 which Local Law created alternate member positions for the
Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals so that an alternate member may substitute
for a regular member in the event of a conflict of interest or other factor such as illness,
vacation or other absences, and
WHEREAS, such legislation was authorized in accordance with New York State
Municipal Home Rule Law §10 and was specifically intended to supersede the provisions of
§§
Town Law 267(11) and 271(15) that restrict substitution of alternate members of Zoning
Boards of Appeal and Planning Boards to instances of conflict of interest, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has advised that such Local Law was duly filed with
the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal
Home Rule Law and that by such filing, the Local Law took effect immediately, and
WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has further advised that such Local Law No. 1 of 2000
was inadvertently omitted from the Queensbury Town Code when the current Zoning Law
was adopted, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 572
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to reaffirm such Local Law No. 1 of 2000, but
to do so, the Town Board must adopt a new Local Law, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board therefore wishes to set a public hearing concerning
adoption of Local Law No.: ____ of 2006 to amend Queensbury Town Code Chapter 179,
Article 16 entitled, “Administration,” which Local Law shall reaffirm and readopt a Local
Law to create alternate member positions for the Planning Board and Zoning Board of
Appeals,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing
at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
th
March 20, 2006, to hear all interested persons and take any necessary action provided by
law concerning proposed Local Law No.: ___, 2006 presented at this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury
Town Clerk to publish and post a Notice of Public Hearing concerning proposed Local Law
No. __ of 2006 in the manner provided by law.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION APPOINTING TANYA BRUNO AS ALTERNATE
MEMBER ON QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION NO.: 129, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town’s Planning
Board in accordance with applicable New York State law, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 573
WHEREAS, a vacancy for an alternate member position exists on the Planning
Board, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board interviewed candidates and wishes to appoint Tanya
Bruno as such alternate member,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Tanya Bruno to
serve as an alternate member of the Queensbury Planning Board until such term expires on
December 31, 2012.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer
ABSENT: None
TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION BEFORE AND DURING VOTE:
SUPERVISOR STEC-The Town Board in a very lengthy workshop a few weeks ago
interviewed Planning Board, Zoning Board and Rec Commission candidates and we filled
all the vacancies except for the second Planning Board Alternate and I believe Tanya Bruno
is in the room this evening and she has a strong background certainly.
(vote taken)
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I will qualify my vote by saying I do agree you have a strong
background but I think timing is everything and I think the timing of this appointment is not
quite right, so I’m going to say no.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I say we’re lucky to have somebody like you on the board.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF SERVICES OF
COMPUTEL CONSULTANTS TO CABLE FRANCHISE FEES
RESOLUTION NO.: 130, 2006 PULLED
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor
DISCUSSION HELD:
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Now have we been paid this year’s cable franchise fees that
we’re entitled to, have we been paid by the cable company?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-We just actually received a check today for the
remainder of 2005. So we have not received anything for 2006 which is not unusual.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 574
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-According to the contract, off hand do you know Jen, if
you don’t know when is that payment due to the town?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-We receive three payments a year and the next payment,
we will not get until I believe it’s May of 2006.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Okay, my question is this, we’re hiring a consulting agency
to take a look at our cable franchise fees and we know that we’re going to get paid or we
should be getting paid again by the cable company of March 2006, next month. Just what
are they entitled to since we expect to get paid so they won’t get what we’re already
going to get.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well it says in their contract, they will John.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Basically what they’re looking for is any discrepancies
in what we should have got and what we got. If there are no discrepancies, they get paid
nothing.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea but it does say in here Jennifer that they will also
whenever possible obtain past due payments, I hope they don’t get half of that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-That’s exactly
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-They would receive fifty percent of the past due
payments as well.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well then I would say let’s not go into this contract because
if they’re going to pay us and I don’t mean to steal his thunder but if they’re going to pay
us in May half of their contract agreement and these people think they’re going half of it
by sending a letter to them, that’s crazy for us to agree with that.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-Yea, I’ve got to agree.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-I don’t think that’s the intent but I hear what you guys are
saying.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I don’t think it’s the intent either but let’s …
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-It’s not made clear. See what I’m saying, I don’t want
them to get half of something that we’re already going to get anyway.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Exactly.
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-Right but I think first of all we have to figure out what
constitutes past due.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well if it was due in January, it’s past due.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-I don’t mind hiring them for things that we may not have
gotten paid for but I don’t want to share what we’re already going to get and we know
we’re already going to get with these people.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can we clarify that?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-I can have Bob Hafner look at this and we can clarify
that.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Have they in the past received that?
MS. SWITZER, Budget Officer-This is a, this was a standard contract that we received
from them, we had additional language added to it but what they have in there for past
due is
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 575
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well you know what, when we have our workshop
Jennifer, if you could go back in time, if it’s not going to be too laborious, I’d be
interested in knowing just how much they’ve collected under this contract because when
I read it I just thought it was a no-brainer, I said what it means is they’re going to be
playing around with the margins. In other words, eighty some odd percent of what we’re
entitled to get, we’re going to get and then we’re going to have an audit and there will be
a disputed amount and they’ll get fifty percent of the disputed amount. It will be very
revealing if you go back in time and find out that Mr. Strough and even worse, Mr.
Brewer have a valid point here and they’re getting something like fifty percent of the
total take.
Town Board motions were withdrawn and resolution was pulled.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH spoke regarding Resolution 6.11, ‘Resolution Authorizing
Agreement With Warren County Board Of Elections In Accordance With New York
State Election Law §3-226 Regarding Care, Custody And Control Of Voting Machines
And Appliances And Equipment Relating To Or Used In The conduct Of Elections’,
Town Board held brief discussion and it was agreed to pull for further review…
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADIRONDACK RUNNERS TO
TH
CONDUCT 20 ANNUAL SHAMROCK SHUFFLE ROAD RACE
RESOLUTION NO.: 130, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHEREAS, the Adirondack Runners Club has requested authorization from the
th
Queensbury Town Board to conduct its 20 Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race as
follows:
SPONSOR : The Adirondack Runners Club
th
EVENT : 20 Annual Shamrock Shuffle Road Race
th,
DATE : Sunday, March 19 2006
PLACE : Beginning and ending at Glens Falls
High School and going through the Town of
Queensbury
(Letter and map showing course is attached);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby acknowledges receipt of
th
proof of insurance from the Adirondack Runners Club to conduct the 20 Annual Shamrock
Shuffle Road Race partially within the Town of Queensbury, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 576
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves this event subject to approval
by the Town Highway Superintendent, which may be revoked due to concern for road
conditions at any time up to the date and time of the event.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FIREWORKS DISPLAY AT WEST
MOUNTAIN SKI CENTER ON MARCH 10, 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 131, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, Alonzo Fireworks Display, Inc., on behalf of West Enterprises, has
requested permission to conduct a fireworks display as follows:
SPONSOR: West Enterprises
PLACE: West Mountain Ski Center
DATE: Friday, March 10, 2006
thth
RAIN DATE(S): March 11 and March 12, 2006
TIME: 10:00 P.M. (approx.)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
§
Town Clerk, in accordance with New York State Penal Law 405, to issue a fireworks
permit to Alonzo Fireworks Display, Inc., on behalf of West Enterprises, subject to the
following conditions:
1.An application for permit be filed which sets forth:
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 577
A. The name of the body sponsoring the display and the names of the
persons actually to be in charge of the firing of the display.
B. The date and time of day at which the display is to be held.
C. The exact location planned for the display.
D. The age, experience and physical characteristics of the persons who are
to do the actual discharging of the fireworks.
E. The number and kind of fireworks to be discharged.
F. The manner and place of storage of such fireworks prior to the display.
G. A diagram of the grounds on which the display is to be held showing the
point at which the fireworks are to be discharged, the location of all
buildings, highways, and other lines of communication, the lines behind
which the audience will be restrained and the location of all nearby trees,
telegraph or telephone lines or other overhead obstructions.
2. Proof of insurance be received which demonstrates insurance coverage through
an insurance company licensed in the State of New York, and that the Town of
Queensbury is named as an additional insured and that the insurance coverage
contain a hold harmless clause which shall protect the Town of Queensbury;
3. Inspections and approval must be made by the Queensbury Fire Marshal and the
Chief of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.,
4. Clean-up of the area must be completed by 10:00 a.m., the following day, and all
debris must be cleaned up including all unexploded shells, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the permit or letter of authorization by the Town Clerk shall, in
accordance with New York State Penal Law §405, provide:
the actual point at which the fireworks are to be fired shall be at least two
hundred feet from the nearest permanent building, public highway or
railroad or other means of travel and at least fifty feet from the nearest above
ground telephone or telegraph line, tree or other overhead obstruction, that
the audience at such display shall be restrained behind lines at least one
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 578
hundred and fifty feet from the point at which the fireworks are discharged
and only persons in active charge of the display shall be allowed inside these
lines, that all fireworks that fire a projectile shall be so set up that the
projectile will go into the air as nearby (nearly) as possible in a vertical
direction, unless such fireworks are to be fired from the shore of a lake or
other large body of water, when they may be directed in such manner that
the falling residue from the deflagration will fall into such lake or body of
water, that any fireworks that remain unfired after the display is concluded
shall be immediately disposed of in a way safe for the particular type of
fireworks remaining, that no fireworks display shall be held during any wind
storm in which the wind reaches a velocity of more than thirty miles per
hour, that all the persons in actual charge of firing the fireworks shall be over
the age of eighteen years, competent and physically fit for the task, that there
shall be at least two such operators constantly on duty during the discharge
and that at least two soda-acid or other approved type fire extinguisher of at
least two and one-half gallons capacity each shall be kept at as widely
separated points as possible within the actual area of the display.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO ATTEND 2006 AMERICAN
PLANNING ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE
RESOLUTION NO.: 132, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Executive Director of Community
Development has requested authorization to attend the 2006 American Planning
Association (APA) National Planning Conference, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has authorized allocation of funds for
conference expenses within the Planning Department’s 2006 budget, and
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 579
WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Policy the Queensbury Town Board must
authorize out-of-state travel by Town employees,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Executive
Director of Community Development to attend the 2006 American Planning Association
Conference to be held in San Antonio, Texas in April, 2006, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes an increase in the meal
allowance(s) for such conference from $47 to $51 per day in accordance with the Town’s
Employee Handbook which provides that the Town Board may authorize an increase in
meal allowances when the meal allowances are anticipated to be more expensive than the
usual amount, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that all necessary and reasonable expenses incurred at the
conference are proper Town charges and that all expenses shall be paid for from the
appropriate Town Account.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor
NOES : Mr. Sanford
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD:
COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea I wanted to talk with Marilyn about what it’s going to be,
who’s going to be in charge and things like that.
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-I did attach to a memo the
courses involved. This is the same conference that’s been approved every year for the last
seven years by the Town Board for either the director or a planning staff member to attend.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-And Stuart went to San Francisco last year, is that correct?
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-Last year, correct and it’s
sponsored by the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Certified
Planners, it’s their National Conference.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-A couple of comments, again I was not on the board when the
budget was approved but I think we’re all trying to make efforts to be financially prudent
and I’m not saying that there isn’t some benefit here but as I look historically over the last
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 580
few years at the Planning Development Unit, there’s been a number of tasks which there
hasn’t been the capability to do in house and in addition to the costs associated with this
conference, there’s also the added costs of a person being out of the office, the leader of the
office being out and the associated salary and benefits associated with that. And so you add
it all up and you’re probably talking about amount of money over four thousand dollars and
you do do it every year, I do have concerns and again, I guess I’ll address those concerns in
more detail this cycle around but and again, is this the biggest bang for the buck and I am
looking at it for some of the fiscal concerns that I have. So in a way I wanted to have a more
detailed discussion with it, it seems like it’s a historical thing or a routine thing that every
year somebody goes away, Stuart went to San Francisco and you’re going to San Antonio
and it’s not an insignificant amount of money. So, I’m a little bit concerned especially when
we’re hiring Saratoga Associates at I thought a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, I
think it might be a hundred and thirty thousand dollars.
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-Actually it is more, that’s
correct, we did do an amendment for publishing costs.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Well we could argue that some of that work could have been
done in-house and then the same with the Karner Blue Butterfly Study which I was very
upset about with because we paid CT Male a pretty good chunk of change for that and never
got a product.
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-Actually that I’ve discussed
with Supervisor to put on for an agenda workshop and CT Male is prepared to discuss the
next steps.
COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don’t want to get off the topic but when you say discuss next
steps, not more work they’re going to do for money is it?
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-Well they have a contract and
there is some things that are outlined in that contract, I think they’re eager to finish it, I think
that there were a number of priorities that are set for me by the Town Board for example and
the GIS build-out study was one that had to be focused on. There are any number of things
that come up, I won’t go into too much detail there, other then to say that you know a lot of
my priorities are set from day to day and I’m eager to get it completed.
COUNCILMAN STROUGH-But also Marilyn, I was on the Karner Blue Butterfly
Committee and one of the reasons why it’s been postponed is because New York State has
said that they’re going to come out with their management plan which has to serve as a base
or at least some kind of a direction for all towns to go in and to my knowledge they’ve been
delaying it and delaying it and delaying it and delaying it and we can’t really complete ours
unless they have completed theirs.
MS. RYBA, Executive Director of Community Development-Well there are different
aspects and that’s what we need to talk about in the workshop to what degree you want to
go.
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2006 BUDGET –
EMPLOYEE SALARY TRANSFERS
RESOLUTION NO.: 133, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 581
WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and
justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting
practices by the Town Budget Officer, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has set the Year 2006 employee salaries
and so appropriations need to be adjusted accordingly,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board authorizes and directs the Town
Budget Officer to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2006 Town
Budget as follows:
2006 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
NON-UNION FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
FROM ACCOUNT TO ACCOUNT
001-1990-1010 75,002 001-1110 1010 4,559
001-1315 1010 4,355
001-1330 1010 2,177
001-1355 1010 7,070
001-1410 1010 2,619
001-1420 1010 1,543
001-1460 1010 5,175
001-1620 1010 1,648
001-1680 1010 6,955
001-3410 1010 4,176
001-3620 1010 12,541
001-5010 1010 4,123
001-7020 1010 3,446
001-7620 1010 1,227
001-8010 1010 6,314
001-8020 1010 7,074
TOTAL 75,002 TOTAL 75,002
002-1990-1010 1,500 002-8810 1010 1,500
032-1990-1010 2,110 032-8110 1010 2,110
040-1990-1010 7,879 040-8310 1010 6,137
040-8340 1010 1,742
TOTAL 7,879 TOTAL 7,879
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 582
(Councilman Boor left meeting room)
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2005 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 134, 2005
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec
WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and
justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting
practices by the Town Budget Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend
the 2005 Town Budget as follows:
WASTEWATER:
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
032-1680-2031 032-8110-1830 855.01
(Computer Hardware) (Wastewater Director)
032-8120-4440 032-8120-1400-0002 42.41
(Sewer Line Maint.) (Laborer OT)
032-8120-4440 032-8120-1470-0002 52.03
(Sewer Line Maint.) (Working Foreman - OT)
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Stec, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Boor
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2006 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 135, 2005
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 583
WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and
justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting
practices by the Town Budget Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Budget Officer’s Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend
the 2006 Town Budget as follows:
CEMETERY:
FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT:
002-9060-8060 002-8810-4070 5,000
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mr. Boor
(Councilman Boor returned to meeting room after introduction of following resolution)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF
STREET LIGHT ON SHERMAN AVENUE
RESOLUTION NO.: 136, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Highway Superintendent has recommended that the
Town Board arrange for placement of a street light on Sherman Avenue near the new Sports
Dome due to public safety concerns as it is now a dangerous part of a Town highway
maintained by the Town with the aid of the State or County, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board concurs with the Highway Superintendent’s
recommendation and therefore wishes to arrange for placement of a street light on National
Grid Pole #54 on Sherman Avenue near the Sports Dome in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, such light would be located outside the boundaries of any Town of
,
Queensbury Lighting Districtand
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 584
WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Highway Law §327, the initial
action for such a light is a proposal for submission to the New York State Commissioner of
Transportation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the area of
Sherman Avenues described above is a dangerous portion of a Town road and authorizes
and directs the Town Supervisor to submit a proposal to the New York State Commissioner
of Transportation seeking approval for lighting the area as described below, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the proposed lighting shall consist of the installation of one (1)
250 watt high pressure sodium lamp on National Grid Pole #54 on Sherman Avenue in the
Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs that annual charges for
such lighting shall be paid for from the appropriate General Fund Accountas will be
determined by the Town’s Budget Officer as such street light is not located within a Town
of Queensbury Lighting District, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town
Supervisor to make all necessary installation arrangements with National Grid and the Town
Supervisor and/or Budget Officer to take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms
of this Resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves the lighting of a portion of
Sherman Avenue as described above, which approval is contingent upon obtaining approval
of the lighting from the New York State Commissioner of Transportation and shall not take
effect until such approval is received by the Town.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 585
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD:
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don’t know what the problem with this is.
SUPERVISOR STEC-I don’t know either but my question is, is this district issue where
this is outside of a district?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-How much are we talking about?
COUNCILMAN BREWER-We’re talking about twenty bucks a month if it’s that.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-The light itself.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-The light is probably about a hundred and fifty bucks.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-It’s no big deal, the reason I had a concern about it was that
when this went in front of the Planning Board I know if it involved a traffic light or
something along those lines, we would address it with the applicant and it would be
factored into the project approval and yet as I understand the need for this light is, is
pretty much exclusively because of the sport dorm.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, not necessarily. I got calls from residents over in that
area, there’s a rise in the road which indicates that there’s a dip in the road. When you
come up that rise, you can not see coming from the west. The residents asked about a
light. I went to the attorney’s office to find out if it’s in a lighting district; it’s not in the
lighting district. I went to the Highway Superintendent and told him the story, he said we
should have a light there, it’s dangerous, you can not see so Rick indicated that he would
send a letter.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-He does and he says the dome on Sherman Avenue, that’s
how I
COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think he more so used that as a location for it and the high
point of the road.
COUNCILMAN SANFORD-Okay well it’s not a material amount of money and if it is
going to contribute as safety, I just wanted to get that clarified.
COUNCILMAN BREWER-All you got to do is ask.
(vote taken)
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS –
TH
WARRANT OF FEBRUARY 27, 2006
RESOLUTION NO.: 137, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. John Strough
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 586
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to approve the audit of bills
rd
presented as the Warrant with a run date of February 23, 2006 and a payment due date of
th
February 28, 2006,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the Warrant with a
rdth
run date of February 23, 2006 and payment due date of February 28, 2006 and totaling
$508,158.57, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Budget Officer
and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to
effectuate the terms of this Resolution.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN MEETING
RESOLUTION NO.: 138, 2006
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Richard Sanford
WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns
it’s Regular Town Board Meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Boor, Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Brewer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
No further action taken.
Regular Town Board Meeting, 02-27-2006, Mtg #7 587
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY