Loading...
2001-10-01 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 1ST, 2001 Mtg #40 Ress. # 367-386 7:02 P.M. BOH # 42-45 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL MARK SCHACHNER TOWN OFFICIALS Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development Ralph VanDusen, W aterlW astewater Director Mike Shaw, Deputy Wastewater Director Dave Hatin, Director of Building & Codes Chuck Rice, Facilities Manager Helen Otte, Assessor Bill Lavery, Supervisor's Executive Assistance PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star Supervisor Brower called meeting to order.. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED CREATION OF ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT NOTICE SHOWN 7:02 P.M. MR. MIKE SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-The town has contracted with CT Male, Gary Male and Mike Cory. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mike, just introduce yourselffor the record, please. MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-Mike Shaw, Deputy Wastewater Director. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Matter off act, I don't know, Ralph would you like to come forward too? MR. RALPH VANDUSEN, WaterlWastewater Director-No, Mike's doing a fine job so far. MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-In case I fall over, he'll take over. The town has hired CT Male Associates to provide a map, plan and report and they'll be doing a presentation tonight for the proposed Route 9 Sewer District. Gary Male and Mike Cory is here from CT Male so, I'll turn it over to them. MR. GARY MALE-Thank you, Mike. I'm Gary Male, Managing Engineer with CT Male Associates. I'm just going to take a few minutes to present what's known as the Route 9 Sewer District, which, if you look at the map that we've hung up here, extends along Route 9 from generally Sweet and Weeks Road northerly to Route 149 and that encompasses, it's substantially a commercial zoned and developed area. As you know, the Great Escape is in the bottom of what is kind of a bowl along Route 9 in that area and on the northerly end at 149, is the outlets and of course, we stop just before, I think it's the WalMart and we do include along Weeks Road, Robert Gardens South Apartments, at their request. The project entails about thirty-three thousand, eight hundred and fifty feet of gravity sewer and a quantity of force main with a pump station down in the bottom of the bowl whereby the flow would come down to the bottom, it would be pumped up and go along Sweet Road to Country Club Road and down to Quaker Road where it would flow to the Meadowbrook Pump Station which is an existing pump station operated by the town and from there it would be pumped, the proposal is to pump it to the City of Glens Falls. The portion along Sweet Road, Country Club Road, Woodvale Road is a gravity receiving sewer and would not be at this time within the district. That route was chosen over a route that would have been through the existing Quaker Road Sewer District. The route through the existing Quaker Road Sewer District would have required an upgrade in a number of pipes reaches and upgrade in size and it was felt that it, better to direct the flow in a new area as opposed to having to deal with the flow already existing in those pipe lines. So, in order to do those upgrades so that's what we've chose to present to you. Within the district are eighty- eight parcels. The construction costs and some of you will note that this is different then what we previously gave you in the feasibility study and we apologize for that, it is different by a fairly substantial amount. There was an error made in the calculation of the project estimate for the feasibility study. So, the actual construction costs within the total project costs is estimated at three million, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, approximately and what we've done is projected that down to a total estimated project cost of five million, one hundred seventy which includes a decent size contingency, item at this point in time since we're in the preliminary stages. It includes engineering, it includes easements, it includes attorney fees, soil borings, there's a number of items that fall within the area of administrative fees between the actual construction costs and the total project costs. So, with the total project costs of five million, one hundred and seventy thousand dollars and using conservative four percent interest rate at thirty years term, the annual cost would be two hundred and ninety-nine thousand dollars a year that would have to be defrayed across the users for the capital cost. In order to apportion the costs, the town, any community has to set up a user charge system whereby the charges within a special district such as this are apportioned across the users and typically those systems involve assess value of the properties or flow generated, water use generated by the properties so on and so forth. In this case, and we can kind of ignore this top residential section here because, as I said earlier, the district generally is entirely commercial and so that a vacant, an acre of vacant land is assigned three units. Occupied commercial lands up to ten acres are assigned six units per acre and over ten acres are assigned nine units per acre and then there's a water consumption item in here too. So, basically you have a combined system where you use the size of the parcel and the water use of the parcel in order to come up with a blended number of units for the user charge system. Using that formula across the parcels that are within the district, the forty-three hundred and eighty units within the district and that comes down to a capital cost recovery, to recover that two hundred and ninety-nine thousand dollars in that first year of sixty-eight dollars and twenty- six cents per unit. Now, in addition to the capital cost recovery portion, all sewer and water district, in this case the sewer district has an operation and maintenance portion of the fee also which covers the cost of the wastewater department workers, the electricity for the pump stations, the equipment that are used to clean the sewers and so on and so forth. In this case, my understanding is that the Town of Queensbury, at least a preliminary way, doesn't plan to add any staff or perhaps necessarily any equipment outside of the norm in order to do this, add this district to what's already to the wastewater department. So, in any event, the 0 and M charge that we're showing for the estimating purposes, is the 0 and M charge that currently is in force with the Quaker Road Sewer District with is five dollars and forty-five cents per thousand gallons, commercial and three dollars and ten cents a thousand for residential, although I've already said there's very little residential involved in the district. So, generally and we have, we have a listing of these which we can discuss with each of you individually but I can say that the projected user charges including the 0 and M fee for the first year, arrange for some of the commercial establishments in the two to three thousand dollar range, up as high perhaps towards or over a hundred thousand dollars for the largest user in the, within the area. And those are all apportioned across based on this system. I don't know if that's clear as a presentation as to what's involved here. Supervisor, I don't know, do you want to take questions at this point in time or how do you want to handle it? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think it would be a good time to ask the public if they have any comment or questions and at this point I'll open the public hearing. If anyone would like to come forward and ask a question or make a comment on the proposed sewer district, we'd be happy to entertain your, yes, could you come forward to the microphone please and introduce yourself, your name and address for the record please. MR. RON JECKEL-Ron Jeckel, I don't live at the property, so what address do you want? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Probably your business address in the district. MR. JECKEL-Okay, its 1011 Route 9, it's a car dealership there now. The question is, will all property owners within the district be required to connect to the system? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mike, do you want to answer that or Mr. Male? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-If you're drawn in the district, you are expected to connect. There hasn't been any time periods set at this time, I'm sure as this project moves along, the board will entertain that and set periods of time when you have to connect. MR. MALE-Do we want to make a distinction between connection and assessment of the fees, cause they're, they can be, they're two different issues necessarily. The fees would be assessed initially from against everyone in the district from the first year that the fees are assessed, whatever that year is, whether it be 2002 or 2003 and then the connection could be, typically people are allowed a year to connect but it could be longer. There are some operational issues that go along with having no flow in a system, or very little flow in a system. It's very difficult to operate with very little flow, or very little of the designed flow, if you will. So, there is an operational reason why we want people to connect. But you would be expected to carry the capital cost portion right from the beginning. MR. JECKEL-Number two, is there an anticipated connection fee for commercial? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-Typically, all we charge is just an inspection fee and that's ten dollars, it will be the only connection fee except for your charge for your, putting the pipe in, you would have to pay for that. MR. MALE-However, when you leave a lateral off, you leave it at the front property line, right- of-way line, so that there, assuming that there's a footage from there into where ever you're going to connect to the building, that work typically will cost you twenty dollars per linear foot, or twenty-five dollars per linear foot to a contractor to install that. So, there is a fee, there will be an expense associated with connections. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not a fee, though. MR. MALE-It's not a fee but there is an expense. MR. JECKEL-To connect and how about the contractor, is that going to be recommended by whoever is doing the whole district that they do it and one property the same as the next property or do we have approved contractors for it or? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-We currently do not have a list of approved contractors. We did that with the Quaker Road Sewer District and we find it somewhat cumbersome. What we will do is make sure that each contractor puts it in according to standards. MR. JECKEL-Any anticipated completion date at this point, assuming things go relatively smoothly? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-I'll give that to Gary. MR. MALE-I think a reasonable expectation at this point in time if, depending on what the feelings are and how the board chooses to proceed, certainly it would be prudent if we could to get survey work in this fall before winter, otherwise you lose the winter in design. But I would think, certainly the end of 2002 at the very earliest, and my guess more realistically into early summer of 2003 perhaps would be as good as we're going to be able to do. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much for your questions. Would anyone else care to ask any questions or make any comment at this time during this public hearing? Mr. Salvador. MR. JOHN SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, I'm not a resident in the district nor do I have a business in the district. Is the Warren County Municipal Center a part of this district. MR. MALE-Correct, as it's currently drawn, it is. MR. SALVADOR-And how will the be assessed? How do we know their flow is MR. MALE-As a commercial entity in the same way as any of the other commercial entities. They have an acreage, they have a water use and those are the two facets. MR. SALVADOR-As a county facility, will they be required to participate and pay? There are other district taxes that county facilities don't pay in this town. I'm just wondering, that this will not be an exception? MR. MALE-My understanding is, this is a user fee and they'll be required to pay. MR. SALVADOR-And what have you used as a basis to determine what sewage flows will come from these various types of businesses that are located along Route 9? MR. MALE-We have water use records. So, to the extent that for most businesses, water use records are a good indication of the wastewater generation. There are exceptions, that's not always the case. For instance, I know that there may be at least one water, a recreational ride or something or a number of those, within the area and so those may skew that and those have been taken into account. MR. SALVADOR - Well I know if I was that one hundred thousand dollar a year user on your list, I would be doing everything I could to keep my flows down. And is this, this hundred thousand dollars that you have mentioned, does this recognize reduced flows, some way to keep the wastewater flows? MR. MALE-Yea, it recognizes a realistic projection and that user's use. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Anyone else care to comment? Mr. Lemery. MR. JOHN LEMERY, Counsel-Mr. Supervisor, members of the Town Board, my name is John Lemery, counsel to the Great Escape. I have a couple of questions. Have you identified the number of residential users by assessed evaluation? We have the list of assessed evaluations of all the properties making up the district and I'm wondering if you've yet determined how many residential users there are and what the assessed valuation amounts to? MR. MALE-My understanding is that there are no actually, actual strict residential within this particular district. Robert Gardens South Apartments is in the district and of course that is a commercial entity that's made up of a group of residents. But other then that, my understanding is there is no strict residential. COUNSEL LEMERy-It's your understanding that there are no residences within the district? MR. MALE-That's the information I have right now, yea, unless there's been an error made. COUNSEL LEMERY-As that term would be defined in the town law, alright. You're five dollars and something per thousand gallon usage, that's the charge that the town is expected to enact here per one thousand gallons, is that what you're saying? MR. MALE-Yes, that's the 0 & M fee, the operation and maintenance fee. COUNSEL LEMERY-That's the regular user fee? MR. MALE-Correct. It's not the capital cost to cover ... COUNSEL LEMERY-And how does that equate with the fee that the town is going to be paying the city for it's user, for the user fee? Could someone answer that question for me? MR. SHA W-, Deputy Wastewater Director-That number, John, currently equates for user fee and treatment for the City of Glens Falls. We derived that number from our current district, Quaker Road Sewer District, one of our five districts and we currently have a contract with the City of Glens Falls for that and it includes all charges in 0 & M maintenance and treatment charges in that district. COUNSEL LEMERY-So, that would be an 0 M fee. I noticed you mentioned the water usage, the Great Escape for an example takes a lot more water in on an annual basis to fill the water park then is discharged or would be discharged through the sewer system. Has that been taken into account in your calculations because that would MR. MALE-It has. We met with, because it was such a larger user, we met with representatives at the Great Escape and their engineers and looked at what projections were for the park. COUNSEL LEMERY-I'm assuming you've got basically two wastewater lines, one which would be force main probably and a gravity main coming back. MR. MALE-There would be gravity mains generally down both sides of Route 9 except in those areas where they weren't necessary and then we would pump up in a force main. The current plan is to pump the main portion to Sweet Road and to go down to the Meadowbrook Pump station. There is a second pump station planned for Weeks Road where we would plan that for the long term betterment along Weeks Road and currently Robert Gardens South has expressed an interest in being a part of the district and they, their flow and discharge would be pumped up via that pump station and that one, just in a preliminary way, leaves earmarked to go down Route 9 to the south into the Quaker Road Sewer District. Remember earlier, I said that we found that all the flow couldn't go that way but that small portion of the flow from the entire district could go in that direction and it saves us another crossing of Route 9, another bore under the road. So, and that's, certainly this design is preliminary and those issues could change. COUNSEL LEMERY-The county assessed valuation is approximately nine million dollars which is the second, third or fourth largest of the assessed valuations for the proposed district. I hope that the town does anticipate charging the county the user fee as part of an ad valorem tax and doesn't look to get that spread across the among the other users of the sewer line. Is that, is that contemplated by the town or can anybody answer that question for me? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-The current plan where it was proposed is that the Warren County Municipal Center would be just another user, treated just as another user and billed as another user. COUNSEL LEMERY-Well, as everybody on the Town Board knows the Great Escape is a proponent of the system. Obviously, there are things that have to be worked out relative to the agreements with the city, relative to getting access to the wastewater treatment. We're confident that that will be accomplished. The park in it's impact statement proposed to build an onsite wastewater treatment plant because there were no current plans for the development of a, or an extension of the line up to and including the park. Obviously, if the park could avoid building a wastewater treatment plant, that would be a good thing. The proposed sewer line, we think, is an integral part of the ability of Queensbury to maintain a commercial base along Route 9 and we're hopeful that it will be supported. I'm assuming also that as you get, start through the process, you'll be able to get more accurate information relative to costs and things of that nature and so that you can sort of define for people who are going to be hooking on what their real rate is likely to be, what their hookup costs are likely to be and those kinds of things. So, I assume, that takes place over the next several months as you work your way through this? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-Yes, as the process moves along, we certainly will refine those costs but the engineer was very careful in creating these costs and being very conservative on the high sides, so. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I saw another hand up earlier, would you care to come forward, sir? Mr. Sutton. MR. STEVE SUTTON-Steve Sutton, Sutton's Market Place. Water usage, you said you've done some estimates on, I'm just curious, there's a lot of restaurants along that line, I know we use in excess of a million gallons, I don't know whether it's a quarter, a half a year, or a year or, I know we use a lot of water. We also sprinkler our lawns and keep our place as nice a possible. Are the charges just based on how much water you actual use? Is there a meter on the discharge part of it or? MR. MALE-Well, in general, it's based on, the way the charges are developed right now, based on your water use, okay. That includes obviously lawn sprinkling and some of those other uses that we have no way of accounting for. If they're minor, they don't particularly skew the numbers. If they're major, in case of a water park or something like that, we thought that would be more a more major situation. MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-As Gary said in our calculations, we had to take current information of what we had, so we used, you know, generally water usage, all water usages to each property. When a connection is made, you do have the ability to put a second meter in where it allows you to only pay for the water based on what's going down your sewers. That's currently used in all of our other districts. So, if you make the connection, you can certainly have another water meter installed so you're only paying on the sewer, or the water that goes down your sewers. MR. SUTTON-As you know, I'm all for supporting the commercial base on Route 9. I'm also, I think I have six septic systems with, connected to five different businesses there. Five out of the six have all been redone over the last five years up to town code sitting on total sand, we have no problems. I see it in my personal life as an extreme hardship, because I think we're into the tens of thousands of dollars added onto it already. Pretty tough tax base in the Town of Queensbury at a time when we're heading into a possible recessionary time where everything from sales tax dollars and everything else can certainly affect this town and my business and everybody else up and down the road. So, I'm concerned, obviously selfishly for myself, although I am a proponent for growth and what not so, I'm definitely concerned about how much we can take. How much overhead we can add to a business, how much we can charge for bacon and eggs or, whether it's a sweater or whatever, how much more we can add to our overhead and listening to this with seven acres and possibly millions of gallons of water, we're talking about a pretty substantial addition to our taxes. So, I would just throw up a couple of red flags that I don't think everybody here commercially is excited about having this go through, especially restaurant people. The other thing that I was wondering is, as far as business disruption while this is going on, what do you expect, what time of year? I know the state when they just put in the new road, put in the new sidewalks, they were incredible about keeping us flowing open and really didn't lose hardly anything in any time of year, but people do avoid our road already because of the so called million dollar mile and traffic and Route 149 and everything else. So, I'm definitely concerned about what disruption would be involved. MR. MALE-Well, being as how, I think it probably is going to take towards a year to do this project. We can't really predict necessarily the time of year exactly for you. All that I can say to you is that we're going to do the design with, in recognition of the fact that we have a whole group of businesses and every customer is important and we're going to do everything we can to work that into the specifications and the design. Obviously, on the day that somebody comes to your location and there's a great big yellow machine sitting in the front right in the way, that can be a problem. We're going to be hopeful that we can keep, where there's two driveways, we can keep one open, where the opening is large, where we can keep part of it open and we're going to be hopeful that we can put the teeth in the contract and work diligently with the contractor to keep the trenches behind them cleaned up so that the people will come into your businesses. Other then that, there's, I can't give you any better assurances in that at this point in time. As I say, we can't pick necessarily a time, if there's an individual instance, where there's an important set of dates for a particular business or at a particular location, we can work that in but certainly I would anticipate that we're going to start at the bottom and work in both directions and when we'd actually get to any given parcel is, we obviously have to try to work with people and we're going to do that. MR. SUTTON-Will, this be on the state right-of-way? I missed the very first part of it so, I'm sorry. MR. MALE-Well, I didn't get to that, thank you very much. We don't know. What we've done, we haven't had the survey, the design survey in yet so I can't tell you exactly where the state right-of-way is and where your private property begins. What we've done is, we've put in the estimate of cost, an allowance for easements for preparation of easements and we anticipate that the majority of the parcels along Route 9 will require easements. Now, we could be pleasantly surprised and have that not be the case although I will say, that I've seen some parcels as I drive up through where the ground slopes away from Route 9 into a swale into the parking lot and then goes back up again. If we try to stay right out by the road, we're going to be quite deep. If we were able to get an easement from the owner to occupy that low spot, if it's in a place that won't impact the future build-ability of the parcel, I might add, we would certainly be able to simplify the process, make it less costly and faster to construct and do less damage. So, those are the issues, but I can't tell you right now cause we don't know exactly where the right-of-way line is or where the best place to put the sewer is. It will be in front, we do know that and that's about all we can guarantee so far. MR. SUTTON-I'm assuming the public hearing will be left open after tonight. Is this a decision time on this or what's going to happen from here? SUPERVISOR BROWER-We'll most likely close the public hearing after all the comments made this evening and go from there. MR. SUTTON-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, very much. MR. MALE-Do you want to mention that we have costs that we could show to people, well, we have estimates. MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-We have estimates and if you want to meet afterwards with us outside we can go over it, as long as you have a tax map number or a business name. MR. MALE-I mean, we don't want to post them up and have everybody looking at your costs, so, you know.. MR. ANTHONY FERRARO-My name is Anthony Ferraro, 1035 Route 9, Skateland and I understand that we're a heavy user of water too, around eight hundred thousand gallons a year of which four hundred thousand is used in the summer time for our sprinkler system and for our water slide. And I also understand that I can get a separate meter for it. My son called and inquired as to the fees and his understanding was is that the operational cost or the capital cost would be a bond issue type thing and we would be responsible for paying that for over the next thirty years of which for our facility would run four to five thousand dollars per year. And then I would also have a, what, five dollars and forty-five cents per gallon. So, I would go from approximately a ten thousand dollar cost if the sewer line goes in versus twelve hundred dollars for what I pay now. You know, as we have expanded our business, we put in new septic systems and we're good for at least another twenty years with the septic systems that we have based upon what we're doing right now. I'm really opposed to this project, you know, from that standpoint. No more comments. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to comment on this public hearing at this time? Yes, sir, please come forward, Mr. Jeckel. MR. JECKEL-Ron Jeckel, again. Steve Sutton described a possible problem with business disruption, and I thought I would ask this question, over the course of the last two to three years or maybe even longer, there's been discussion on the widening of Route 9 from the Wal-Mart area up to whatever, probably 149. We've all gone through this disruption business, whether it's Quaker Road or even Route 9 at this point in time and in the future, if you're going to do this thing, is this system going to be done with the thought that the road will be widened at some time or is the road going to be widened and it's going to be conjunction or are we going to have two separate disruptions that could be kind of nasty for everybody. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'm not aware of any plans for road widening at this time. I don't know if COUNCILMAN BREWER-We just put all the sidewalks in, I can't imagine they're going to widen it. MR. MALE-I can respond to part of the question. When we go to New York State DOT for permitting which we will have to along Route 9, it is typical for us, for them to share with us their foreseeable plans in terms of where they will allow the facility to be and where they will not allow for it to be. So, that what we can be somewhat assured of is that, they will allow us along their road to be outside of where they're going to be in some foreseeable future. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the two projects are going to be coordinated any further then that in terms of time or anything else if there is a project in the future for DOT. All I can say is that, but their planning staff is very good at letting us know what they think is going to happen and insisting that we not be where they want to be. MR. JECKEL- I just raise that issue because there were several DOT meetings here concerning that question. The next question is, people have raised the issue of existing tanks, is there going to be any regulation or requirement if this goes through, for a property owner to do something to the current tanks, somehow shut them down, close them up, fill them up, whatever? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-The current standard would be that you would have to have your tank pumped, piping connecting to the tanks severed and a direct connection made to the sanitary. The tanks generally are filled with some kind of material, clean fill, just so that you don't have a caved in problem at a future date. MR. JECKEL- That be part of a connection, you'd have to do that in conjunction? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-Correct. MR. JECKEL-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any further comment or questions regarding the proposed sewer district, Route 9 Sewer District? Mr. Tucker, or Mr. O'Connor, I'm sorry, Mr. O'Connor. MR. MIKE O'CONNOR-Mike O'Connor, for the record, I own property on Glen Lake and I support the project. My question I guess would be, these costs that are here, are they total payment by those that are going to be within the district? Is there any bonding this, or any funding that has been applied for by the state under the Clean Waters Act and has that been calculated in or do you have any applications pending for that? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-We're not aware of any funding at this time, I'm sure the project moves ahead, we'll be looking at that. The most interesting thing that we find currently of funding is, EFC loans, the engineer has projected the loan rate at four percent for thirty years. The current rate today, if we had the project done today the rate is two point four, four percent. So, we'll proceed of course, along those lines and make our applications as the project moves ahead. MR. MALE-Yea we're, the state revolving loan fund administered by EFC, the Environmental Facilities Corporation, does, the do administer a state subsidized loan fund and, you could see from what Mike just said, a two point four, four percent, that's where the subsidy comes in as the interest rate is very low and so, to an extent, there is state aid involved, if you want to call it that. There is some assistance involved. So, the four percent interest rate which we've shown you is somewhat conservative. We hope it's very conservative so the annual cost hopefully will be less than what they're shown. MR. O'CONNOR-My question is, outright grant, either under economic development or Clean Water Act? MR. MALE-No, we don't know of any and I don't believe any have been applied for. MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask and urge that you look at that. MR. MALE-Okay. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Tucker? MR. PLINEY TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Division Road, Queensbury. I'm not in this district, but I've got a couple of questions. Do you have the capacity in the sewer plant in Glens Falls to support this district at the present time or is that part of the negotiations that are going on right now? MR. SHAW, Deputy Wastewater Director-We currently do not have those capacities. That's currently part of the negotiations with the City of Glens Falls. MR. TUCKER-The two percent sales tax to give to the City of Glens Falls if this sewer thing goes together, is that still in the works? COUNCILMAN BREWER-It has nothing to do with this, though. MR. TUCKER-Why won't it have anything to do with that? If the deal doesn't come together, you will not have the capacity to build this. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right but we are, well, SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's correct. MR. TUCKER-No, I was just wondering. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's basically correct. MR. TUCKER-Is it still, it's still part of it, right? COUNCILMAN BREWER-It's part of the negotiations that are ongoing with the city, yes. MR. TUCKER-Because I know you had conversations, you wanted to get it out of the negotiations but I don't think it's happened, right? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, no, I think what we want to get out of the negotiations is that money that the county is going to give the city, is not part of the capacity purchase from the town, that's a separate Issue. MR. TUCKER-Well, yea, that's what I was talking about. If COUNCILMAN STEC-It's still in the discussion. MR. TUCKER-Huh? COUNCILMAN STEC-It's still in the discussion. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It's still in the discussion. MR. TUCKER-Okay, thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Any other takers, anyone else care to comment or ask any questions regarding the proposed Route 9 Sewer District which would encompass the area from the present sewer line at the top of Miller Hill, roughly the Sleep Inn all the way to Route 149. Seeing none, yes Ma'arn. Good evening. MS. BJ BAXTER-Hi, I'm BJ Baxter from the Village Collection. I just wanted to clarify a point, perhaps, I misunderstood. Did you say that Wal-Mart is not included? SUPERVISOR BROWER-They presently are attached. MS. BAXTER-They are going to be part of it? SUPERVISOR BROWER-They're utilizing it now, they won't be part of the new system. MS. BAXTER-They're already in the sewer program right now from the other direction. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. Yes, the sewer pipe currently extends up Glen Street hill or Miller Hill, what used to be known as Miller Hill and includes Wal-Mart, it includes the Chinese, no not the Chinese Restaurant, just the Sleep Inn across the street. It comes up on the west side of Route 9 and then it crosses over to pick up the Sleep Inn. MS. BAXTER-And it would not include the Chinese Restaurant, is that right? SUPERVISOR BROWER-It would. MS. BAXTER-It would? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. MS. BAXTER-That would be included also. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes it would, in the new district. MS. BAXTER-Okay and I know that a lot of small business owners have concerns because of the economy and nobody knows what's facing our country and I wondered if there's any kind of democratic process for you to get some input from the many owners as to their feelings for the time level? I'm sure in the long term, everybody's thinking this is a good thing but in the short term, I think a lot of people are thinking, how are they going to finance it and I just wondered if you have addressed that? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mike, do you want to address that by discussing the permissive referendum potential? MR. SHA W, Deputy Director of Wastewater -Well, first of all, I can say that we did mail notices out to each participant in that proposed sewer district, so everybody was aware of this meeting tonight and had a chance to come here and voice their opinion. Currently, we've hired you know, the engineer to do the map, plan and report and the board's decision on how to take this project forth is forthcoming but under generally, if we proceed ahead and the board's see to proceeds on the same path, there is a possibility of a permissive referendum to be brought forth. That's certainly a board's decision and will be made in the future. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, it necessarily doesn't have to go to referendum but we can allow it to go to referendum? Is that basically TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well, essentially, subject to permissive referendum means that there are two ways that it go to public referendum. One, would be if the requisite number of people affected file a proper type of petition and the other way would be that, anything subject to permissive referendum could go to referendum if the Town Board chose to send it to referendurn. But it's correct that it doesn't necessarily go. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. Would anyone else care to comment on this public hearing at this time? Okay, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask the Town Board if they have any further comment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:50 P.M. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I have one. Mark, if we decide, we don't have to decide that now, we can decide, how much time do we have to be able to decide if that should go referendum or not? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-You're not at that decision yet. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We're not even close? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Depends how long the SEQRA review process takes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay. So, there will be another hearing at the SEQRA level? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-There would not be another hearing necessarily but there will be more consideration by this board. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Ted, do you have anything? COUNCILMAN TURNER-No, I went through this with the Quaker Road Sewer District so I'm pretty familiar with it and it concerned a lot of people, that one there but of course times are different right now, so that's a bigger concern. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mark, what's our next step at this point? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-You have nothing else to do tonight on this. We're involved in the SEQRA review process, there are a couple of steps that remain in that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, fine. Well, I want to thank you all for participating and making your comments known to the board and to the public in general and we thank you for your time. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE FESTIVAL PARKING ALTERNATIVE DESIGN FOR CERTAIN QUALIFYING USES AS PROPOSED BY THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK NOTICE SHOWN 7:50 P.M. COUNSEL JACK LEBOWITZ-Good evening, Supervisor Brower, Board Members, I'm Jack Lebowitz from Lemery, Mac Krell, Greisler, appearing on behalf of the Great Escape which is the applicant for this change in the zoning ordinance. I'djust like to make a couple points clear. I know that the board has already, has some knowledge of this both from the previous hearing, noticing this public hearing tonight and also from it's consideration of the draft and final environmental impact statements that were related to the park expansion. A lot of the park expansion was driven by the need for additional parking and particularly the need to have more onsite parking at the park to reduce congestion on Routes 9 and 87, particularly at Exit 20. The plans for the parking were proposed in the draft and final environmental impact statement and they proposed a design which maximized the speed of parking of cars on the property, getting them off the highway system that feeds them and also minimized the amount of land that would have to be dedicated to the construction of new parking lots. Both of these things were determined in the environmental impact statement process to minimize environmental impacts both on traffic congestion and on the amount of land use for parking and stormwater and related impacts. When we came to do that and study this in the impact statement process, it came to our attention through the planning staff that the design of the parking lots that we wanted to use to minimize the land area was not authorized by the existing Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance except for enclosed regional shopping malls. All other commercial properties are, under the existing ordinance, required to have internal islands and curbing within the parking lots to separate the parking lots into pods that are approximately a hundred fifty cars big. Because this would have interfered with the parking function where people are going to be brought in from aque, a line of traffic entering the park and parked with human attendance directing them to the parking places, we thought that the so called festival parking design was a design that did what SEQRA is intended to do which is minimize environmental impacts. So, on that basis, we proposed it in the environmental impact statements, the Town Planning Board agreed that that design minimized environmental impacts and supported our subsequent petition, if you will, to amend the town's zoning ordinance in that respect. Since the last meeting of this board where this item was noticed for public hearing, the proposed language has gone back to the County Planning Board, the County Planning Board has deemed this to be a matter of no county impact. The resolution also went before the Town Planning Board for an advisory opinion at it's last meeting and the Town Planning Board voted unanimously, seven, zero to recommend the adoption of this technical amendment. And the one other thing, I'd just like to point out in case the board is not aware of it or any of the other people who may be interested in this item, although Great Escape proposed this change to the zoning ordinance so it could move ahead with it's plans to develop the new parking lots within the next several years, this ordinance does not apply strictly to Great Escape. It will apply to any commercial use which wants to use this parking scheme and will use human parking lot attendants rather then the passive structures of curbs and islands within the parking lot. The other thing that I think is important to be aware of is that to the extent that there's a planning schedule that applies to the internal landscape islands, in other words, trees, a certain number of trees has to be put on those islands, the language in this ordinance will require that the minimum number of trees that were required in the planted islands be moved to the periphery of the lots. So, there's no advantage in doing this because you want to plant fewer trees or spend less money to do that. Unless, there's any questions, this amendment is pretty self explanatory and I know you have a long meeting tonight, so, I thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Jack. Okay, I'd like to open the public hearing at this time on Festival Parking. Would anyone care to comment on the proposed public hearing? Mr. Sipp? MR. DON SIPP-Don Sipp, Courthouse Drive. Did I understand Mr. Lebowitz to say that this, authorizing this festival parking will apply to anybody in the future who want to have this happen? SUPERVISOR BROWER-It could, no, I think what he said is, people could apply for that designation but they'd have to meet the criteria of having parking attendants and things of that nature. MR. SIPP-Oh, okay. So, this does not mean that everybody else can apply, will have this automatically? COUNCILMAN STEC-No. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It'd be the right of any other business in the town that would like to consider it. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'll read to you what the proposed language says. It says, except for an enclosed shopping center, and here's the change, and those parking lots or parking areas for which the Planning Board authorizes a festival parking alternate design as provided by Section 179-67 of this ordinance. So, the Planning Board would have to approve it first but this would give them, the Planning Board the authority to grant festival parking. MR. SIPP-Now, if this is granted, how much less property or how many less trees will have to be cut in order to, will this save, shall I say, from being cut? COUNCILMAN BREWER-From being cut? MR. SIPP- Well, Mr. Lebowitz said this is a savings of land in order to eliminate the islands, therefore cause less problems, will use less land for the same amount of parking. Now, if this, does this allow for less cutting of trees, say in the back of the old Animal Land property or along Route 87? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes, it would. MR. SIPP-And how much less? MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director-By not constructing something like the islands that we're referring to, you reduce the land area that you need to consume for a parking area. So, you're reducing that and it's going to depend on each individual lot on how much, on each parking lot and how much you're going to be able to reduce the lot by. So, if you've got, if you need a planted island for every hundred and fifty parking spaces, so if you have multiples of a hundred and fifty, you're going to reduce it by that number of parking islands. So, it's going to, can't throw a number out at you, percentage wise and I can't answer the specific question, how much did it save but that's what the Planning Board weighed and they recommended in their environmental review that it did in fact reduce disturbed areas, it did reduce the amount of areas that would be paved and consumed by this construction activity and they found it to be beneficial. So, that's how COUNCILMAN STEC-I think the point maybe Mr. Sipp was circling around or the way that you could look at this is one of two ways. Either, you're having fewer, you can cut fewer trees for the same number of spaces, or for the same size lot, you can have more cars. I mean, you can look at it from two different angles. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-I think in order to accomplish the same number of parking spaces, you're going to consume less land, whether you chose to cut less trees or place the lot where there's an area where there are trees or where there's no trees, there's a number of other variables out there. So, you've got to look at it on a case by case basis and that's what the Planning Board is going to have to consider if they're empowered to do so by tonight's legislation that's proposed. It's not a given, it's something that you're empowering the Planning Board to entertain. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else care to address the board on this public hearing concerning festival parking? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing at this time and note for the record that the Planning Board made a positive recommendation accepting the zoning amendment for festival parking to the Town Board for the Great Escape project and it was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:02 P.M. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE FESTIVAL PARKING ALTERNATE DESIGN FOR CERTAIN QUALIFYING USES AS PROPOSED BY THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK RESOLUTION NO.: 367,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the existing Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 179, Article IX, ~ 179-66, requires construction and maintenance of off-street parking associated with certain commercial or institutional buildings or uses, and WHEREAS, in instances where off-street parking is required under the Zoning Ordinance, the Ordinance prescribes that parking lots must contain internal landscaped "divider strips" and "traffic islands" to physically separate aisles of parked cars with passive curbing structures "for the purpose of ensuring safety of vehicles moving within the parking area and to control speed," and WHEREAS, on June 25th, 2001, in connection with a proposed major expansion of the Great Escape Theme Park LLC (Great Escape) in the Town, the Town Planning Board as SEQRA Lead Agency accepted a Final Generic Environmental Impact State (FGEIS) and on July 11th, 2001 issued a SEQRA Findings Statement and decision approving such expansion subject to the mitigation measures, project conditions and impact thresholds for future development set forth therein, and WHEREAS, the FGEIS for the Great Escape proposed the creation of 2,600 new off-street parking spaces within the Park property to mitigate the existing and future impacts of traffic congestion on Route 9 and the 1-87 Exit 20 interchange in the vicinity of the Park, and WHEREAS, the FGEIS and Findings Statement evaluated several alternative parking lot designs and determined that a so-called "festival parking" design which eliminates the internal divider strips and traffic islands within the proposed Great Escape parking lots and which substitutes active management with parking lot attendants for traffic control purposes would minimize environmental impacts from the Project, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board's decision and findings regarding allowing an alternate parking lot design were supported by the FGEIS analysis which determined that elimination of curbed islands and use of lot attendants to direct parking from an entering queue would minimize traffic impacts by allowing cars to be more quickly parked, thus reducing traffic delays, and WHEREAS, the FGEIS also determined that the festival parking layout would minimize environmental impacts from the Project by allowing fewer acres of land to be disturbed for parking lot construction with the proposed alternate lot design compared to the conventional retail parking lot design requiring passive curbed islands and similar traffic control structures, and WHEREAS, because the proposal for an alternate parking lot design and its attendant potential environmental impacts and benefits was considered in detail in the generic environmental review for the Great Escape expansion project, no further SEQRA compliance is required in connection with this proposed action requesting that the Town Board amend the Town Zoning Ordinance to allow for the proposed alternate festival parking lot design, and WHEREAS, on or about September 10th, 2001, the Town Board adopted a Resolution authorizing submission of the proposed amendments to the Town's Planning Board for report and recommendation and setting a public hearing on the proposed amendments for October 1st, 2001, and WHEREAS, on or about September 18th, 2001, the Queensbury Planning Board considered the proposed amendments and made a positive recommendation to the Town Board to approve the amendments, and WHEREAS, on or about September 12th, 2001, the Warren County Planning Board considered the proposed amendments and determined that there was no County impact, and WHEREAS, the Town Board duly conducted its public hearing concerning the proposed amendments on October 1st, 2001, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has considered the conditions and circumstances of the proposed amendments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends the Official Town Zoning Ordinance concerning the proposed amendments to the off-street parking requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance proposed by The Great Escape Theme Park described in this Resolution and more specifically as follows: 1. ~ 179-66(B)(3) regarding "Off-Street Parking and Loading" shall be amended by adding the following underlined words: Except for an enclosed shopping center and those parking lots or parking areas for which the Planning Board authorizes a Festival Parking Alternate Design as provided by ~ 179-66(B)(3)( d) of this Ordinance, any parking lot or parking area that will contain more than one hundred fifty (150) cars shall be effectively divided by planted divider strips planted with trees fixed in place so as to effectively divide each parking area of one hundred fifty (150) cars from another driveway and parking area for the purpose of ensuring safety of vehicles moving within the entire parking area and to control speed." 2. A new subsection ~ 179-66(B)(3)( d) shall also be added to the provision regarding "Off- street Parking and Loading" as follows: d. Festival Parking Alternate Design - The previous provisions of this section to the contrary notwithstanding, the Planning Board may waive those provisions of this subsection requiring planted divider strips and planted traffic islands within parking lots or parking areas for uses such as amusement centers, ski centers and similar places of mass gathering where parking in the lots will be managed and filled by parking lot attendants who will direct entering vehicles from an access driveway to a particular parking space; provided, however, that for uses entitled to this waiver, the minimum tree planting requirements which would otherwise be mandated by ~ 179-66(B)(3)( c) [2] and [3] for plantings within the divider strips or traffic islands shall be added to the applicable minimum planting requirements for the planted buffer area surrounding the parking lot, as is otherwise required by ~ 179- 66(B)(3)(c)[I] of this section. 3. A new definition of "FESTIVAL PARKING AL TERNA TE DESIGN" shall be added to the "Definitions and Word Usage" provision of the Town Zoning Ordinance, ~179- 7(B) in the alphabetical listing of definitions, immediately following the definition "FENCE" as follows: FESTIVAL PARKING AL TERNA TE DESIGN - An alternate design for off-street parking lots required under this Ordinance that does not require planted divider strips or planted traffic islands or similar structures to passively control vehicles moving across the parking lot, which alternate design is allowable for certain uses where the parking of vehicles will be actively managed by parking lot attendants. and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to arrange to update the official Town Zoning Ordinance to reflect these zoning amendments, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to send a copy of this Resolution, if and to the extent required, to other involved or interested agencies, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Article XIII and Town Law ~265, the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish a certified copy of the zoning changes in the Glens Falls Post-Star within five (5) days and obtain an Affidavit of Publication, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that these amendments shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 368, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session to enter as the Queensbury Board of Health Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Martin Queensbury Board of Health PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE APPLICATION OF SCOTT CARTIER NOTICE SHOWN 8:04 P.M. MR. SCOTT CARTIER-Good evening, Scott Cartier, I live at 26 Reardon Road. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Cartier, do you want to describe your situation to us? MR. CARTIER-I'm going to be putting an Elgin System to eliminate two holding tanks for the main house and I need relieffrom the setback from distance of the Elgin field to my well, it's supposed to be a hundred feet and I am, right now, it's going to be eighty-seven feet. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You have two holding tanks currently? MR. CARTIER-Correct. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And, how long have these holding tanks been in existence? MR. CARTIER-They've been there since we bought the house. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Which was, how long ago? MR. CARTIER-We're going on our sixth year. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Over six years? MR. CARTIER-Yea. SUPERVISOR BROWER-How often do you have the tanks pumped currently? MR. CARTIER-Every two to three months. SUPERVISOR BROWER-How large are they? MR. CARTIER-They're two one thousand gallon tanks. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Have you consulted an engineer regarding the Elgin system you're referring to? MR. CARTIER-Yea, I've gotten bids from numerous contractors. A matter of fact, Ivan here, Queensbury septic, are the only two actually that have gotten back to me but yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Are you aware of the fact that, one of the reasons people put in holding tanks, typically they're for seasonal homes and it's typically because they have difficulty meeting the hundred foot setback on their particular property site. And of course, one of the reasons the board's concerned about the setback is the potential contamination to your well or your neighbor's wells. MR. CARTIER-Well, my neighbor's wells, the closes one to me is a hundred foot away and the lot next to me is vacant. I own the lot across the road which there's no house on that and the other neighbor's well is well past the hundred foot. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Is yours a driven well? MR. CARTIER-Yes, solid case, two hundred and forty feet. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And when we bought the house, there were holding tanks. MRS. CARTIER-Also when we bought the house, we bought the parcel next to us so we've had an addition of the property from what was existing that we bought six years ago. SUPERVISOR BROWER-An addition, you added property but you haven't expanded the house per say, have you? MR. CARTIER-Well, no. MRS. CARTIER-We put an addition on MR. CARTIER-Which shows in MRS. CARTIER-Years ago. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. CARTIER-At the same time bought additional property shortly thereafter. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Where's that additional property on this map? MR. CARTIER-Originally, the property was fifty feet wide and then we bought the extra twenty- five feet which was from the Keyworths so now the surveying encloses the whole property. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Would you consider moving the, I don't know if we can do this tonight but if we move this Elgen system say within two feet of the front line, that gets you ninety some feet away from the well. We did that a couple of weeks ago. I'd rather have him closer to the property line and further away from the well. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right, move it towards your property line. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's, yea, we thought it would be easier to SUPERVISOR BROWER-How would that impact your neighbors? COUNCILMAN BREWER-There's a dirt drive in the front, Dennis. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Distance, though. COUNCILMAN BREWER- I mean, I don't think it would impact anybody going towards the front of their lot, would it. It's a dirt driveway there. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Maybe not. MRS. CARTIER-They crisscross over the front of it but they go to the side of it and we could always, we put rocks up just for all intents and purposes, they're not to drive up on the lawn which we can move those towards the road. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You understand what I'm saying, though? MRS. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yea. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dave, have you looked at this? MR. DAVE HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yea. COUNCILMAN STEC-Do you have an opinion or a comment on that, Dave? I mean, to me, the property line is an arbitrary thing. The issue is, you know, where are the other wells and water supplies are. I'm less concerned about violating a property setback then I would, if we can get further from a well by going to an imaginary line, I'm more comfortable with that. But, I don't know how you feel, Dave. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-The reason the eighty-seven feet mark was picked was because there's a natural grassy area where two driveways meet, this would push it out into the area where those two driveways converge, if I remember right. MRS. CARTIER-That's right. MR. HA TIN, Director of Building & Codes-So, it was just a natural area so that's why it was picked without interrupting those driveways. If the board wishes and it sounds like the Cartiers are agreeing to that, we'll have to interrupt those driveways and create a grassy area further by the road, that's all. COUNCILMAN STEC-How much would we gain without getting into the driveways? Does that take you right up to the driveway or can we get five more feet? MRS. CARTIER-We probably could get, I would say five more feet. MR. HA TIN, Director of Building & Codes-Yea, I'd have to go out and look at it, I don't know the exact distances. I know this was right on the edge of the grass area that's there now towards the Reardon Road side. COUNCILMAN STEC-Mark, I mean, if we make an adjustment to the, if we increase, if we reduce the amount of relief sought, does that impact our advertising requirement? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-If in your opinion as a board, that the reduction and relief sought is not a material or substantial change, then you can go forward tonight especially since, the key being, that you're saying reducing the amount of relief sought. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right, I think, yea, we'd be reducing the relief that's sought. I'm comfortable with that. I can't see any point in bringing them back. MR. CARTIER-Well, yea, then only reason we went back to setbacks, I thought it might be easier instead of involving other setbacks, would be my own well. COUNCILMAN STEC-Sure, sure I understand. MR. CARTIER-I mean, if the board wishes to move the setbacks closer within the ten feet. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right, your application is for one variance rather then two or three. MR. CARTIER-Right. COUNCILMAN STEC-I understand that but I mean, like I said, the property line is, well, I mean it's to be respected but I mean from a health, Board of Health standpoint, it's less important then, you know, how close it is to your well. MRS. CARTIER-And the other point being is that, the road was moved at one time so what would be the center line for other people is not the same for what, where we are, it's kind of a funky deal there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You're talking about your driveway, so. MR. CARTIER-The main road. Well, I figured the less people I involved in the process and just involved myself, it be easier instead of COUNCILMAN BREWER-Sure, yea. Oh, yea, it's better that it's your well then your neighbor's well too, sure. MR. CARTIER-Right. SUPERVISOR BROWER-So, I have to make the assumption that you've, you're making, this will be a year round home now? MR. CARTIER-It is now. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, when you purchased it, was it a camp? MR. CARTIER-No. MRS. CARTIER-No. MR. CARTIER-No, it was a year round home. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It was a year round home? MR. CARTIER-Yes. I have no problem getting closer to the setbacks, I mean COUNCILMAN STEC- Yea, and so you know where I'm coming from, I don't have a tremendous problem with thirteen feet either but nine is better then thirteen, that's, you know, what I'm looking at. You know, if we can, on the fly, make a, you know, that decision, everyone's agreeable to that, the further away from your well, the better but MR. CARTIER-Works for me. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, how will we word this resolution? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well, let's clarify this. There are two, I'm looking at the map, I think I'm seeing two ten foot setbacks, correct? COUNCILMAN STEC-Yea. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-One to the side property line and one to the front property line. Do I understand correctly that you're talking about modifying the placement of the system to be the closer to the front property but no closer to the side property? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Correct. COUNCILMAN STEC-Correct. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Okay, so we don't involve, as Mr. Cartier says, the idea of being not to involve a variance from a neighboring property COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right. COUNCILMAN STEC-Correct. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Which I think would be a material change. So, if that's the case then we can modify the resolution, I think you're talking about gaining four feet, is that correct? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, we'd like to gain as much as we possibly could. I mean, ifhe can go within a foot TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well, you have to authorize a specified amount. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I thought I heard somebody throw out the difference between thirteen and nine which I thought was four. COUNCILMAN STEC-Well, I just, arbitrarily throwing out numbers. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Oh, you just, oh, okay. I mean, you have to authorize a certain amount. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right, agreed. Whose the property owner on the front? I mean, cause you're right, we would be impacting that setback now. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That would be the town. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Yea but the front is Reardon Road and then I think directly across is more property owned by the Cartiers. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, we can say that he can go within a foot of the front property line, right? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-If you want to authorize that variance. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, that's nine feet. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Obviously, that would be the maximize, that doesn't compel the applicant to go right to where you authorize but generally in these contexts, you want to authorize a specific location. I mean, it's up to you all. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, say ninety-five feet. COUNCILMAN STEC-Or ninety feet, three more feet. I just, you know, then COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why not get it right up as close as you can? COUNCILMAN STEC-Well, because I don't know, who knows what, that could be a rock cliff there or a big old rock. COUNCILMAN TURNER-If you guys remember, on Glen Lake Road we did the same thing, we had a similar case. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Exactly. COUNCILMAN TURNER-And we put it within ten feet of the side setback and I think it was pretty close to the back lot. COUNCILMAN BREWER-A foot, a foot in the back. COUNCILMAN TURNER-And a foot in the back. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Dave, if this was within a foot of the property line, do you see any problem with the sighting of that system there? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, I don't believe so. I mean, they would have to somehow protect that area because it can't be driven over cause right now, it is somewhat of a driving lane so they would have, which they're agreeing to do. My only question for Mark is, we'd be looking at two variances versus one now. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's correct. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-So, we would have to change the resolution to reflect two variances instead of one. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-That's correct. COUNCILMAN STEC-But again, I mean to answer what you said before, I don't think that that's a significant material change. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And if it is within one foot of the property line, what is the distance now, exactly? COUNCILMAN BREWER-It will be ninety-six feet. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ninety-six. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Ninety-six, okay. COUNCILMAN STEC-Is there something up against that property line you're aware of that's creating a big. what's in there? I mean I don't want to think we're doing you a favor and really paint you in a corner. MRS. CARTIER-No because right now what we did, we have rocks sitting there and we have like two parking spots. I mean that's something that we can move, that's not a big deal. There are neighbors that cut through the top part of that, that's something also that can be worked around, they don't cut across that whole bottom of the driveway. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, if you put some kind ofa marker there, they're certainly not going to drive MRS. CARTIER-Well, we had huge boulders. MR. CARTIER-We could solve this by just keeping that sewer line all the way around MRS. CARTIER-All the way around Glens Lake. MR. CARTIER-Around Glen Lake would be nice, wouldn't it. COUNCILMAN STEC-I don't know if everyone wants to pay for that. MR. CARTIER-Hey, let's get us on board, protect that watershed. SUPERVISOR BROWER-After you saw the connection charge COUNCILMAN STEC-You might choke. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You might have a different opinion. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, we're going to say, the number is going to be ninety-six so the relief on the front is one foot? SUPERVISOR BROWER-You know, one of the things that COUNCILMAN BREWER-Or nine feet actually. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That we struggle with is, we're worried about public health, your health and your neighbor's health and I know some of these systems are better then they have been in the past and, but we still have our, you know, minimum distances that are on the books. Maybe some day, that will have to modified down the road but, as these systems continue to improve. However, it is there for your protection and I know it's, from your perspective, you probably think we're knit-picking but certainly, we're trying to be as careful as possible making sure that you don't contaminate your own drinking supply or anyone else's. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is that the, what, northeast south or west property line? COUNCILMAN STEC- The front. MR. CARTIER-So, it's going to be one foot from the property line and ten feet from the side, the neighbor. MRS. CARTIER-Now, would that be the actual center of Reardon Road, center line? MR. CARTIER-No, it's from our property line. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, there's an iron rod found right in the front. MRS. CARTIER-Yes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So just COUNCILMAN STEC-A foot off of that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-A foot off of that. Where's north on here? Just so that you can identify that property line. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Reardon Road would be on the north side. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, it's the north property line? MRS. CARTIER-Yea. COUNCILMAN BREWER-One foot from north property line. COUNCILMAN STEC-You with us, Mark? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I'm writing. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I have a letter that I received that I can read into the record. MR. CARTIER-That's fine. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Please do. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following letter into the record: Chairman Queensbury Local Board of Health Dear Mr. Chairman, Business demands and travel prevent me from attending this important application hearing. However, I have known the Cartier family for some time and they meticulously manage their property extremely well. They have made substantial improvements to their residence since their arrival four years ago. They inherited a faulty septic system that has resulted in frequent removal service from a local septic service. Scott Cartier has made a substantive effort to resolve this chronic problem. I am confident that the present plan will not adversely affect his water supply and therefore I am not opposed to the application. Sincerely, Jane C. Barber SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Anymore questions for the applicants? COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. COUNCILMAN STEC-No. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MRS. CARTIER-But when you bring that water line around Glen Lake, then it will really help it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'll introduce it, as amended. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I can read the proposed amendments, if you like, after you close the public hearing. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Go ahead, Mark. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Have you closed the public hearing? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Oh, I don't think I've asked, let me ask the public if they have any comment on this application at this time? MR. IVAN BELL-I'll speak for thern. Just so that you understand SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would you please come forward to the mic and introduce yourself, SIr. MR. BELL-I'm Ivan Bell, IBS septic, I'm the guy that's been pumping it for them right along and that's been a year round home since it was built in about 1949, just so you know, it was never a camp and definitely what the Cartier's propose is a definite improvement from what's there now. So, it's only going to be a positive impact for them and the neighbors around them. Just, cause I think you were kind of confused as to whether or not this was a camp. My father- in-law built it in 1949 and it's always been a year round home. That's the main thing I wanted you to understand. SUPERVISOR BROWER-How long were the septic tank, or the holding tanks there? MR. BELL-They've been there since the day it was constructed. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Above ground or below ground? MR. BELL-Below ground. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Will they be removed? MR. BELL-Yea, definitely, you guys are MRS. CARTIER-Pumped and filled in. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The tanks will be removed? MR. BELL-Yea, and it's a definite improvement, for sure. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to, oh, go ahead, Mr. Cartier. MR. CARTIER-The tanks are going to be pumped and filled in. I don't think we'll actually tear apart and take them to landfill but we'll just fill them in. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to comment on the public hearing at this time? Seeing no interest, at this point, I'll close the public hearing and ask the board for any further comment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:20 P.M. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER read the proposed amendments to the resolution into the record and the following resolution was proposed and approved: RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF SCOTT CARTIER BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 42, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Scott Cartier has filed an application for variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of Health authorize location ofMr. Cartier's septic system ninety-six feet (96') from his well in lieu of the required one-hundred feet (100') setback on property located at 26 Reardon Road, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the applicant has also requested a second variance allowing placement of the system one foot (1') from the Reardon Road property line instead of the required ten feet (10'), and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town's official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance request on October 1 st, 2001, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variance granted is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves Scott Cartier's application for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to locate his septic system ninety- six feet (96') from his well in lieu of the required one-hundred feet (100') setback and one foot (1') from the Reardon Road property line instead of the required ten feet (10') setback on property located at 26 Reardon Road, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 289.07-1-31. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin 2.2 - SEWER VARIANCE APPLICATION OF DALE & FLORENCE JARVIS 8:22 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Now this is the one that we need to re-advertise? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Correct. SUPERVISOR BROWER-So, will we conduct it this evening as, in any case? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I mean, if you want to ask anyone if they want to speak about it, you can but what you need to really do is adopt a resolution just setting a new public hearing for October 15th instead of tonight. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. Just for the record, is anyone here to comment on the application of Dale and Florence Jarvis at this time? Seeing none, we're going to, I'd like to ask the board for a resolution to schedule a new public hearing for October 15th. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF DALE AND FLORENCE JARVIS BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 43, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issues variances from the Town's On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Dale and Florence Jarvis have applied to the Local Board of Health for a variance from Chapter 136 to allow their replacement septic system to be located ninety feet (90') from Glen Lake in lieu of the required one-hundred feet (100') setback on their property located at 35 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on October 15th, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Dale and Florence Jarvis' sewage disposal variance application concerning their property situated at 35 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 41-1-12) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE APPLICATION OF CHRISTINE MOZAL FOR DOCKSIDER PROPERTY NOTICE SHOWN 8:25 P.M. MR. TOM JARRETT-Good evening, Tom Jarrett with Jarrett-Martin Engineers. We're here tonight to obtain approval of a conceptual plan for a wastewater system to serve the Docksider Restaurant on Glen Lake. As you can see from the diagram, the proposal is to replace an existing leaching system which is closer to the restaurant building with a leaching system that is close to Glen Lake Road that maximizes the separation distances to not only Glen Lake but the wells on the adjoining properties both east and west. In addition, the Mozals propose a new well to serve the restaurant and you can see it down on the bottom portion of the drawing in the peninsula, there's a proposed well location that is approximately a hundred and eighty feet from the leaching system. That is the maximum separation that we can achieve on this property maintaining all other separation distances and it's curious to note that we have the same situation as the Cartiers in that we have shown ten foot to the Glen Lake Road right -of-way and I've left that ten feet there. I have not proposed a variance at this stage for one reason and that is, we're still working with the Department of Health, New York State Department of Health to achieve the proper vertical separation. So, we don't know the exact elevation of this system at this time and I need to maintain proper drainage along the road to protect that leaching system. So, I've shown the ten foot separation to that road right -of- way. We have more then a hundred feet of separation to each of the wells on adjoining properties and we have a hundred feet from Glen Lake. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What kind ofa system do you call this? MR. JARRETT-In Town of Queensbury standards, it's a fill system and it's constructed with infiltrator units. There are four leach beds proposed, each comprised of three infiltrator laterals. We would pump from, there are three, actually three existing septic tank grease trap units located just east of the restaurant. We propose installing a new pump station adjoining those tanks and using the pump station to dose these new leach beds. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And it would alternate, I would assume? MR. JARRETT-That's correct. Actually, beds one and three and then two and four, to space out the effluent. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And that's certainly, I'm sure that it's, how do you protect trucks or whatever from going over this? MR. JARRETT-Well, the system will be raised and the Mozals have said they're going to landscape it. So, it certainly will be delineated but we'll also propose some kind of barrier so that people can't drive on the system whether it be post or boulders or trees or something of that nature. Now, what you have before you is a conceptual design showing the layout and the conceptual details in section view on page two. Final construction details are still needed, we still prepare those for submission to the Department of Health and to the town. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Isn't that parking lot, isn't that all open, though right now? MR. JARRETT -Correct, it's all open at the moment, what we're proposing is the system in the center with parking around the perimeter and two designated entrance, exits on Glen Lake Road as opposed to the continuous entrance, exit. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So it will define the entrance, exit? MR. JARRETT-That's correct, a defined entrance and exit now. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But it doesn't bother the system here for the ice machines or whatever? MR. JARRETT -No, the system you're looking at is just to the west of where the septic leaching system is and that's proposed as new as well but that's not really a sewage effluent. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Right, I understand. MR. JARRETT -It's not a contaminated water but we're putting it in the parking lot as far up slope as possible. The two systems won't affect each other. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, no, I mean, it won't affect driving over that, will it? MR. JARRETT-No, no, that system will be fine. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That be fine driving on. MR. JARRETT-Those infiltrator units that we use are designed for traffic loading. The reason we don't use them in sewage applications is for aeration purposes primarily and for damage to structures that are shallow. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't think you need anymore details. You said Tom that you can't go closer to the road because of the drainage for the road? MR. JARRETT-We may be able to go closer. I don't want to promise that at this stage depending on what we have to do for drainage. Depending on how you want to treat it tonight, we could ask for some relief to gain separation to the well. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, this is a different situation, we're talking about a dirt road where people are going in and out of their home, this is a business. I don't, I feel better probably if it was off the road. COUNCILMAN STEC-I agree, that's a busy road. MR. JARRETT-I would not propose moving it all the way to the right-of-way but at most, we could move it say five feet but that's up to you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is there any, no utilities are nothing buried there? MR. JARRETT-We don't know of anything, we've not checked in the right-of-way, most everything is overhead. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It's fine with me. I think it's a well thought out plan and they're taking the initiative to upgrade their property, I think it's a good plan. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. O'Connor, do you have anything to add? COUNSEL O'CONNOR-No. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, that's a first. Pay him the word tonight, Rich. COUNSEL O'CONNOR-Now, wait a minute, then I do have something to say. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I thank you gentlemen. I guess at this point, I'll open it up to the public hearing portion and ask anyone in the audience if you have any comment on the proposed system? Good evening. MS. ANN SULLIVAN-My name is Ann Sullivan and my family's property adjoins the Docksider. We've owned this property since 1957. I have several concerns regarding the site plan that I'd like to go on record. First of all, the proposed well at the front that is shown there near the lake is going to be drilled on a former old septic system. While this doesn't affect our property, you know, I believe that it should be noted incase problems arise in the future. As noted in the site plan variance, Christine Mozal has relieved the Town of Queensbury of any liabilities on the plumbing and septic system at the Docksider Restaurant but I think that is something that should be noted. Also, the Docksider Restaurant holds a license with the Department of Health, the New York State Department of Health for sixty-seven people. In any given night during the sunnner, this number of patrons is well in access of the criteria set forth by the Department of Health in the yearly license application. Now, I understand that this new system will address the needs of the a hundred and fifty plus or minus patrons. This is an expansion of a non- conforming use in a residential neighborhood along with being identified by the Town of Queensbury as a critical environmental area. Conversations with the Department of Health, New York State have candidly stated that the runoff from the septic system will eventually leach into Glen Lake. Barring any personal misgivings, despite being the only privately owned adjacent property, cause the other adjacent property is county right-of-way, I request that the Docksider in good faith provide a DEIS and also substantiate the new septic system will have a minimal affect on the Glen Lake, by sharing any information that any interested parties might have. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to comment on the public hearing at this time? MR. BELL-Ivan Bell, IBS septic. I just want to state, I'm the contractor that installed the three tanks that are there now and that the Mozals have been really great to work for, they do everything a hundred percent. They've tried their very best and I'm the one that's taking care of their septic from the get -go, and they've never ever had any real septic problems, they're just doing this as an improvement to what was there, but the existing septic has never failed. I've been taking care of it since the day they opened down there, as the Docksider and anything I've ever done for them, they've never tried to, they've never even asked price as far as cutting quality, they want everything done right. It's kind of unusual to find people like that in this world and you know, I think they're definitely an asset to the lake and try to do the right thing. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Scott Cartier, I live at 26 Reardon Road on Glen Lake. Christine is a fabulous person, her business is fabulous. She was the Glen Lake Protective Association President for, I believe eight years. She does things the correct way and by the looks of it, that leach field is bigger then her building. So, I'm convinced and happy with it and I'm sure she's going to do the right thing which she always does. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I presume that as a restaurant the water supply is regulated by the New York State Health Department? MRS. CHRISTINE MOZAL-I'm sorry? MR. SALVADOR -Your water supply at the restaurant is regulated, I presume that the water supply at the restaurant is regulated by the New York State Health Department. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I would assume so. Mark, any comment? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-I would make the same assumption but this is Mr. Salvador's opportunity to comment, we don't need to answer the questions, we just need to hear the comments. MR. SALVADOR - Well, please incorporate in your review and establish whether or not that is a fact. Secondly, I'd like to know the depth of the well and whether or not the well has a casing. These are very, very important factors. Separation distance is one criteria but the well design and construction is very important in this case with regard to the relative location of the septic system and the lake. We all know which way the effluent is flowing and the well is between both the source of potential contamination and the lake. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, sir. Would anyone else care to comment at this time on the application before us? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Jarrett if they, if you could give, answer the question on the depth of the proposed well that would be drilled. Is it going to be drilled? COUNSEL O'CONNOR-It will be a drilled casing well, it's not in place yet, the depth will be determined, I think by the, getting to a point where we have a good quantity as well as quality of water. The water supply is regulated by the health department and I don't know, Tom, if we've got a target that, for depth, that we're going to go to or not. The present well on the point on the property is a shallow point well, it will be an improvement over the present well. This whole system is a great improvement over what's there now from the lake point of view, from the well point of view, from our well, from the adjoining wells. I think the health department has indicated that the separation that they're looking for is a hundred feet from the well and the septic system. I think Mr. Hatin raised the issue that possibly we should be looking at two hundred feet and that's the only reason that we're here, a belt and suspenders type of approach, although the heath department review is satisfied with the separation that we have. MR. JARRETT -Mike is essentially correct, the well depth is dictated by site conditions, geological conditions. However, we're going to be proposing a minimum of fifty feet of casing, which is recommended by the department of health, that would be grouted in place. And the, Miss Sullivan, brought to our attention previously, the location of an old septic system that may be located at that well location and we will remove that if we find evidence of that old system. So, don't expect a problem there. With regard to the separation distance, the department of health does not consider this well location down gradient from the leaching system. So, as such, they're requiring only a hundred feet. MR. SAL V ADOR- The separation is a hundred fifty, isn't it, commercial separation distances? MR. JARRETT-Not, automatically, no. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What is the separation, Tom, from the proposed MR. JARRETT-What's proposed is a hundred and eighty feet right now. Depending on how you act on the road right-of-way, we could get maybe a hundred and eighty-five. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And you'll know about the road right-of-way, when? MR. JARRETT-It depends on the elevation we have to build this system to and then what we have to do for drainage provisions to protect that system, that's why I've left the ten feet in there right now. So, I'll know that when we get to final design, we have to meet with the health department to review the design information and pick a final elevation for this system. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, how can we do that, Mark, if we approve this as it is tonight and they can go the other five feet, it's reasonable, can they do that without coming back here or do they have to come back here? Because then we're infringing on the ten foot on the front, right? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well, and also, you wouldn't be locating the system at the location that you've approved. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't know if we want it right on top of that road because that road is higher then their parking COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, I would agree, only because if they ever have to do anything to the road and we're talking a hundred and eighty feet versus, the last one we talked about was eighty- five feet. So, I'm comfortable with a hundred and eighty feet. COUNCILMAN STEC-If, I'mjust dusting off my trig and if they're going to the depth of fifty feet, I mean, that's pushing that actual distance, including the depth closer to a hundred and ninety feet, if you went, you know, bored through the earth. If we could make it a fifty foot casing requirement or contingency of this, then I don't have any problem at all with the hundred and eighty foot of linear distance. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Won't they normally go MR. JARRETT-Well, I certainly have no problem with that because we propose nothing less then that and the health department won't approve anything less that, so. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Right. COUNCILMAN STEC-So, it's got to be fifty feet, is what you're saying? MR. JARRETT -Right. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Normally, they'll go until you hit bedrock anyway, won't they? MR. JARRETT-The casing will have to go until we hit bedrock or at least, sound bedrock but what we're proposing a minimum of fifty feet grouted in place. So, if we hit rock at forty feet, we're still going ten feet into rock cased, grouted. COUNCILMAN STEC- Yea, if you're willing to do that then, I mean, I think approval should show that we considered those issues and I mean, it sounds like no one is going to argue on the applicant's side if we made that requirement of granting the hundred and eighty foot, the twenty feet of variance which is still only ten percent. I know we've granted a lot more in the past but I mean, if you're going fifty feet down, I think that gives you added separation above the hundred and eighty feet, is what I'm trying to say. So, I would propose that as a possible amendment to the approval. SUPERVISOR BROWER-What plans do you have for the old holding tanks? MR. JARRETT-The three tanks that are currently used now as holding tanks will be converted to septic tanks and grease trap, they'll be in use in the new system. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. MR. JARRETT -In fact, they were designed that way specifically for future use within this system. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That was good planning. Okay, any further comment from the board? COUNCILMAN STEC-Did you close the public hearing? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think I closed the public hearing. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, you didn't. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I haven't? Well, in that case, let me ask the public one more time if anyone cares to speak that hasn't had an opportunity? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing at this time and I thank you, gentlemen for the information. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:44 P.M. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Mark, where can we put that in there about the fifty foot casing? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER proposed the following amended resolution: RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF CHRISTINE MOZAL FOR DOCKSIDER PROPERTY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 44, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Christine Mozal filed an application for a variance from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of Health authorize Ms. Mozal to locate a leach field one-hundred eighty feet (180') from a well in lieu of the required two-hundred feet (200') setback at the Docksider property located at 298 Glen Lake Road, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town's official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance request on October 1 st, 2001, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been duly notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, c) that due to the nature of the variance, it is felt that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and d) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variance granted is the minimum variance which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and e) that as a condition of approval, the applicant agrees that the new well casing shall be a minimum of fifty feet (50'); and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves Christine Mozal's application for a variance from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to locate a leach field one-hundred eighty feet (180') from the well in lieu of the required two-hundred feet (200') setback at the Docksider property located at 298 Glen Lake Road, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 289.09-1-87. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 45, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Martin REGULAR SESSION CORRESPONDENCE Deputy Town Clerk Barber noted that the Town Clerk has received the Supervisor's Tentative Budget for Year 2002 and copies are available for the public. OPEN FORUM 7:48 P.M. MR. SALVADOR-referred to the meeting of the Warren County Lake George Basin Sewer Committee that was held last Monday and asked for a report regarding the outcome of that meeting. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Lake George has pretty much finished their upgrade on their sewer plant. Bolton is moving forward with their upgrade and they hope to be completed by the new year and Hague is moving forward, trying to obtain easements and other work before they can get started in a construction project. North Queensbury, we held a meeting, kind of a public outreach scoping session so to speak at the North Queensbury Fire House, you were in attendance along with many others and it was quite an interesting meeting. MR. SALVADOR-Did anything transpire at the Warren County Committee meeting with regard to North Queensbury and this supplemental EIS? SUPERVISOR BROWER-No, not at that particular meeting. MR. SALVADOR-referred to Resolution 5.1, 'Resolution Authorizing Financial Contribution to New York State and/or City of New York to Aid Victims of Terrorist Attack in New York City, Washington, D. C. and Pennsylvania' and noted, I would hope that's to aid the surviving victims of the terrorist attack. referred to Resolution 5.18, 'Resolution Authorizing Engagement of Cifone Construction Co. Inc. to Construct Foundation for New Shore Colony Water District Filtration Building' and noted, I trust that the people who are a part of that district are expecting this, understand the, we're doing some serious work up there now, this is all for their account, the cost. SUPERVISOR BROWER-For their benefit and they also pay for it, yes. MR. TUCKER-referred to Resolution 5.5, 'Resolution Authorizing Engagement of Industrial & Utility Valuation Consultants, Inc. to Provide Ongoing Assistance in Connection with Article 7 Assessment Cases Commenced by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Erie Boulevard Hydropower, Inc. and questioned who Erie Boulevard Hydropower, Incorporated? MS. HELEN OTTE, Town Assessor-Erie Boulevard Hydropower is the company that purchased the Sherman Island Hydroelectric facility from Niagara Mohawk. MR. TUCKER-Why are they part of this action, have they been injured by your assessment? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-No, it's just the opposite, they're part of the litigants, they're the second litigant against the town. They've sued the town, just like Niagara Mohawk has. SUPERVISOR BROWER-They're trying to get their assessment reduced. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Correct, very substantially. MS. OTTE, Town Assessor-And this has spanned from 1993 to the present time, it spans a long period of time during part of that time NIMO owned the property, during the balance of the time, Erie Hydro owned it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The school and the town are sharing in the legal expenses relating to this. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-They are the current owner of the facility. MR. TUCKER-referred to Resolution 5.10, 'Resolution Authorizing Agreement Between Town of Queensbury and Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra, Inc.' and questioned whether Councilman Brewer was satisfied with this agreement? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes, and the symphony will perform at the Queensbury School. MR. SIPP (submitted petition to the Town Board and Town Clerk regarding request for traffic signal to be installed at Route 9 and Glen Lake Road by May 2002) The petition I just presented to you is signed by sixty-eight homes within the Courthouse Estates development, people along Glen Lake Road and number of people that work for the Docksider. With the acceptance of the Great Escape's EIS, and their time table looks like three years before they get to the point of erecting any traffic signal on Glen Lake Road or Route 9 and I request that you take a look at these signatures, the number of people which represents ninety- seven percent of the homes within Courthouse Estates and on the rear of this petition is the original request from the Warren County Traffic Safety Board dated August 15th, 2000 asking that you consider a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 9 and Glen Lake Road. At the last time I presented it, you felt that it was up to the Great Escape to do this and I wonder now if we can not charge the, you can charge the Great Escape for this improvement and waive the time period here and you have this erected by next May, realizing that it would operate as a traffic signal during the months which the Great Escape was open and be a blinking red caution light the rest of the year. For the safety of the people that use Glen Lake Road which are the Courthouse Development, the residents on Glen Lake and there's been a drastic increase in the amount of traffic, particularly this summer because of the road work done on 149. Residents have found that it's just as easy from the other side, Bay Road or Ridge Road to get across Route 9 to use Glen Lake Road. Numerous accidents have occurred here, there's been one death on this corner and I feel that it's about time that the town would enter into an agreement with the Great Escape in some way to pay for this now or in the time in which they will open their new roadway to their parking lots opposite the Glen Lake Road, Route 9 intersection. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do we have to get approval from New York State to do this? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I sent a request to DOT to ask them to evaluate the need for a traffic light at that intersection and they said they would do a study on it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Did they? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't know, I haven't heard from him since. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can we check on that? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Sure. COUNCILMAN STEC-But before we install the light, would we have to get approval from the state? Yes, right? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Yea, right. COUNCILMAN STEC-Mark, would it be feasible for us, I know that the Planning Board has worked out a timeline and some trip wires, but if we decided that we didn't want to wait for the trip wires, is it possible for us to approach the Great Escape and seek an agreement where perhaps we install it at our leisure but at an agreed to appropriate time or trip wire later, they would reimburse the town? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-The answer is, it's always appropriate to ask. You asked if it's appropriate to ask and could we seek that and I mean, we could certainly seek that. I mean, the SEQRA documentation that currently exists as I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, has some criteria in it for when these things will occur, those are binding and enforceable. If we seek to, pick up the pace so to speak, to do some things earlier, I don't know if we have any legal opportunity to do that right now but we can certainly enquire. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ifwe said we wanted it ourselves, but you pay for it when it becomes, when it hits the other established or agreed to trip wires, I'd rather get the light in now then three years from now. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well, if I'm not understanding the wrinkle you've added in, they'd be paying the same time they'd be paying anyway but the facility would be in sooner. COUNCILMAN STEC-Correct. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-And instead of them paying for the facilities construction, they would essentially be reimbursing the town. COUNCILMAN STEC-Correct, I'd like to pursue that. I'd rather eat the few thousand dollars in interest and get the light in now then wait three years from now. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-All I can give you is my gut reaction, it doesn't seem an unreasonable proposal. COUNCILMAN STEC-What would be the mechanism for me to ask Town Counsel's Office to pursue that? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Well, if you're asking, will do it. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'm asking. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-We'll do it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We ought to get the approvals from the state before we start seeking money from the Great Escape. TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Yea, that's probably an appropriate approach. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would that be the town's expense or would that be the state's expense? If DOT does a study and they find there's a need, wouldn't they pick it up? TOWN COUNSEL SCHACHNER-Probably which might mute out the reimbursement issue but DOT has to make that determination of need for the state to pay. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Check with the state first and see if we can get an answer by our next meeting. MR. SIPP-I'd also request and I don't know the procedure here but the Trading Post will open soon and we have another problem with the Trading Post and the way cars are parked and the way snow is plowed there. That curve, northbound lane of Route 9, on that curve when that snow is plowed up in that parking lot, leaves you very little, very little distance to see a car coming up that hill and is there anything that can be done to eliminate this kind of obstructions? Do you have any control over how the parking is arranged there and the snow plowing? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would think, Don, that if we're responsible for removing snow on the sidewalks, our Highway Superintendent ought to talk to those people that are putting snow on the sidewalks and tell them not to put it on the sidewalks. So, I would think that there is something that we can do about that. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTIONS 9:00 P.M. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO NEW YORK STATE ANDIOR CITY OF NEW YORK TO AID VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACK IN NEW YORK CITY, WASHINGTON, D.C. AND PENNSYLVANIA RESOLUTION NO.: 369, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: THE ENTIRE TOWN BOARD WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION WHEREAS, on September 11,2001, terrorists attacked the United States of America by hijacking planes and bombing the New York World Trade Center, the Pentagon and crashing a plane in Pennsylvania, and WHEREAS, these horrific crimes have resulted in the deaths of several thousand people, injured thousands more and cost billions of dollars in damages, and WHEREAS, Town of Queensbury residents feel the pain and share the grief of those who have lost loved ones and wish to assist all those affected by this tragedy, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the contribution of $10,000 in emergency funds to the City of New York and/or New York State to aid in the City and State's relief efforts as a result of the terrorist bombings on September 11th, 2001, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further urges every other Town within Warren County, New York State and the United States to financially contribute to these emergency relief efforts, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to forward certified copies of this Resolution to President George W. Bush, Governor George E. Pataki and New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to transfer any funds, amend the 2001 Town Budget and take any and all action necessary to send $10,000 to a fund established by either New York State or New York City for emergency relief purposes and effectuate the terms and provisions of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SALT STORAGE BUILDINGS RESOLUTION NO.: 370,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town's Facilities Manager has prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) to distribute to qualified contractors for design and construction services to construct two (2) salt storage buildings to be located on two (2) separate Highway Department properties, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to solicit proposals for these services as set forth in a copy of the proposed Request for Proposals presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town's Facilities Manager and/or Purchasing Agent to prepare and distribute the Request for Proposals for design and construction services to construct two (2) salt storage buildings to be located on two (2) separate Highway Department properties, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Facilities Manager and/or Purchasing Agent to take any further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS AND ESTIMATED REVENUES FOR SHORE COLONY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM CAPITAL PROJECT RESOLUTION NO.: 371,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 378.99, the Queensbury Town Board authorized establishment of the Shore Colony Water Supply System Capital Project Fund # 117, which Fund established funding for engineering fees and construction work to bring the Town's Shore Colony Water Supply System into compliance with the New York State Sanitary Code, and WHEREAS, by Resolution 277,2001, the Town Board authorized the issuance of up to $170,000 in serial bonds to pay the cost of acquisition, construction and installation of improvements to the Shore Colony Water District System and issuance of up to $170,000 in bond anticipation notes to fund these improvements, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 349,2001, the Town Board approved and authorized the purchase and funding for a Hydro-Pneumatic Water Storage Tank to replace the existing tank for the Shore Colony Water District and awarded the bid for the purchase to Gartner Equipment Company, Inc., and WHEREAS, the Town Board now wishes to establish total appropriations and estimated revenues for the Project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby establishes appropriations and estimated revenues in the amount of $170,000 for the Shore Colony Water District Capital Project with the source of such appropriations and estimated revenues to be funded by the issuance of serial bonds and/or bond anticipated notes as authorized by Town Board Resolution No.277,2001, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the $170,000 shall include appropriations in the following estimated amounts: 1. Materials and supplies as delineated in a report from O'Brien & Gere Engineers dated October 2000 - $69,600; 2. Force account labor and machinery costs for installation and related site work - $65,400; 3. Demolition of existing building and construction of new building - $15,000; 4. Allocation for unforeseen items such as additional engineering and consulting and contingency- $20,000; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to amend the 2001 Town Budget, make any adjustments, budget amendments, transfers or prepare any documentation necessary to establish such appropriations and estimated revenues and effectuate all terms of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Water Superintendent and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and make any purchases necessary to complete the Project for a total cost not to exceed $170,000 with a stipulation that amounts spent with anyone vendor shall not exceed the limited amounts set forth in the Town of Queensbury's Purchasing Policy, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Town Water Superintendent and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASED COSTS OF ENGINEERING SERVICES PROVIDED BY C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.c. IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF WATER LINE CONNECTOR TO TOWN OF MOREAU RESOLUTION NO.: 372, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 136.2000, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of the engineering services of C.T. Male Associates, P. C. (C.T. Male) to prepare plan- profiles and pursue the permits for the construction of the water line connector to the Town of Moreau, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 44.2001, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of C. T. Male to complete the design, prepare contract documents and provide assistance during the bidding process in connection with the construction of the water line connector, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 298,2001, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of C. T. Male for contract administration, construction observation and survey stakeout services in connection with the construction of the water line connector for an amount not to exceed $22,538.80, and WHEREAS, C. T. Male has advised that the construction work took longer than anticipated and therefore C.T. Male's construction observation costs are $6,942 higher than anticipated, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has recommended that the Town Board authorize the increased cost of C.T. Male's construction phase contract in the amount of $6,942 for a total construction phase contract cost of $29,480 as delineated in C.T. Male's letter dated September 12th, 2001 and presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs that the total cost for engineering services provided by C.T. Male Associates, P.C. for contract administration, construction observation and survey stakeout services in connection with the construction of a water line connector to the Town of Moreau shall be increased by the amount of $6,942 for a new total not to exceed $29,480, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for these services shall be by a $6,942 increase in appropriations in the Moreau Water Connection Capital Project, Misc. Capital Construction Account No.: 122- 8340-2899 and a corresponding increase in estimated revenues in the revenue account, Other Local Governments Account No.: 122-0122-2797, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Water Superintendent and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL & UTILITY VALUATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PROVIDE ONGOING ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 7 ASSESSMENT CASES COMMENCED BY NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION AND ERIE BOULEVARD HYDROPOWER, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 373, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Erie Boulevard Hydropower, Inc. have commenced litigation against the Town of Queensbury regarding real property tax assessments on the Sherman Island Hydroelectric Generating Facility for the years 1994 to 2000, and WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Town Assessor and Town Counsel, the Town Board by Resolution No.: 311,2001 authorized engagement of Industrial & Utility Valuation Consultants, Inc. (mVC) to review the draft appraisal prepared by MDI Associates for the Town's use in the litigation, and WHEREAS, IUVC has reviewed the draft appraisal and has provided the Town with valuable advice and assistance, and WHEREAS, the Assessor and Town Counsel recommend that the Town Board further engage the services of Industrial & Utility Valuation Consultants, Inc. on an ongoing basis to assist the Town in settlement negotiations and with trial preparations and, if necessary, at the trial of these matters, and WHEREAS, IUVC's fee for time spent on settlement negotiations and trial preparation is $175 per hour and $1,000 per day for time spent at trial, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Union Free School District's Counsel has advised that he will recommend that the School District similarly authorize IUVC's ongoing services, with the cost of such services to be divided evenly between the Town and School District and he fully anticipates that the School Board will authorize IUVC to provide the recommended consulting services under such arrangement with the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of the services of Industrial & Utility Valuation Consultants, Inc. to assist the Town in settlement negotiations, trial preparation and, if necessary, at the trial of tax assessment cases brought by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Erie Boulevard Hydropower, Inc. in connection with the Sherman Island Hydroelectric Generating Facility, with IUVC's fees for such services to be $175 per hour for assistance with settlement negotiation and trial preparation and $1,000 per day for attendance and assistance at trial, which costs shall be shared equally by the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District and with the Town's share of such costs not to exceed $8,000 without the Town Board's prior approval, to be paid for from Account No.: 001-1355- 4740, Assessor's Dept., Article 7, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Assessor, Town Counsel and/or Town Supervisor to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF ESCROW FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH MC ECHRON LANE IN EMERALD GROVE SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO.: 374,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 80.2001 the Queensbury Town Board accepted and approved the deed for dedication of McEchron Lane in Phase I of the Emerald Grove Subdivision, and WHEREAS, at that time Michael 1. Vasiliou, Inc. (Developer) agreed to furnish the Town with a cash escrow in the amount of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000) to ensure completion of the top coat of the road, and WHEREAS, Developer provided the Town with the required $12,000 and entered into an Escrow Agreement with the Town dated May 21,2001, and WHEREAS, as required by the Escrow Agreement the Town deposited the $12,000 in an interest bearing account, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 357,2001, the Town Board authorized acceptance of a reconfigured McEchron Lane in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Subdivision, and WHEREAS, by Memorandum dated September 7,2001, the Town's Highway Superintendent advised the Town Board that the Developer had completed to the Highway Superintendent's satisfaction the top coat of the reconfigured McEchron Lane, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the refund of funds currently held in escrow to the Developer as set forth in the Escrow Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the return of escrow funds to Michael 1. Vasiliou, Inc., which sum shall be the amount of $12,000 plus any earned interest, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO BUSINESS PROGRAM AND FILING OF APPLICATION WITH NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL F ACILITIES CORPORATION RESOLUTION NO.: 375, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, in accordance with the Clean WaterlClean Air Bond Act of 1996, Chapter 413 of the Laws of New York of 1996, the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (Corporation) through the Financial Assistance to Business Program (F AB Program) is authorized to provide State assistance to villages, towns and cities with a population of less than one million for small business environmental compliance assistance projects which enhance the quality of the air or waters of the State through compliance with environmental laws and regulations or to remedy or prevent environmental deficiencies, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board (Municipality) after due consideration, has determined that participation in the F AB Program is desirable and in the public interest, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD AS FOLLOWS: 1. The filing of an application or applications with the Corporation for financial assistance under the F AB Program in the form required by the Corporation is hereby authorized, including all understandings and assurances contained in the application. 2. The Municipality hereby authorizes and directs Dennis Brower, Town Supervisor, as the official representative of the Municipality to identify entities that will participate in the F AB Program, execute and deliver such application(s), execute and deliver any other documents necessary for participation in the F AB Program, provide such additional information as may be required and take all actions on behalf of the Municipality as may be required in order to effectuate the intent and purpose of this Resolution. 3. The Corporation is hereby authorized on behalf of the Municipality to deliver payments made pursuant to the F AB Program directly to the entities identified above or such further entities as may from time to time be named by the individual identified by the Town Supervisor. 4. A certified copy of this Resolution shall be prepared and delivered to the Corporation by the Town Supervisor as part of such application. 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2001 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 376, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner 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 Comptroller, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2001 Town Budget as follows: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-8020-2010 01-8010-4720 1,200. (Office Furniture) (Consultant Fees) HIGHWAY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 04-5130-4820 04-5110-4820 300. (Uniforms) (HEO, Lab, MEO & WF Uniforms) 04-5110-1450-0002 04-5130-4820 200. (MEO - OT) (Mechanics Uniforms) HIGHWAY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 04-5110-1450-0002 04-5142-4820 2800. (MEO - OT) (HEO, Lab, MEO & WF Uniforms) PARKS AND RECREATION: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-7020-1002 01-7020-1690 350. (Misc. Payroll) (Recreation Attendant) 01-7020-1002 01-7110-4560 140. (Misc. Payroll) (Bus Usage) 01-7020-1002 01-7110-4301 1. (Misc. Payroll) (Late Fees-Utility Bills) 01-7020-1350 01-7110-4400 2,000. (Rec. Maint., PT) (Misc. Contractual) 01-7020-1680 01-7110-4991 1,000. (Rec. Leader) (Lease & Rental-Land) 01-7020-1680 01-7110-4400 1,500. (Rec. Leader) (Misc. Contractual) WATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 40-8320-4400 40-8330-4400 2,000. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND TRI- COUNTY UNITED WAY RESOLUTION NO.: 377,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Tri-County United Way (United Way) provides financial assistance to many charitable organizations and persons in the area including the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the United Way has requested that the Town of Queensbury provide financial assistance in the amount of $2,000 in fiscal year 2001 so that the United Way may prepare a needs assessment to ascertain the needs of members in the community, and WHEREAS, the United Way has agreed to make such data available so that the Town will be accurately aware of the needs of Town residents, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of an Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the Tri-County United Way providing for the expenditure of $2,000 in fiscal year 2001 to assist in the United Way's preparation of a needs assessment to ascertain the needs of members in the community and such other services as will be described in the Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute an Agreement with the United Way in form to be approved by Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs that payment of the $2,000 shall be funded by a budget adjustment transferring $2,000 from the General Fund Contingency Account No.: 01-1990-4400 to Account No.: 01-8030-4400, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Comptroller to take any further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND GLENS FALLS SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 378,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra, Inc., (Symphony) helps to promote the cultural development of the community, attracts many persons to the Queensbury area and thus provides an economic boon to the community, and WHEREAS, the Symphony previously requested that the Town of Queensbury support the Symphony's cultural efforts by providing $4,000 in fiscal year 2001 to contribute to concert performances for the benefit of the public, and WHEREAS, such an expenditure supports the performing arts by way of presenting performances in the Town for the benefit of the public as authorized by Town Law ~64(17)(b), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra, Inc. helps promote cultural development in the Town of Queensbury and hereby approves of an Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra, Inc., such an Agreement providing for the expenditure of $4,000 in fiscal year 2001 to the Symphony for concert performances to benefit the public and such other services as will be described in the Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute an Agreement with the Symphony in form to be approved by Town Counsel, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs that payment of the $4,000 shall be funded by a budget adjustment transferring $4,000 from the General Fund Contingency Account No.: 01-1990-4400 to Account No.: 001-8989-4414, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Comptroller to take any further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF CHAZEN COMPANIES TO PREPARE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP RESOLUTION NO.: 379, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 289.99, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of Chazen Companies to prepare an updated Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map for the approximate lump sum amount of $37,500 with additional miscellaneous expenses up to the approximate amount of $2,500 as delineated in Chazen's proposal dated July 23, 1999, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has recommended that the Town Board authorize engagement of Chazen Companies for preparation of a Full Environmental Assessment Form to accompany the proposed new Zoning Ordinance and Map for an amount not to exceed $1,000 as delineated in Chazen's Part 2 Fee Proposal dated July 23, 1999 and presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of Chazen Companies to prepare a Full Environmental Assessment Form in connection with the proposed new Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and Map for an amount not to exceed $1,000 as delineated in Chazen's proposal dated July 23, 1999, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for these services shall be from the Consultant Fees Account No.: 01- 8010-4720, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development and/or Town Supervisor to execute any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin Mr. Round, Executive Director noted that he spoke with the Supervisor regarding pulling Resolution 5.12, delaying the referral to Warren County Planning Board. Supervisor Brower-Yes, okay, I'll recommend that we pull that resolution. Mr. Round, Executive Director-Just so that you folks know, we've met twice with our Steering Committee on the Zoning Ordinance and we have some additional changes in response to public comments received through the public informational meetings. We want to make those changes before we refer the document to county planning and the Adirondack Park. RESOLUTION DEEMING OLD SIGN DEPOSITS FORFEITED RESOLUTION NO.: 380, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller's Office has provided the Town Board with a list of sign deposits held by the Town dating back to 1977 through 1997, and WHEREAS, these deposits were paid to ensure removal of temporary signs but after removal of the signs, the owners failed to claim their money, and WHEREAS, the amounts deposited range from $25 - $50 each, and WHEREAS, the deposits are currently held in trust for their owners, and WHEREAS, it was determined that the six (6) year statute of limitations would apply to any claim that a refund was due under the basis of contract law, and WHEREAS, over the course of several years the Department of Building and Codes Enforcement has attempted to contact all depositors and has contacted as many of the depositors as possible, some on multiple occasions, and yet the depositors still have not contacted the Town of Queensbury to claim their sign deposits, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that diligent effort has been made to contact the depositors and therefore wishes to declare these sign deposits forfeited, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that the following sign deposits are deemed forfeited: TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SIGN DEPOSITS HELD TOTAL SIGN DEPOSITS FORFEITED $2,925.00 Permit # Vendor Amount Date Rec'd 6978 GLEN FORD $25.00 April 4, 1977 ? P&C MARKET $25.00 May 16,1977 6221 FAITH BIBLE $25.00 December 19,19796240 GLEN PARK AUCTION GALLERY $25.00 February 4,19807033 H R TYRER $25.00 June 13, 19806523 COMM SHALL $25.00 August 13, 19806678 TOP TILE $25.00 October 29, 19806688 BAXTER & SMITH $25.00 November 1, 1980 6930A NO PLACE LIKE SAMS $25.00 January 4, 1981 6930B NO PLACE LIKE SAMS $25.00 January 4, 19816742 CASUAL MALE & FEMALE $25.00 February 2, 1981 8061 H R TYRER $25.00 May 5, 1981 GLEN FORD $25.00 July 6, 1981 7564 EXIT 20 DINER $25.00 September 29, 19827654 MINI CHOPPER $25.00 October 8, 198292-0030 MINI CHOPPER $25.00 December 15, 19827661 AMERADA HESS $25.00 December 17,19827683 FOOTHILLS COMPUTER $25.00 December 17, 19827330 AMERADA HESS $25.00 February 28, 1983 8059A D'ELLA PONTIAC $25.00 August 24, 1983 8059B D'ELLA PONTIAC $25.00 August 24, 19836391 H R TYRER $25.00 August 24, 1983 9844 DEPOSIT ON PLANS (TO BE REFUNDED) $25.00 May 1,19848606 RUSTLER $25.00 June 28, 19848837 COOL INS. $25.00 October 24,19842568 EAST ALBANY REALTY (PLANS) $25.00 January 3,198585-179 COOK'S $25.00 May 9,198585-327 LEE GIFFORD $25.00 July 2,198585-535 FREIHOFERS $25.00 September 20, 198585-623 WM MONTGOMERY III $25.00 November 20, 1985 85-708 SHOP RITE $25.00 November 26, 198586-329 BASKETVILLE $25.00 June 30, 198686-595 Doyles $25.00 September 18, 198686-386 LUMS $25.00 November 20, 1986 86-814B LUMS $25.00 November 20, 1986 LG OPERA FESTIVAL $25.00 November 24, 198687-1 NORTHERN HOMES $25.00 April 13, 1987 87-580 LG OPERA FESTIVAL $25.00 June 29, 198787-603 LOG JAM OUTLET $25.00 July 2, 1987 87-647 ADK CONSTRUCTION $25.00 July 14, 198787-648 R DAWSON - ADK CONST $25.00 July 14, 198787-33 Dunhams Bay $25.00 December 30, 198788-2 CARPET MARKET $25.00 January 29, 198888-39 Dunham Brothers $25.00 February 2, 198888-04 SCANDIA TRADING $25.00 March 30, 198888-07 FLOWER DRUM SONG $25.00 May 3, 198888-08 BINLEY'S $25.00 May 5, 198888-09 JOHN BROCK $25.00 May 16,1988 88-12 AVIATION $25.00 May 26,1988 88-14 AVIATION $25.00 May 26, 198888-11 RT. 149 GETTY $25.00 May 26, 198888-13 RT. 149 GETTY $25.00 May 26, 1988 88-16 MR B'S BEST $25.00 July 1, 1988 ?? WOODBURY LUMBER $25.00 August 18, 1988 Dunham Brothers $25.00 October 4, 1988 PRICE CHOPPER $50.00 October 13,1988? LAKE GEORGE PLAZA $50.00 January 4,1989 EMPIRE VIDEO $50.00 March 28, 1989 MR B'S BEST $50.00 April 24, 198986-469 LG OPERA FESTIVAL $50.00 June 12, 1989 LAWRENCE DWYER $50.00 July 17,1989 PARTICIPATION $50.00 July 25, 1989 JOHN HENDLEY COMMITTEE $50.00 October 26,1989 NORTHWAY FLOORS $50.00 November 3,1989 STEVE POWERS $50.00 December 22, 1989 PATRICK CONLON $50.00 February 22, 1990? $2 TEE SHIRT OUTLET $50.00 May 18,1990 NORTHERN HOMES $50.00 December 17, 1990? JRD LTD. $50.00 January 4,1991 ? DEN'S FOOD COURT $50.00 April 25, 1991 GLENS FALLS NAT BANK $50.00 May 31,1991 CASTAWAY MARINA $50.00 June 3,1991 GETTY PETROLEUM CORP $50.00 July 2,199191-35 MARK PROSSICK $50.00 July 23,1991 ? KEY BANK $50.00 August 5,199191-73 PAPA GINO'S $50.00 October 17,1991 7586 MINI CHOPPER $50.00 October 30,1991 ? ANTHONY RUSS LG CUE CLUB $50.00 November 8,199192- 0052 MOORE'S BUILDING & LUMBER $50.00 April 13, 1992 92-0045 NORTH AMERICAN JEWELRY $50.00 June 12,1992 92-26 NORTHERN DIST. (HILAND PARK) $50.00 July 21,1992 Sears Roebuck & Co. R. Hall $50.00 March 10, 199494-0006 ABC Rental $50.00 March 15, 1994 L&M Investment Assoc. $50.00 May 27, 1994 Upstate Signs & Silkscreen $50.00 July 29, 199495-099 Empire Video Superstore/NYS Entertainment $50.00 March 21, 1995 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to record the forfeited deposits as Miscellaneous General Fund Revenues and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF HILAND SPRINGS WAY RESOLUTION NO.: 381, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., (Schermerhorn) has offered a deed to dedicate Hiland Springs Way to the Town of Queensbury as described in a June 6, 2001 Survey prepared by VanDusen & Steves, Land Surveyors, LLC, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has inspected the road and recommended its acceptance, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has confirmed that installation of water mains and appurtenances has been made in accordance with Town Water Department standards, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the road offered for dedication have been reviewed and approved by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and approves the deed for dedication of Hiland Springs Way, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute, SIgn and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Schermerhorn Properties, Inc., to record the deed in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which time the deed shall be properly filed and maintained in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to add the road to the official inventory of Town Highways as follows: Name: Hiland Springs Way Road Number: 527 Description: Beginning at Meadowbrook Road, continuing in an easterly direction a distance of 1,538 feet and .29 hundredths of a mile and ending at a cul-de-sac Feet: 1,538' and .29 of a mile Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PROVISION OF FULL HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS TO TEMPORARY ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER RESOLUTION NO.: 382,2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 356,2001, the Queensbury Town Board authorized the temporary employment of Joseph Lombardi as temporary Animal Control Officer during Colleen Kimble's one year, unpaid leave of absence, and WHEREAS, due to the long-term nature of the temporary position and the need to procure a qualified candidate, the Town Board wishes to provide Mr. Lombardi with full health insurance benefits, and WHEREAS, the Union was contacted and it voiced no objection to the provision of these benefits to Mr. Lombardi, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the provision offull health insurance benefits to Joseph Lombardi, temporary Animal Control Officer, during his one year term at the Town, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that the Town Supervisor and/or Town Comptroller execute any documentation and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTING HELEN OTTE AS TOWN ASSESSOR RESOLUTION NO. 383,2001 INTRODUCED BY Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 556,89, the Queensbury Town Board appointed Helen Otte as Town Assessor, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 488.95, the Town Board re-appointed Ms. Otte for another six (6) year term, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 481,98, the Town Board enacted Local Law NO.9 of 1998, which Local Law amended the Town Code by adding a new Chapter 24 entitled "Coordinated Assessment Program," which authorized the Town to enter into an agreement with the City of Glens Falls for a joint assessor, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Real Property Tax Law ~576 and ~579 and General Municipal Law Article 5-G, the Town and City entered into a municipal cooperative agreement dated December 30th, 1998 providing for the appointment of one assessor, Helen Otte, to hold office in both the Town and City, and WHEREAS, Ms. Otte's current term of office expired on September 30th, 2001 and therefore the Town Board wishes to re-appoint her for another six (6) year term, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby re-appoints Helen Otte as Town Assessor for a six (6) year term, such term to expire on October 1st, 2007, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board intends to seek re-negotiation of certain provisions of the Coordinated Assessment Program municipal cooperative agreement with the City of Glens Falls and that any stipend amount paid to Ms. Otte in addition to her regular Town salary shall be subject to adjustment depending upon any payment terms to which the City and Town ultimately agree, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to send a certified copy of this Resolution to the Mayor of the City of Glens Falls and take any other action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF LONGVIEW DRIVE, KENWOOD CIRCLE AND SANITARY SEWER, WATER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO.: 384, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, AOW Associates, Inc. has offered deeds to dedicate Longview Drive and Kenwood Circle, along with certain sanitary sewer, water and drainage easements to the Town of Queensbury as described in a Survey prepared by VanDusen & Steves, Land Surveyors, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Superintendent has inspected the roads and recommended their acceptance contingent upon the developer providing the Town with either cash escrow or a letter of credit in the amount of $25,000 to ensure that the top coat will be applied to the roads within two years of the date of Town Board approval and also assuming that all necessary drainage easements are in place, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has confirmed that installation of water mains and appurtenances has been made in accordance with Town Water Department standards, and WHEREAS, the Wastewater Director has confirmed that installation of sewer mains and appurtenances has been made in accordance with Town sanitary sewer standards, and WHEREAS, the form of the deed and title to the roads and the sanitary sewer, water and drainage easements offered for dedication have been reviewed by Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby accepts and approves the deeds for dedication of Longview Drive and Kenwood Circle, along with the coinciding sanitary sewer, water and drainage easements in the Glen at Hiland Subdivision, contingent upon approval by Town Counsel as to form and title of such Roads and Easements, and also contingent upon AOW Associates, Inc., providing the Town with either cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $25,000 to ensure placement of the top coat on the roads by October 1st, 2003, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute, SIgn and affix the Town seal to any and all documents necessary to complete the transaction, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs AOW Associates, Inc. to record the deeds in the Warren County Clerk's Office, after which time the deeds shall be properly filed and maintained in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to add the roads to the official inventory of Town Highways as follows: Name: Longview Drive Road Number: 528 Description: Beginning at Meadowbrook Road, continuing in an easterly direction a distance of 2,272' feet and .43 hundredths of a mile and ending at a dead end. Feet: 2,272' and .43 of a mile Name: Kenwood Circle Road Number: 529 Description: Beginning at Longview Drive and continuing in a southerly direction a distance of 77 6' feet and .15 hundredths of a mile and ending at a cul-de-sac. Feet: 776' and .43 of a mile Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF CIFONE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. TO CONSTRUCT FOUNDATION FOR NEW SHORE COLONY WATER DISTRICT FIL TRA TION BUILDING RESOLUTION NO.: 385, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec 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 WHEREAS, by previous Resolution, the Town Board established appropriations and estimated revenues for the Shore Colony Water Supply System Capital Project, including appropriations for construction of a new water filtration building, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent solicited proposals from several contractors to construction the foundation for the new building and one proposal was submitted, and WHEREAS, the Water Superintendent has reviewed the proposal and has requested that the Town Board engage the services of Cifone Construction Co., Inc., as delineated in Cifone's September 26th, 2001 proposal for an amount not to exceed $9,945, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the engagement of Cifone Construction Co., Inc. to construct foundation for the Shore Colony Water District filtration building as described in Cifone's September 26th, 2001 proposal for an amount not to exceed $9,945 and an additional $1,000 for change orders, if necessary, authorized by the Water Superintendent to be paid for from the Shore Colony Water Supply System Capital Project Fund # 117, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent, Town Comptroller and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Martin TOWN BOARD DISCUSSION 6.1 Snowmobile Trail Maintenance - South Warren Snowmobile Club Mr. Gene Merlino, President of the South Warren Snowmobile Club-We're going into our third year of taking over the snowmobile trails from Warren County. Over the last couple of years we've purchased some new equipment. We started with a 1979 Bombardier that we bought from the county for three thousand. We purchased an old Tucker, it was an 82, for another four thousand when we started and we still have the Bombardier, we just put a new motor and new transmission in and it runs pretty good. We purchased another Bombardier, a 1989, it was a leftover, only had a few miles on it. We spent seventy- five thousand on that and last year we bought another Bombardier, a large one which we keep up in the Lake George area, it was a hundred and five thousand. Basically, we got about a hundred and ninety thousand tied up in equipment but with all the help that we've gotten from some of the communities and grants and fundraisers, we're in debt about eighty thousand which we feel is good. So, I'm here now to just ask for continued support from Queensbury. I've spoken to some of the other towns and everything looks good, we even got an early approval from Glens Falls Water District. We got that in May, we've been out there working on some of the trails already. One of the their things were to get the trail away from their reservoir, one of their upper ones so we have a bridge built already. We're moving along, we're going to have better signage again this year, we just need the snow. We ended our season a lot better then we started with all the snow we got in March so it was a good snowmobile season for us. Again, I'm asking for the support of the Town of Queensbury and help us out and keep us funded a little bit. The only other thing, this is not debatable, I'm just bringing it out because the board asked me to bring it out, where still having trouble with that trail that goes down to West Mountain parking lot. We've been out there, they've been working on it. It is a mile and a half of the most dangerous out of the ninety miles that we take care of and we're just, the guys asked me to just bring it up, is there any way we can maybe at the beginning of the season use the Traver Road trail until we get snow. We don't get three feet of snow, we can't really use that trail, that's how dangerous it is. I'm only bringing it up, I mean, right now, we're opening, it's going on our map, Traver Road is not but the guys just asked that other three quarters of a mile, it's safety more then anything else. You know, if we could come up with maybe signs in that parking lot, that they've got to be out of there by seven o'clock at night or something like that and work with the Sheriff, that we could ticket people that are in there later then that or something to that effect. It's safety, is the only reason why we want to use that Traver, and I know you guys passed a resolution last year not to have any snowmobiles on any of your town roads but this is a dirt road and maybe we can come up with something. It's just a thought, that's all I have to say, I appreciate the support. Supervisor Brower-I receive your request for five thousand dollars, but as you know it was after, I had already forwarded my budget to the clerk so but they did note it that it was a late request and I'm sure the board will at least consider that request when we do our continued budget hearings which start in the near future. Councilman Brewer-Just food for thought, I've had a couple of Department Heads mention to me possibly to start committees again, whether it be once a month or one every two weeks, just so that we can have some sort of contact other then when there's a problem. Supervisor Brower-I've actually thought about establishing a committee structure because you're right, there's a lot of things going on in the town and it would be nice to separate some of the, have some contact with different departments. Councilman Brewer-Exactly. So, I think we ought to maybe put that on our list of things to do so that we can structure that for the beginning of the year, we don't want to leave Roger out of this. Councilman Stec-I think they got a little carried away last time, they had maybe too many but I think Tim is right, I think that there are certain critical functions that we probably ought to have more contact with. Supervisor Brower announced for the public the sewer negotiating meeting with the City of Glens Falls Common Council to be held tomorrow evening. Town Board held discussion regarding the need to start budget discussions with Department Heads and it was agreed to schedule a budget discussion workshop for some of the Department Heads next Tuesday, October 9th at 7 pm. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 386, 2001 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby adjourns from their Regular Meeting. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Martin No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SPECIAL JOINT TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CITY OF GLENS FALLS MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2001 MTG. #41 QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER WARD 2 COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER WARD 3 COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC WARD 4 COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER ABSENT WARD 1 COUNCILMAN JAMES MARTIN TOWN OFFICIALS WATER/WASTEWATER SUPT. RALPH VANDUSEN DEPUTY SUPT. OF WASTEWATER MIKE SHAW TOWN COMPTROLLER HENRY HESS TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER CITY OF GLENS FALLS COMMON COUNCIL MAYOR ROBERT REGAN COUNCIL PRESIDENT KAY SAUNDERS 1ST WARD COUNCILMAN JOHN A. DIAMOND 2ND WARD COUNCILMAN DANA L. PALMER 3RD WARD COUNCILMAN HAROLD T AYLOR 4TH WARD COUNCILPERSON TEENA M. WEBER 5TH WARD COUNCILMAN 1. SCOTT P AUQUETTE CITY COUNSEL 1. MARK NOORDSY CITY FIRE CHIEF RON COTE MODERATOR LEN FOSBROOK Moderator Len Fosbrook-Good evening and I hope you did not miss us not having a meeting last week, I am sure everyone enjoyed having a week off, but it is good seeing everybody back together. I trust that we all came back with a some new ideas and some thoughts on how to make this thing happen as we discussed at the last meeting. Would anybody like to make any opening remarks, Dennis, is there anything you would like to say before we get started? Town Supervisor Dennis Brower-I would like to make some opening remarks, very brief, just an indication that hopefully this evening will try to keep the big picture in mind. The big picture is this, the big picture is Queensbury has been attempting to buy additional sewer capacity which was very easy and inexpensive to buy from the City in past years at a fair price. The County has come up to the table and offered an incentive if we are able to achieve a deal which will bring in one percent of the or two percent of the County's portion of sales tax which is about three hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, roughly, this year, as an incentive. Outstanding is the potential annexation of a small area of Queensbury that would enable the City to have a light industrial park. I view it as positive for both communities, certainly we see the advantage to both communities in the future if we are able to come up with such a deal we hope it would be the frame work for future agreements that might benefits both communities. We would hate to revert back to days of old where both communities could not agree on virtually anything. I know it is difficult with the number of players we have on both teams, but I think if both parties try to keep in mind the goal of inter-municipal cooperation fairness and prosperity for the future we might be successful. That is all I have to say. Moderator Fosbrook-Ok. Mayor would you like to make any opening remarks? City Mayor Robert Regan-I guess I would have to echo and second Dennis's comments. I think we do have the makings of a win, win, situation. I think it will be able to ultimately provide Queensbury with sewer on a dollar for dollar basis significantly cheaper than before. I think it does achieve both communities goals, if we can wind that up and I don't think there is any disagreement that, that is what we are all here for, so I would thank him for his comments. Moderator Fosbrook- Thank you. At the request of both parties I was asked to do a little research relative to one of the agenda items which was fire protection. We have representatives from two fire companies here tonight. I do not know whether you would like to hear from them now or whether you would like to discuss this a little bit and then maybe get a point of view? I will look for some type of consensus on that. Ward 3 Town Councilman Tim Brewer-What research did you do I guess I would ask. Moderator Fosbrook-I called them both and asked them what were the issues relative to fire coverage and then I invited them here to talk about thern. So, maybe as long as they are here and they probably do not want to spend too late a night, would either one of you gentlemen like to make a statement? City Chief Cote -Let West Glens Falls take first. Moderator Fosbrook-This is the President of the West Glens Falls Fire Department, John Wells. President of West Glens Falls Vol. Fire Company John Wells-As Len stated I am here at his invitation to give some in site on our fire company standing, feelings on the issue. Mr. Brewer has spoke to us as our representative of the fourth ward about the issue as recently as last month. We had a meeting with Mr. Brewer and had a Company vote and as an official representative of the company I have to support that, which was a unanimous vote not to support the current proceedings as they are going as requiring the annexation. The issue is not the fire protection with us, because as history has shown Glens Falls and West Glens Falls Fire has a very good working relationship. We have a mutual aid system that works very well it is in place at Hallmark Nursing Home right now there is not contract that requires us to do it, there is nothing in writing says anybody has to do it. It is all based on the fact that we are public safety people our first and primary purpose is protection of life and property. To whatever extent that we have to do that we will take to do so. I would hate and I am a little upset that this issue has come down to one sticking point a disagreement between the fire companies as far as protection because it is not so and it is not fair to us. It is not fair to the brethren fire men to say that because we want to put a fire out across the road this deal is going to effect the history of the two municipalities down the road. There is more going on here than just fire protection, there are deals as I understand it that are made between two parties involved both sides for whatever reason are not coming through or have not been acted upon. It feels like.was put in our lap to say yes or no and officially the company's position is we do not support it, but on a personal level it is not because of the fire issue, because we can work that out. Chief Carpenter, Chief Cluney sat down and had what I called a very good working relationship as far as protection for that piece of property. But there is more involved than just the fire issues and as the President of the Company I would ask that the representatives of the two municipalities get together and solve the issue and not lay it our laps to say that it is not going to go through because the fire company. Moderator Fosbrook- Thank you John, Chief Cluney would you like to? City of Glens Falls Fire Chief Cote-Yes. I would have to agree with John, we do have a working relationship with West Glens Falls and we also have a working relationship with other fire companies in the Town of Queensbury. We have worked well together, I think when we talked about it John and I we used the factor that if this annexation came about that, that would be City property therefore we would be the lead agency. We go to Hallmark Nursing Home probably five or six times a year anyway, we turned that operation over to them because it is in their district. We have no problem with it. I do not think that they will have any problem with turning over that jurisdiction if it comes about to us when it arrives later on. As far as the fire protection goes that is what both of us are in business for is to offer the people of our community the best protection that we can give thern. By utilizing West Glens Falls and their equipment I could not offer that piece of property any better protection. I believe that the fire issue is the thing you let us work that out we can work it out to both of our satisfaction. That is where I believe it is. The fire companies are not to cause this program this deal to go down one way or the other. We are being used as pawns I think you are mistaken you are using the wrong people. The fire service gets along very well the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls and the surrounding areas. Our municipalities work together under a mutual aid agreement constantly. I think you should let us work out the fire deal you work out the other problems we would all be better off. Moderator Fosbrook- Thank you, Chief. On page 13 is the wording that refers to this under Item 1. The Town and the City shall jointly provide the fire protection services to the property and the Town and the City will jointly provide ems to the property to be annexed. The City shall pay to the Town the following amount during each year of the definitive agreement. The Town's normal assessment rate for the fire and ems service each year times two thousand and one aggregate assessed value of the property plus the towns normal assessed rate for fire and ems service each year times the aggregate assessed value of the property each year less the two thousand and one aggregate assessed value of the property times fifty percent. This is the wording that we have worked out up to this point, is this acceptable is there any disagreement any discussion? Town Councilman Tim Brewer-I had a discussion today with Jim Martin and maybe this simply could put this issue to bed. He suggested and Bob correct me because I think he had the same conversation with you. Something about the fire and ems protection could be negotiated with the City's fire union in two years. That was a major issue when Bob and I met with the Fire Companies for the Union they said if there was a fire there and I am not quoting verbatim what was said but essentially what was said that the firemen, if West responded to that property there was a fire then the City would have to pay the union people whatever it was three hours or four hours over time if West responded first or whatever. I think if we had a mutual agreement and the portion of the grievance for who responds because lets face it nothing is going to be built there in a year I do not think or two years. Hopefully there will be something built but hopefully there won't be a fire. If the union would agree not to negotiate or not to grieve our company going there, West could be the primary for the two years until the City negotiates their contract and somehow that could be worked out with the City in their contract. Mayor Regan-I thought that I just heard the two fire departments more or less request us to give them the opportunity to work it out themselves, am I correct? Moderator Fosbrook-I believe that is what they said. Mayor Regan-I think that would that is sort of what we were sort of hoping would happen all along. We would be happy to leave it to the two fire departments to work out. I do not see a representative of the union from the City here I do not know Chief if you have had any discussion with Chris Steves about it or not. City Fire Chief Cote -No I have not really had a chance.we are more than willing to work with West Glens Falls..whether they grieve it or not is irrelevant I think. Mayor Regan-It would probably make sense though to have them at that table if you are going to work out an agreement. City Fire Chief- I would presume that representatives of both our union and representatives of West Glens Falls would sit at the table and probably other departments in Queensbury because we all work together.. Mayor Regan-That is fine with us. Do you have any sense of when or maybe we should just leave it go at that, I do not know. Moderator Fosbrook-Well if you accept this language as it is written and jointly work out jointly provide fire protection and if there are issues that come up and at contract time they can be resolved then I am sure they would be addressed at that time. Mayor Regan-One issue that I would be concerned about and I guess the lawyers can help me out with this, is that, that part of annexation law that says that the City shall provide fire service in the same manner that it provides it in other parts of the City? Are we running afoul of New York State Law or maybe we can get that, I do not know and I am thinking out loud. I like the idea of letting these guys work it out and walking away from it, I think that works for all of us here. But, I want to be careful that we do not create more problems then we solve. Moderator Fosbrook-For the sake of the MOU and this is not a contract and maybe in the contract we could put some other language that the Attorneys could devise to make this a little bit more encompassing in the future. If we could accept the City Counsel 1. Mark Noordsy-I think the statutory provision that the Mayor is referring to refers to the City providing in the same manner fire protection to the annex area in the same manner as to already existing areas. The Chief has just described how the two department work jointly in one area so it seems to me that you are talking about providing fire protection in the same manner as the City does in other areas of the City. Mayor Regan-Should we caucus on this? Moderator Fosbrook-there is also president for it. City Counsel Noordsy -You have other areas within the City that you do that? City Fire Chief Cote -We protect Glens Falls Cement Company because that is a piece of property that the Town Line runs right in the middle of. When it is our section we are in charge if it is the South Queensbury Section they are in charge, that is what I am saying if this is going to become City property that is the way we handle it within the City, we are in charge of that piece of property that belongs to the City if it is outside the City then it is definitely within the jurisdiction of that fire company. That is the way we work it all the time. We answer calls in West Glens Falls and turn it over to them right away. Mayor Regan-I guess what we might want to do on this issue is at some point we would like to caucus but we would like to for sake of time caucus only once so if we can take that under consideration and maybe move forward is that all right? Moderator Fosbrook-You would like to move to the next agenda item now is that? Town Councilman Brewer-Were are we going to leave that? Moderator Fosbrook-I would have gone with closure on it, Mayor, I would ask if this is acceptable language that we just accept it right now as far as the language that is written. Town Councilman Brewer-Let them caucus. Moderator Fosbrook-Is this language acceptable to Queensbury? Town Councilman Brewer-No not to me it isn't maybe the rest of the Board it is. Mayor Regan-Well we might as well caucus and at least I will know for sure exactly how our delegation wants to proceed. Moderator Fosbrook-Is there anything else that you would like to add Tim before they, before we do? Town Councilman Brewer-I am sorry Len. Moderator Fosbrook-Is there anything else you would like to add before they? Town Councilman Brewer-No. Bob just suggested maybe at the end we, everybody caucus if that makes sense then. Mayor Regan-That is what I thought we would do. Moderator Fosbrook-Ok. The second agenda item is the formula for reconstruction fund which appears on page five. As this appears presently in the document it is average town purchase capacity over the total capacity nine point five million gallons per day of the plant. Discussion? Mayor Regan-I know that we have talked at length about the reconstruction fund and how we calculate that contributions to that and so forth for the purchased capacity, what we haven't ever discussed is how we treat the reconstruction fund as it pertains to that capacity that has been reserved. The reason why that is a concern for us is that if there is two point five million gallons that are held in reserve that we cannot use or sell to anybody else and we understand that Queensbury needs that guarantee. On the other hand if we have to pay one hundred percent of the reconstruction fund of that part that is unusable by us or un-saleable by us that presents an issue to us that I think needs to be addressed. Moderator Fosbrook-Does everybody understand what the Mayor is stating, if he reserves two point five million gallons for the use of the Town of Queensbury that, that should somehow be accommodated in this formula, I believe, am I stating that correctly Mayor? Mayor Regan-Yes. Moderator Fosbrook-Do you have a counter proposal to this? Mayor Regan-I guess I would say if it is never usable by us or never saleable by us and yet the reconstruction fund has to be funded to reflect that amount of capacity that the Town should pay based on that amount a capacity that they have reserved would be our position. Town Supervisor Brower-That is totally new language as far as I am concerned. We have visited this it was settled and now you are changing the terms that we already visited as far as I am concerned. Mayor Regan-We have never discussed the reconstruction fund as it pertains to that reserved but not used and not paid for capacity, because, think about it. It is capacity for which we have not received the money and typically you would have some sort of a down payment or something like that to sort of reserve that, that option but we did not require that but if we are going to have to pay a hundred percent of the reconstruction for that, that presents us with the burden of paying for the reconstruction of something that will never, by contract we are agreeing not to use or to sell. I think from an equity point of view it is an issue that we did not cover. We talked about issues of capacity and flow but we never covered Town Supervisor Brower-If you want to go back to that then we have to revisit the fact that the plant has been built for how many years, reconstruction funds have never been allocated for how many years, Queensbury probably should not be responsible for allocations that should have been put aside years ago for reconstruction purposes. So, we could go back and revisit that whole scenario but I do not think it would be productive and I do not think that we would be moving forward I think we would be moving backward. Moderator Fosbrook-Do you have reconstruction fund or formula for a reconstruction fund presently in use? Mayor Regan-Yes. It is flow over flow. Moderator Fosbrook- That is in the other contracts you have with South Glens Falls and Moreau? Mayor Regan-Right. City Attorney-It is what is in the 85 agreement between the Town and the City. Moderator Fosbrook- The is an agreement currently with the Town and the City. City Attorney-That formula is in those three agreements. There is more to it than flow over flow but there is a flow approach. Moderator Fosbrook-Any discussion? Town Councilman Brewer-Henry? Town Comptroller Hess-It opens a whole new model we would have to go back and develop a new model to see what this is going to cost and how it is going to impact the cost of sewage to the district. I can see the point but the fact that it was never talked about is because it was never brought to the table before by the City. So, I think that if they want to put it on the table we have got to go back and construct new financial models. There is no way you can do that on the spur of the moment. Town Supervisor Brower-The way we understood it was as we purchased capacity then we would be responsible for reconstruction at that time and it was never discussed in any other fashion but that and this is a whole new perspective from the City's perspective. Mayor Regan-I would not say it is a whole new thing because it really and truly was never discussed and as Henry said he understands the point. I think it is something that fairness dictates that we do examine, certainly if Queensbury wants to construct a new model to better understand that, that is ok with me. It was only at the last meeting really that we began to hash out exactly how much Queensbury was going to need and you know how much they wanted guaranteed. We began to get a full picture of just what their long term needs were going to be and what our capacity and ability to guarantee that was. So, I think that the reaching of that understanding of how much they wanted to have is a relatively new in the scheme of things a relatively new point that we have discussed. Town Comptroller Hess-Just to finish the thought I started a minute ago. It requires a new model but it also will increase the cost. In the opening statements Mayor Regan said that the future agreement that should supply sewage on a dollar per dollar cost less than we get it now and the model we have now does not do that. Introducing a new cost will only increase that and I am not saying it is not desirable for the Town, the Town Board will have to decide that. But, this agreement does cost the Town more for sewer than it pays now and adding a new cost factor will only increase that cost. Town Counsel Hafner-Also, I think that from the Town's point of view the argument that this is something that was not discussed is something that at least from how we look at it, that is hard to understand because this language that is there specifically it was drafted very precisely and has been there for a long time, it is always in this MOU for the whole time that we have been drafting it, it has been based on the Town purchased capacity over the total plant capacity which is nine point five million gallons per day. What you are trying to do is to add to the numerator which has, it has never been there, the language says what it says. City Councilman Pauquette- Y ou know to that point what exactly if the definition of average town purchase capacity? Because I cannot find that anywhere in the MOD. How is that based on what is the definition of that numerator? Town Comptroller Hess-I would like to say that to me it would be what we owned at the beginning of the year, probably divided by you know either proportional across the year. Probably the definitive agreement would have to define that more clearly but I think it is on an annual basis we paid on an annual basis so it is what we owned at the beginning of the year at the end of the year and some number in between those two. Calculated either proportionally or divided by two. Moderator Fosbrook-It seems to me because we are dealing with concepts here and not direct dollars we would have to have a couple of formulas to look at to see how that changes the dollars even though we could change some of these, change the equation. So maybe modeling this would be the right way to go. Town Supervisor Brower-Or forgetting it totally which would be another way to go. Ralph do you have any comment on this I would like to hear from our Wastewater Superintendent. Waterlwastewater Supt. Ralph VanDusen- I guess I would echo what Henry said to a certain extent that I understand the City's concern and what they are trying to accomplish from the Town's standpoint I have a concern about modifications that do come up based on the. It seem every time we meet there is something new that is proposed that was not discussed before because people had time to think about it and maybe we should do this and maybe we should do that. It just seems like maybe we are never going to sign an agreement because we want to sit back and just reanalyze and just make things finer and finer. I just have a concern that we are never going to reach agreement because of that. Town Supervisor Brower-When I saw a formula for reconstruction fund on the proposed agenda this evening I was very distressed because to me this had been visited had been settled and we were moving on and now it back on the agenda. I resent it quite frankly. Moderator Fosbrook-I think one of the things that we have lost sight of here this is a memorandum of understanding it is not a binding contract and I think we are putting more contract language in here at every meeting which will make when we get to the contract time will make it a lot easier to develop a contract that is for sure. So, is this an issue that maybe we are not going to be able to resolve tonight if models have to be done or if we do not have an answer to it? Town Councilman Brewer-What sense does it make if we cannot sign or all agree on an MOU All the fine point there in it what makes anybody think we are ever going to get to a contract? If we cannot come up with document and all agree on all the principals in this thing there is no way in hell we are ever going to sign a contract. Because it is just going to go around and around and around and it is never going to end. Town Comptroller Hess-One more thing, when I say that this would require a new model I am not volunteering to this group to do a new model. If will provide a new model at the direction of our board if that is what they would like to do. I am not saying I will do that just because, for the sake of providing one to look at that our board can agree to. There are soft, I have sat in a lot of meetings since the beginning of the year on this and there are things that we know that were imprecise in this calculation. This is one of the things that is imprecise. But that is what sales tax and annexation pays for, these imprecise costs. Mayor Regan-Don't forget that Queensbury has maintained the position that the sales tax is separate and has nothing to do with the contract it shouldn't ought not to be Town Supervisor Brower-But it can't happen without an agreement, it will not happen without an agreement. Mayor Regan-But by the same token your position has been that it is a separate issue and ought not to be attached to this. Town Comptroller Hess-That has never been the Town's position it has always been the City's position. It has never been the Town's position. Mayor Regan-I think we are getting a little bit far a field the fact of the matter is I think there is an important issue here that is unresolved it is important to us and something that we have not discussed before I think it needs to be discussed. Town Supervisor Brower-You are right it was not discussed because we had settled it. Moderator Fosbrook-And it does not appear we are going to resolve it. Town Supervisor Brower-You brought up a new item. Moderator Fosbrook-It does not appear that we are going resolved it at this point in time. Would you like to go on with the next agenda item? Town Supervisor Brower-However, since he brought up the new item the plant is how many years old now? You were supposed to be putting funds away for that plant reconstruction and you never did. Now, Queensbury is willing to pay our proportional usage without question of that plant as if today is day one. Think about it, think about the fairness of that. City Councilman Pauquette- That would be fine, usage to usage would be fine Dennis. We would not have any problem with that. Town Supervisor Brower-We are talking about putting together a funding plan of five point two million dollars or whatever for the next twenty years, funding it up front along with the City's contribution obviously which is greater than the towns because your usage is much greater, but we have never balked on that. We could have really balked on that. Mayor Regan-I do not think you could because it is a federal requirement. Town Supervisor Brower-No we would not balk on the reconstruction but we might say what happened to the funds that were supposed to be in the bank account from the City for the reconstruction of that facility. Moderator Fosbrook-Dennis the spirit of inter municipal cooperation could we move to the next agenda item? Town Supervisor Brower-Excuse me lets move on. Moderator Fosbrook-Item three page seven the Right to Audit language. I think at our last negotiating session we decided to allow the Attorneys and the Financial people from both sides to work out language and I am not sure what the issues are does anyone want to start relative to this agenda itern. Town Comptroller Hess-Do you mind if! address that? We to get this thing off the ground I guess a month or so ago just to get some language on paper so we would have a starting point we draft up something out of my office and we distributed it. First thing we heard back was it was unacceptable and that is fine I do not expect to be adopted that way. We have seen now some counter language. I do not believe that Bruce and I and the two Attorneys can't sit down and with some degree of reasonableness come up with some language but there are some issues in the counter language that really do not address some of the needs that we address. One is, you know providing budgets tentative and preliminary budgets or excuse me preliminary and adopted budgets in a timely way that allows the town to budget its sewer costs for the following year. This provides that we see a budget when the first bill comes, that does not help us at budget time. Auditing, an audit report a year after the close of the end of the year it takes out the language that says the City has, the Town has the right to what its own costs audit the records of this transaction. I think there are three factors that are, that clearly do not address some of the needs of the Town. That were removed from our original proposal and do not appear in this kind of language. Unknown-First of all regarding the tentative budget, the tentative budget is just a working document and the City ..budget is approved by the water and sewer commissioners and approved by council the calendar before that is the final budget and rates established by November 1 of the previous year. It would be on that budget that the final adopted budget with the published rates that would be used for preparation of the final bill. I see no need for us to be supplying paper for a tentative budget that is not used. As far as the length of the twelve months that I changed that because historically the City has been late in getting audited financial statements. I suspect that to be remedied but if this is a concern about, then we proposed originally that the final bill for Queensbury for the year be based on the final actual cost which is new to the existing agreement which is always based on budgets. Now if you want to put the timing to months prior to the final bill or weeks prior to the final bill that is acceptable. Moderator F osbrook -There is a significant amount of language I think both sides had proposed language is there any combination of that language that is in this document that would be acceptable to both parties? Town Comptroller Hess-I think it is simply a matter of addressing the issues. I do not know that, I think we need to sit down and do that. I described to you what I thought were three issues that I had not heard explanation about that appeared in the language. I still believe that if sit down and recognize each others needs we can work that out. That has not occurred yet. Moderator Fosbrook-Ok. Any further discussion on the right to audit language? What I am hearing is you need another meeting to hanuner out the differences in that. Comptroller Hess-We need a first meeting, right. Moderator Fosbrook-I was under the impression that you had met. Any other discussion in the right to audit language? Ok. The fourth agenda item appears on page 9 and 10 is relative to the sales tax agreement. Mayor Regan-One other item that I would bring up it is my understanding that our Council proposed to the Town's Council that before the two Councils and the Comptrollers get together that the Town Council did not think that was the right way to proceed. So, I am sure that can still go forward if you wish. City Council-I think you asked for our responding language which we have given. Town Counsel Hafner-And we got that Friday morning. City Counsel Noordsy-We can either continue to go back and forth that way or I think certainly have been willing to sit down as a group before. Town Comptroller Hess-That was proposed long ago I think we need to do that. Town Counsel Hafner-I still think we can work it out we have got your language Friday and I think Henry got sick yesterday and was not feeling well and we did not have a chance to talk yesterday morning which was the only other business day before today. Town Comptroller Hess-When this agreement is all done Bruce and I are going to be exchanging documents back and forth. There is nothing wrong with us talking before this gets done so there is a clear understanding between us as to what it is. Having these intermediaries in the way of Council, it is nice to have their participation but I do not think we need the intermediaries I think we need to talk together. Moderator Fosbrook-Can we set as Mayor Regan-At the end of the last, I do not want to belabor it any more, but at the end of the last meeting result, my understanding the consensus was the two lawyers and two c.would work it out. Moderator Fosbrook- That is the way I understood it too. City Council-That was the sentence that was in it before that the two Councils and Two Comptrollers will work it out, would you go back to that is what we are saying. Moderator Fosbrook-Can we then plan on doing that between now and apparently there will be another meeting? Or should we use that sentence as it seems like both parties feel comfortable that they can work this out and since this is a MOU maybe we can go back to the language that states that you will sit down and work out acceptable language that will appear in the contract. Town Comptroller Hess- It is up to them I am ok with it. Moderator Fosbrook-For the sake of expediency in trying to get to a game here with the MOU that might be the best way to handle it. Town Comptroller Hess-We put together a sheet oflanguage simply because it seemed to be the issue that they wanted at the time but I did not feel compelled to do that for any other reason. Moderator Fosbrook-Ifwe can resolve some of these other items would everybody be comfortable with the language that states that, that the finance and legal representatives from both sides will sit down and agree upon language that will appear in the final contract and that will be what we will use in the MOU until we get to the final contract. Is that acceptable? Mayor Regan-I think that would be fine with us. Supervisor Brower-It sounds reasonable. Moderator Fosbrook- Then lets do that and move now to the fourth item which is the sales tax agreement which appears on page 9 and 10. I believe that there was some discussion relative to what part what reference should be made to the sales tax agreement in this agreement which is an agreement between the City and the Town given that the sales tax agreement is an agreement between the City and the County. Discussion? Is the language that exists here in the document acceptable? There are two languages. There is the italicized and then there is the, so there is two languages. Three is a combination or either one. Town Council Hafner-I believe that the Town would support the highlighted language and the City the italicized language. Moderator Fosbrook-Is a combination or anyone or the other acceptable to both parties? Town Councilman Stec-Personally the language in the highlighted portion is farther than any third party would ever have to commit itself to in regards to an agreement between two other parties. I do not see a need for any language in there at all that is an agreement between the City and the County the Town should not have to weigh in on it but if we had to I think that highlighted portion does that and then some. Moderator Fosbrook-Is the highlighted portion acceptable to Glens Falls? Mayor Regan-Not to, our position is that surprise, surprise, that the italicized portion is .. Moderator Fosbrook-Well we have been through the agenda items once you have requested a caucus maybe now is the time to have that caucus and come back to the table. Town Supervisor Brower-The only other item that we previously discussed that I do not see a change on Len is page I guess it is eleven. I specifically mentioned this particular item and that was the change in all deed, all deeds adding deed restrictions to all deeds for the Veterans Field property that is proposed to be annexed. That way there is no possibility that the City could develop the property on it own and use it for purposes other than those intended which is light industrial use and that the bug a boo that I had. It still remains the language still remains that the deed restriction to each deed it grants for a portion of property which restricts the use of the property to light industrial and manufacturing consistent with the allowed uses identified in the Town's Veterans Field light industrial park district designation. So I do think all deeds should have that deed restriction prior or immediately upon signing and agreement that enables annexation of that land. City Council-That was the intention, Bob Hafner and I discussed that and he explained that to me. Town Supervisor Brower-But it was not changed. City Counsel Noordsy-Well I did, I added what was highlighted there I can further explain. I think that there was an agreement on that issue that you are looking for upon the definitive agreement being signed that there will be a deed restriction it may be the only way we can do it is from the City to the City. I do not believe that I have discussed that with the Council and there is no problem with that. That was the intention of adding the highlighted language. Town Supervisor Brower-That was the only thing I saw that was inconsistent with our last meeting other than the addition of the new idea the formula the new formula for reconstruction that was proposed in item two. Moderator Fosbrook-Are there any other items that we want to add at this point or are we still dealing with the four agenda items? Town Comptroller Hess-I would like to clarify, not only to clarify a point but just throw one more idea on the table. It came out at that the, when Queensbury's committee met this past week there is an item that was thrown out for discussion that I think everybody should hear before we caucus, and that is, Queensbury is working from a financial model that sort of projects with as best we can what this is going to cost us each year for the next twenty years based on a number of assumptions. When we deal with that of course we have dealt with a similar model when we revised it each step along the way for the past six or seven months. We have really three factors, one is, what is the out of pocket costs to do this, what are we going to pay for sewage in terms of reconstruction and O&M. Secondly what is the Queensbury's share of the sales tax, what is Glens Falls total revenue. Well, we backed off of the revenue it is interesting for us to know that it is not a negotiating point for us the cost of sales tax we have talked about from time to time and this goes back to the Mayor's and I conversation a few minutes ago that the City believes that, that is not a cost factor that does not enter into the equations that this, that our agreement to purchase sewer and rebuild our share of the plant stands on its own without sales tax. But, that idea runs counter to the fact that if sales taxes goes away our contract has to be increased. They just do not correlate. It either counts or it doesn't count. That was brought home by one of our members the other day and I think it is important that we all hear that. Either sales tax is part of the agreement or it is not part of the agreement you can't have it not part of cost equations up front and then have it kick in if something happens to sales tax latter. Mayor Regan-Why would it be part of your costs if it is coming from the County's share? Town Comptroller Hess-You have seen the models, thirty six percent of it is right out of Queensbury's costs. Mayor Regan-What does that have any effect on your town budget or anything else, that part has never been clearly understood by the councilor me. Town Comptroller Hess-Any sales tax revenue that the County gives up and it substitutes another revenue source that revenue source is going to be property taxes which thirty six percent is paid for by Queensbury. Mayor Regan-I think that is little bit of a stretch to, I am sorry I do not see that. Town Comptroller Hess-It is not a stretch at all, that is absolutely a clear model. That is not a stretch at all. Moderator Fosbrook-Well, all right I think you have made yourself clear. Do you wish to caucus now at this point in time and review some of these discussions or ok. So what would be sufficient a twenty minute break? (Board agreed) Caucus 7:48 P.M. to 8:41 P.M. Reopened Town Supervisor Brower-Before we get started I want to thank County Supervisor Nick Caimano and Budget Officer Nick Caimano for attending todays meeting and I do not see any other elected officials in the audience, so thanks Nick for coming. He is the one that has got to decide if he has got to include this in the budget or not at the County. Mayor Regan-And he works for Sweeney so he is kind of an important guy. Moderator Fosbrook-Since we have had a caucus and there has been an offer maybe Mark you would like to state the initial offer from the City to the Town. City Counsel Noordsy -First of all I would like to clarify for the press that each board council is entitled to meet with its Attorney to seek legal advice and consultation it is not Executive Session it is not a caucus it is a meeting with Council and each entity is entitled to do that and that is what we have done. As a result of that the City proposed to the Town on the four issues. First of all I think the right to audit language we had agreed upon that we did not do that as a issue. So on the remaining three issues the City had proposed with regard to fire protection the sentence tht we have been looking at read that the fire protection will be mutually provided as agreed upon by the two fire departments and the City's union. I also had a granunatical change which I think was not anything. On the, the City proposed with regard to the formula for the reconstruction fund that looking at the formula that is in there now the denominator have added to it the denominator would be I should say total plant capacity less the balance of Towns reserve capacity. With regard to the or in conjunction with that the City would be agreeable if a formula like that could be agreed upon to the City would be agreeable to the sales tax provision on page nine and ten as suggested by the Town. Town Counsel Hafner-The Town Board has asked me to respond, sometimes despite our best efforts parties just can't agree. It seems to the Town Board that this may be one of these times we will deal with the four issues as follows; It was unanimous among the Town Board that the Town will not agree to a change in the reconstruction plan formula. Item two we agree just as Mark said that the audit language is something that can easily be resolved. What is important for the Town is that the City of Glens Falls would have to provide all data necessary to verify the costs that the Town would be expected to pay. Item number three the Town will not agree to the City's proposed sales tax agreement that was a very key issue to the Town. In item number four about fire protection, it is the Town's position that this was a key issue that was clearly delivered and they feel agreed upon by the Mayor in January. This was again agreed upon by the Mayor over the summer. We understand that the City feels that it has found out since then that it can do legally what was promised to the Town Board but Members to the Town Board went out to the public and their constituents and made statements based on that. That was part of the agreement to even consider annexation in the first place. This is the one item that the Town Board was not unanimous but there were sufficient votes that feel that way that the agreement would not pass. Moderator Fosbrook-Just for clarification I thought on the sales tax item that the City said that they would agree with Queensbury's language. Town Counsel Hafner-Only if the other items came. I understood that, that was a package deal. Moderator Fosbrook- The reconstruction formula is not acceptable as it was altered. Town Council Hafner-The Town feels very strongly that, that was something that was negotiated and agreed upon long ago and that changing it at this date is something that would increase the cost to its constituents in a way that it cannot agree to. Moderator Fosbrook-Although the two fire companies said they can agree how to serve that piece of property that would not be acceptable to the Queensbury Town Board. Town Counsel Hafner-I think I stated the Town Board's position very clearly. Town Supervisor Brower-You filed to mention the suggestion that was offered not by me by another board member? I believe if I am not mistaken and correct me if I am wrong, I believe a Board Member suggested that the Mayor come up with a compromise suggestion regarding the fire company issue since he stated unequivocally in the sunnner in front of Len Fosbrook and John Michels and others that he indeed could deliver the City fire company agreement and maybe there is something that the City can offer to counter that. That was part of our discussions as I recall which I do not think that you mentioned. Moderator Fosbrook-Even though the fire departments have said that they are willing to work together and it is not an issue for them, it is an issue for your board. Town Supervisor Brower-It is not an issue for me personally, but that's. Moderator Fosbrook-Ifthe reconstruction formula was left in place, is that possibly Mayor? Mayor Regan-Well, since it was only the last meeting that we discussed precisely how much Queensbury was going to need, it was not long ago and there has been several discussions between Council that the issue of the part of the capacity that was being asked for that was reserved but not yet bought that, that needs to be addressed in some fashion. I am not saying the exact formula that we are putting forward but in some fashion the issue of how that is covered we feel from an equitable point of view needs somehow to be addressed. Moderator Fosbrook-Is there any middle ground on that from Queensbury's side understanding that they are holding capacity that you do not have to pay for until you need it? Town Supervisor Brower-I guess our general feeling is that as things stand the plants tremendously underutilized if we do not achieve an agreement it is going to be underutilized for the history of the plant however long that is. That the City is losing nothing by Queensbury paying its portion of reconstruction based on its actual use, and expanding capacity that will be buying in for. More importantly this is a brand new item that was brought to the table continually through our negotiating process the Town has been more than forth coming on many factual issues pertaining to the existing sewer systems, tie in etc. where we had expertise's and were willing to share that. More importantly the Town continually provided financial projections, financial information, models thanks to Henry Hess our Comptroller, and as we continue to meet the only thing the City brought to the table were new issues and we view reconstruction as a new issue, again brought to the table this evening that had not been, what we had thought was resolved. So, we do not view this as a real issue because, I mean, it may have been brought up for political purposes I do not known that is all I can assume. Moderator Fosbrook-I think you are straying a little bit from the negotiating aspect of this. Mr. Sears-May I make a comment. Just an observation, all I do in commercial real estate I do simple contract, I sell buildings, I market buildings, new issues have been brought up all the time before the contract is signed. This is something simple, typically there are new issues brought up between the buyer and seller, the buyer sometimes thinks of something after the initial contact that was never even brought up .you are going through an inter municipal agreement you are on the panicle of reaching an agreement that both sides have worked very hard on. You have an opportunity to create an inter municipal agreement that will give profound positive results for both communities. The fact that there has been changes made throughout this process is healthy. You have to refocus that is what you have to do you cannot go back and say we never talked about this before, so what, it is something that is, as long as there is some unused ..gallons out there that have not been paid for but you have to use that is the logical request by the City to at least try to address that issue. Obviously you have some concerns Queensbury because it has not been brought up before but to just completely swipe it under the table and . Town Counsel Hafner-May I respond to that because that is exactly not the Towns position. It is the Towns position that for the length of time that we have had the MOU, we have had a precise formula for doing the reconstruction plan and it has been there through out the whole time and it is not a new thing it is a change away from something that the Town has assumed has been agreed through out the whole process. So, your argument while appreciated the Town Board feels very strongly that, that's not factually correct. City Counsel Noordsy- For the record though at the last meeting of both boards the version that was reviewed had both versions in it. I understand the Town's concerns I have tried to warn Council that this was an issue that was under consideration Town Counsel Hafner-The Town Board has been warned. City Counsel Noordsy-For the record the last meeting had both versions in it. It had the formula that was in the 1985 agreement and it had the Town's formula and the factor that came out of it ended up being neither and once again you asked for us to add something so it has been in a state of flux. I understand the concerns that you are addressing but I just felt I had to address the record on that. Moderator Fosbrook-I think that they are both good comments. To my way of thinking we are down to two basic points here, one is fire protection and one is this formula. You have spent nine months negotiating very hard to come up with this agreement and I think that there has to be middle ground. On these two points and I think you can find it. I think we have heard that the issue relative to fire protection is based on State Law and a Union Contract and the Mayor's hands are tied. I think we know that relative to this formula, yes you were counting on this formula as being the one that would be picked but I do recall that both formulas were in the last MOU that I read and that its reasonable and fair to pay something for reserving capacity. So, if we can put aside some of the, maybe the difficulty and it is very difficult to sit in a room with this many people and come up with what is fair and reasonable. But, if maybe we could put that aside just for five minutes and give would you like to take another ten minutes to think this over, with the help of Counsel? Would that be reasonable? Town Councilman Brewer-We just spent twenty minutes thinking over what we talked about. Moderator Fosbrook-Well, Tim you do not get it. Town Councilman Brewer-You are right I don't Len. Moderator Fosbrook-I think we are close Tirn. I think we are so close that another ten minutesuof rational discussion among yourselves you may come up with an agreement tonight. I am trying to force you to do that Tirn. I know it is probably not the right time and you are not in the right frame of mind. But, I would like to see you try one more time to see if there is middle ground in these two issues, because I think there is only two left. And you know when we started these discussions there was a twenty, thirty item list. We have come an awful long ways. Can we take ten more minutes and see where we are? Is that reasonable to ask? Town Supervisor Brower-So are you assuming the sales tax issue not an issue any more? Moderator Fosbrook- They have already said that they would agree to your language. Town Councilman Brewer-If the other three things. Town Counsel Hafner-Other two things. Town Councilman Brewer-Other two things Moderator Fosbrook- There is a counter proposal there to be made. I do not think that is the critical item on this agenda. Town Councilman Stec-Len, I am willing to do that but I would like to reiterate the point that Dennis was adding to Bob Hafner's synopsis of what are position was with regard to the Fire Company issue. I think we had said it before, I am not interested in how the two fire companies feel on the issue. I am interested in what was promised in January and if the City says we cannot deliver that I believe the I understand that, I understand. In turn you do not say so let it go away, you say I am willing to do this to make it right. If the City floats something we would be willing to consider, it does not have to be fire related as far as I am concerned. I am saying you promised one of two points that we said in January that we agreed to in January it was important and I reiterated that in detail not too long ago that if the City says look, we just cannot deliver this I understand that then say this is how we would like to make it up to you and we will consider that. Then for me I could be beyond the fire issue. Modertor Fosbrook-Dan I think because if the Mayor mis-spoke because he did not know all the details if you were in the same situation you might not want to have your feet held to the fire the same way you are doing that to the Mayor. We talk about inter municipal cooperation and I think there are two points here if we sit and rationalize them, they are both reasonable points. I would hate to see this nine months of negotiation go down the drain because of, I am not sure what at this point, because I know it is not fire coverage and I am not sure what else can be given up but take ten more minutes and if there is something there if they can find it fine. If you can find it fine. Maybe Queensbury needs to come up with a proposal here to, I do not know. Is that reasonable? Is it worth ten more minutes? Mayor Regan-Yes I am happy to. Supervisor Brower-Lets give it a try. Caucus- 9:05 P.M. to 9:16 P.M. Moderator Fosbrook-I want to thank you one more time for going into caucus and looking at these issues. I am not exactly sure how to start, Bob? Town Counsel Hafner-Our response, Henry Hess is going to make. Town Comptroller Hess-We are playing revolving spokesman here tonight. It is my turn. The two issues that we dealt with back in caucus were the, we discussed the fire issue and the reserve calculation, the reconstruction fund. The Town Board is proposing to change the states of the Town's what we have been normally calling reserve and give up its right to reserve and instead retain the right to purchase up to two and a half million gallons and if the City gets down to a point where it has less than is going to be selling capacity that would encroach on our ability to buy two and a half we would have the right of first refusal on that last portion. So, we are really changing the language, we are proposing to change the language from reserve to a right of first refusal. On the fire issue it is our understanding that one of our Councilman expresses the wishes that the City come back with a counter proposal on that. Mayor Regan-I have a question when you say the right of first refusal does that mean before we would sell it to other communities or before we would use it ourselves. Town Councilman Turner-Either or. Town Comptroller Hess-I guess from a practical matter we looked and say over the life of the agreement it is not likely if we .. that two and a half million gallons that somewhere within a twenty year period if we are going to use that we would probably have contracted for that. If you get to a situation we have bought some capacity we did not know what it would be up until that point that at any time you get to a point where you have less capacity then we would two and a half million less what we have bought so far that you would give us the option whether you are going to use it yourself or sell it to someone else that you would give us the opportunity to buy it under the terms of the agreement and if we don't then it is gone. Mayor Regan-How would the right of first refusal fundamentally differ from what is on the table right now? Town Comptroller Hess-We are not reserving, you seem to have a problem with the fact that we are reserving capacity and this way we are not reserving capacity. Mayor Regan-But if we agree to give you right of first refusal I do not think I see the difference in that. Town Comptroller Hess-We will agree that it is a semantic issue but it was a semantic issue when it was first brought up. We are just addressing the semantic issue. Moderator Fosbrook-Another proposal that revolves around the reconstruction fund. Mayor Regan-We would have proposed that the Town cover its proportionate share of that part that they wanted to reserve or I guess I should say in this case, have the right of first refusal. But we would entertain a fraction less than that if that is something that they can agree to. I do not know, you talked about needing to do more research about that so I do not know whether we should go ahead with offering a particular percentage of that or not? Town Councilman Brewer-Explain to me what you mean there a fraction of it? Mayor Regan-What we were proposing was with regards to the issue of how we would address reconstruction funding for the reserve capacity we were proposing to treat that the same way as Queensbury's purchased capacity. What we would be willing to be entertained is say, if you are paying one hundred percent of your proportional share of your capacity that we would take a certain smaller percentage of that for the reserved part. Town Councilman Turner-What would that be? Mayor Regan-I guess we would propose seventy five. Town Councilman Brewer-Seventy five percent of the two point five? Water/wastewater Supt. VanDusen-Of the un-purchased balance. Moderator Fosbrook-So the bottom line of that formula would read, nine point five less seventy five percent of two point five is that? City Counsel Noordsy- The next day after it was signed, assuming that they have not purchased any more it would be nine point five less seventy five percent of two point five Moderator Fosbrook- Then as they purchase the two point five goes down and so proportionally that whole thing goes down. City Counsel-The numerator increases by the number purchased and the number on the right hand side the denominator is smaller. Moderator Fosbrook-Does everybody follow that? Mayor Regan-I think I followed yours. Moderator Fosbrook-So, I guess what you are saying you are making a compromise to come closer to that formula that exists now. Does anybody have any discussion on that? While we are thinking about that have we come up with any compromise on the issue relative I hate to keep calling it fire protection because I do not think it is anymore. I think we know that it is something beyond that. Is there anything that? Mayor Regan-I have racked my brain on this issue trying to come up with some sort of thing that would work in terms of talking with the Unions, talking to our Chief going with Mr. Brewer to a meeting at the West Glens Falls Fire Department talking that through. When I heard tonight the two departments willingness to take the stand that they will work that out. I thought that was a very positive development and to me makes the most sense. So, I would like to give that process an opportunity to work. Moderator Fosbrook-Ok. What you are saying is that you would like to maybe give them a chance to have a meeting and give us some more information. But, I am not sure that, that is the solution, Mayor, if I, if what I am hearing is that it was a commitment that you cannot keep and they want something in return for the fact that you cannot keep that. Mayor Regan-I do not want to go back down the road as to who said what, what when because I do not think that is productive. When we were told by I believe it was John Michaels in January that the Town had agreed to annexation, we were not fully informed on all these other things in terms of the fire protection and the access road and all that business. I think we have worked our way through all those things but when I heard Mr. Stec's rendition in some recent meetings about all of that, that had been discussed at that January meeting that I was not at. Moderator Fosbrook-No, I was, I will take some responsibility here because I was at that meeting. Tim, made a statement relative to the fire protection because of the fact that the fire house was across the street. I said, I think we should try to do whatever we can to make that happen. I might have even used stronger words than that. I think Tim, took me as I can make that happen, I couldn't. I tried, we discussed it and it wasn't something I could make happen, Tim. Town Councilman Brewer-That is key though. Because it can happen, everybody says it can't happen it can happen if the City was to go to the Union talk to the Union say this is the deal we are going to deal as far a inter municipal cooperation we need you to help us. You are asking me to go to our fire company and do the same exact thing that I am asking you to do. But, nothing, you, we can draw a contract up to provide a service to the City for the protection of that property. Everybody dismisses that, it can be done so when you say it can't be done that is nonsense, it can. Moderator Fosbrook-It would have to be done after their current contract is up with the Union I think. Town Councilman Brewer-So, you tell them you know, don't grieve it for two years, if there going to be anything built for two years there? Moderator Fosbrook-Probably not. Town Councilman Brewer-So that is another way to do it. Mayor Regan-I would hope that there would be something built within that period of time. Moderator Fosbrook-It could be planned for, designed and almost built. Mayor Regan-But, I would also say that there is the outstanding issue of the State Law that says the City must provide it, that is out there. That is not something that, so that is something that concerns me. Even with that if I hear the two fire departments say let us solve it why don't we let them do that. Moderator Fosbrook-I agree. If they feel they need that Tim, in order to work together then we could work to try and accommodate that. But, I do not know if they are going to need that at this point in time. Town Councilman Brewer-I am only one guy don't put it all on my shoulders there is four other guys here. You know how I stand. That is how I stand. There has been no counter proposal to take that away, I am not willing to give it up. Plain and simple. Moderator Fosbrook-Is there, is the reconstruction formula as it was offered as a compromise is that acceptable to Queensbury? Town Supervisor Brower-No. Moderator Fosbrook-Is there a middle ground beyond the semantics that you could offer that would maybe close it? Town Supervisor Brower-Possibly drop the annexation completely that might be a mid point. Moderator Fosbrook-Ifthe reconstruction fund did not kick in for a period of time after the agreement was signed as was so apply suggested by one of the members of the audience, would that be an acceptable compromise? Mayor Regan-I am sorry could you repeat that? Moderator Fosbrook-Ifthe reconstruction fund did not start immediately upon the signing of the contract but started some period of time two, three, four years? Mayor Regan-I think we were talking about that anyways because in our discussions through out I think we made it pretty clear that would like to phase that in. That would apply to both communities, I think that was pretty well understood. Town Comptroller Hess-We are talking about two different things here, you are talking about the reconstruction on the unused reserve capacity, the uncommitted reserve. Mayor Regan-Oh I see, I am sorry, ok. Warren Co. Supv. Nick Caimano-lfI can just say I think it is more than semantics, there is a great difference between the reserve and the right of first refusal. Under the right of first refusal which they have offered you know have all the cards, when it comes down to that whatever price you want to put on that, therefore make that the money that you feel that you lost. Town Counsel Hafner-No that wasn't the Town's proposal. It was at the price of the contract. Moderator Fosbrook-As long as we are discussing that point the point is the higher the costs goes the higher it goes to the consumer to the companies to the businesses that we are trying to keep healthy and recruit. So, we cannot make a product here that is too expensive to use. Mayor Regan-Well the same apply to the businesses in the City as well. Moderator Fosbrook-Yes, exactly for everybody. Mayor Regan-Now, were you, I wanted to follow up on something you had brought up you had talked about a possible phase in of the reconstruction as pertains to the reserve capacity. I think we could discuss that I think we would be open to that. Moderator F osbrook -The thought was that Queensbury is going to purchase a certain amount of capacity immediately. I think that is part of this agreement, I think they have probably programmed some purchases but also we could phase in the reserve capacity over a period of time so that it becomes less of a dominants factor in the formula and it almost maybe becomes coinciding with the purchases to some degree. Mayor Regan-Well, then we are kind of back to where we were. We need to Mr. Sears-The first five years of the as far as the discussion goes, Queensbury does not pay anything on the reconstruction after five years they pay twenty percent each year after that. .at the end of ten years they pay the full amount that they are supposed to pay on the reconstruction fund. How does that help both of you; Number one It gives you Mayor a chance to make some money on that reconstruction fund it will allow Queensbury time to use additional capacity and also Henry I think it helps you out because on your volume if defrays a lot of costs for a ten year period. So, that the tax payer is not absorbing that cost on a real material basis. If you can approach it from that way Dennis then it would also help you out because you are saying we have never talked about this before and we do not need any more additional costs. Town Supervisor Brower-I just view it as addition costs that we had not agreed to and I am not changing, I am not increasing the costs. We have got a very fair sewer deal with the City right now proposed that we have agreed to. The County has come up with a proposal for two percent of the Counties sales tax and further more annexation of a piece of valuable potential light industrial property is on the table. I think Queensbury has gone over and beyond any expectations of fairness and there comes a limit where you know you cannot go further. Moderator Fosbrook-Before you go into that, let me make another proposal, ok? If you leave the reconstruction fund the way it is stated can we absolve any issues relative to fire protection? Town Supervisor Brower-Well, one more thing on reconstruction. One positive thing that Queensbury proposed and I do not know if we have resolved this or not to be honest with you in thinking back about it. Henry had projected bonding and of course we talked about it before and we hoped we can do that, but if we do, do that, that proposal alone saves both communities fifty percent of our annual costs in reconstruction funding for that facility. That is absolutely significant. You know, I have been I think, it has been an interesting process up to this point of negotiating and I think Queensbury has come at it with a kind of an open and fair attitude toward it but you know you just cannot keep giving. That is where I am. Moderator Fosbrook-Well I think what you said about the inter municipal you know bring talent to the table is excellent. City Councilman Palmer-I resent that. Town Supervisor Brower-You were not in the negotiations so you have nothing to resent. Moderator Fosbrook-Before we, I have a sense that we are starting to go backwards here a little bit and I think we are very close. Let me put this on the table one more time. If the reconstruction formula stays the same any issue over fire protection at the annex property would that be, would that absolve that issue? I think Dan you were looking for something that would help soften that blow. Town Councilman Stec- The last time that we met this was not an issue so we had a fire issue and we did not have reconstruction issue, now we have created a reconstruction issue that will we will take off the table. We are right where Moderator Fosbrook-No I do not think that they have created it Dan. It was in the last MOU if you remember there were two very long sections under reconstruction. One had the XYZ formula and one had this formula for it really had been right in there right up until this point in time. I think when this formula was picked was the first time that, that other formula left, and I do not think it is in here now is it Mark. City Counsel Noordsy-It is not. Moderator Fosbrook-But it was, I have, I do not have it with me but I can show you in that dated copy that we used in that last negotiating session, so I do not think it is something that just came up and I think it may be a fair and equitable settlement I do not know how you feel. Tim how do you feel would that be enough to go along with this agreement? Town Councilman Brewer-No Unknown-Mayor would you be willing to look at that. Mayor Regan-As far as it pertains to the reserve capacity? I think we would discuss it and go in and talk about it. Some rendition of that may work we would look at it. Moderator Fosbrook-Well, lets just try to offer it up right here, where do we go from here on the formula and where do we go from here on the issue relative to the procedure, someone help me define what the issue is relative to the fire departments because I do not understand that anymore, not after what I heard spoken by the two guys from the two fire companies. Can you put that into words anybody what that means to you? What value it has, it has to have some value so that we can off set it, so you have to place a value on it now what is the value of that Issue. Town Councilman Brewer-We have gone over and over it and over it and there is still, we went away and caucused again and said we would like some kind of counter offer no other counter offer was made. I am tired of talking about it. I am sorry I am just I am beat. Moderator Fosbrook-But what is the value, Tim? Tim I do not understand what value can we place on it? What value can we place on the fact that a commitment could not be delivered on. Town Councilman Brewer-When you first came to us, let me explain to you how I feel about it. When you first came to us with this agreement this land mark agreement the County was going to give the City money the Town was going to be able to buy capacity the annexation was going to happen and we were going to maintain fire protection. All three of those things have been worked through done and I just cannot see why do effort has been made to make this work. Ron Cody sat in his, in a meeting with us and said if that becomes part of the City then we will protect it end of conversation. I went to West Glens Falls Fire Company they say they are opposed to the City protecting that property I am not going to question sixty guys there they were unammous. Moderator Fosbrook-I did not hear that tonight. Town Councilman Brewer-He was not at the meeting he may be the President but he was not at the meeting. So, if we are going to involve these people lets involved the people right from day one. Don't call them up and tell them this is what happened and this is what was said then expect them to come here and make a presentation. He did not even talk to the fire men about it. Moderator Fosbrook-So, the value that you have on this is a deal breaking value. Town Councilman Brewer-Absolutely it is. Moderator Fosbrook-So it is a fire issue. Town Councilman Brewer-I am only one vote there is other votes so don't make. Moderator Fosbrook-Ok, Ted how do you feel about the fire issue. Town Councilman Brewer-I think I side with Tim. Moderator Fosbrook-Dennis? Town Supervisor Brower-I do not think the fire companies should dictate what happens to agreements that the Town makes, so it is not a big deal for me. Moderator Fosbrook-Dan? Town Councilman Stec-Well, I agree with Dennis's point and I have said it before I do not have a whole lot of interest in how the fire companies feel today about this, I don't want to involve them into this for me it is principal, it is a deal breaker. Back from January we have been very clear, loud and clear we did not have a long list of restrictions we wanted on annexation, we had two. This is one of them and it is a deal breaker. Moderator Fosbrook-State law is City Council President Kay Saunders-Can I ask a question about that? I guess I have a problem with you being elected officials and there is a State Law involved here. I do not know how you can go against a State Law as elected officials? Town Councilman Brewer-You don't annex the property Kay I guess that is how we do it we don't annex the property I guess is the only answer. City Councilman Pauquette- They don't want us to .the property. Town Councilman Brewer-That is not it, I agreed to that in January and I have said all along Scott, I do not have a problem with that, there has to be a way around it, there could be if you went to the Union and said look, here is what we are going to do. The Town is going to provide something for us, when you negotiate their contract it happens every day of the year. I will give you this we are doing it now. You give me this we will give you that, it can be done. Mayor Regan-I thought that is where we were tonight when the two departments came forward and said they would. Town Councilman Brewer-Right Bob, but there has been no movement from the City on that issue. Ok. We cannot do it for you but here is what we will do and I have not heard that once tonight, I have not heard that once since January. Mayor Regan-All I am saying is we heard Town Councilman Brewer-All I have heard is that we can't do it. Mayor Regan-the two departments basically coming to both sides saying, we will work this out. It defies logic to me to not give them that opportunity to do that. I do not have any other tricks in my bag. Town Councilman Stec-I want to clarify that though because everyone keeps saying well I heard John Wells say this. I heard John Wells use the words unanimously the meeting although he was not there, unanimously West Glens Falls feels this way. He has his own feelings and he, but he said the Company unanimously the word used was unanimously felt this way. .rejected the giving away of the fire protection. Operationally I think people are going to say two years from now what were those bozo's thinking you have a fire department right, you want to talk about inter municipal cooperation you got a fire house in spitting distance across the street. You let them cover it, they have been covering it for decades. That is why we said lets not get stupid operationally this make some sense, lets do this. Moderator Fosbrook-I think the Mayor wanted to let that happen from the very beginning until he found out State Law. Town Councilman Stec- Tim suggested another way around that. Mayor Regan-What is the way around the State Law though? Town Councilman Stec- Y ou have to provide fire service it doesn't say it has to be with your fire department, you could contract with our fire department. Mayor Regan-It says as you do with the rest of the City. Moderator Fosbrook-I do not know, Mark to you have any idea and interpretation on that State Law? City Counsel-I don't the sentence says in the same manner as provided for the rest of the City. I do not really have anything to suggest beyond the provision as has already been suggested I do not have anything to add to that. City Councilman Pauquette-In the remote chance that we do agree with what you guys are talking about the fire protection the union could turn around and sue us both based on that State Law and overturn whatever we do. Town Councilman Stec- That is why you sit down with the Union and you say this is what we want to do City Councilman Pauquette- Why go though that. Town Councilman Stec-Ifyou want annexation that is what you have got to do. It is not a free ride. Moderator Fosbrook- That is going to add an awful long time to this negotiation, maybe the verbiage would be if it can be done, let them work it out but otherwise we are going to be here until you know next year. We cannot afford not to have a sewer agreement, it is that simple. This County Mayor Regan-Let me ask you this, the Town has keeps making the statement that they want something else in return but how could we figure out how to offer something if they can not quantify what this means to them. Moderator Fosbrook-I was trying to find out what the value would be, in order to give something up you have place a value on what you have got. Town Supervisor Brower-I have made suggestions before, but. Town Councilman Stec-I could make suggestions but then the answer is going to be well we have not talked about that before .a quarter a gallon less, fifty cents a gallon ninety nine year easement on the water shed property conservation easement I could go, I mean Mayor Regan-For the sake of fire protection I do not see a Town Councilman Stec-For the sake of annexation in the sewer district. Moderator Fosbrook-We need this agreement, the Post Star writes an editorial and says we have infrastructure, we have this, we have that, we don't. Town Supervisor Brower-I was thinking one hundred percent of the my compromise position was a hundred percent on the increased value of build out on Veterans Field as a separate agreement with the Town instead of fifty percent. Moderator Fosbrook-Would you buy into the revised formula for the reconstruction fund? Town Supervisor Brower-No. Moderator Fosbrook-So we have to have some give and take here I think. Town Supervisor Brower-You asked for a creative suggestion I gave you one. No one has provided one other than Town Councilman Stec-I think where we are coming from Len is that a whole lot of giving has happened the first eight months and we have drawn the line saying we are done giving. Now there are three or four issues left that we are holding tough on and we are the bad guy here. Moderator Fosbrook-You know, when it gets this close that is the way the light shines on where the problems are and that is just the way it is. Town Councilman Stec-We did not fore see this being an issue in January at all, no one ever sat there and said what is going to screw this up in October, oh yea the fire district, that is going to screw this up in October. This was a harmless, we thought thing that we said we wanted we felt was agreed to we have had nine months to figure out that it was an issue and now we are saying this is a going to add a lot of time. Moderator Fosbrook -This was agreed to about three or four weeks ago I had a commitment from both of these guys and something changed in the last three or four weeks and I do not know what it is that made them take a vote and decide that they could not adhere to it. Town Councilman Brewer-No, what changed was they never had their meeting and I called Bob on the eleventh when the tragedy happened and said Bob they are not going to meet, he said I understand they will meet when they can meet and that is what happened they met. Had it rescheduled it for.. Moderator Fosbrook-But they changed their minds in that meeting as far as I know. Town Councilman Brewer-The body never voted on it. Moderator Fosbrook-Oh, I see. Town Councilman Brewer-So nothing has ever changed. Moderator Fosbrook- The two captains the two chiefs. Mayor Regan-Who all met on this whenever, this last meeting when you said. Town Councilman Brewer-The members of the fire company. Mayor Regan-It wasn't the two fire companies getting together or anything like that. Moderator Fosbrook-No it was just West Glens Falls. I am trying to find a way to put this thing together, Bob do you have any suggestions? Town Councilman Brewer-The Chief was there, the President wasn't there he is not the Chief. Mayor Regan-What would be the worst thing the in world, what is, what is the worst that could happen if we give the two fire companies an opportunity to try and work it out I am still concerned about that State Law part but, I do not know I am trying to come up with something. What would be the worst thing about that? Town Councilman Brewer-The worst thing about that is the Town is giving something else up that was part of the deal originally that is the worst part that I see Bob. You laugh Kay but what have you given us back? Council President Saunders-I do not see where you have given up anything. Town Councilman Brewer-Ok, then Mayor Regan-It is doesn't matter to the fire departments why would it matter to the board. Town Councilman Brewer-I guess that we have not given anything up so lets just end the discussion then. Town Councilman Stec-It does matter to West Glens Falls unanimously they did not like the direction we are heading. Mayor Regan-Why did he get up and say but we will work it out? Moderator F osbrook -We will work it out. I think maybe he is thinking that he is going to go back to his board or whatever and talk it over again. What I heard was West Glens Falls and or Glens Falls does not want to be perceived as the entities that the fire departments that created it . Town Supervisor Brower-They do not want to be in the middle. Town Councilman Brewer-So why are we putting them in the middle? Town Councilman Turner-Don't put them there. Moderator Fosbrook-All right lets let them do what they want to do Tim which is they said they will work it out. Lets put that writing in the MOU let them work it out. Town Councilman Brewer-You keep going back to the State Law, they can't work it out. How can they work it out if you are so insistent upon the State Law. Moderator Fosbrook- They said that they would work it out. City Councilman Taylor-Tim let me ask you a questions, if the firemen did work it out they could still object. Town Councilman Brewer-We would have to have something back Bud. City Councilman Taylor-What are you losing? What is the Town of Queensbury losing? Town Councilman Brewer-What we are losing that was part of the original agreement. All right what if we say then we cannot annex, what are we losing? City Councilman Taylor-What are you losing? Town Councilman Brewer- What does it matter? I feel strongly about it. City Councilman Taylor-So you are losing nothing. Town Councilman Brewer- The sixty men that I stood in front of the other night feel strongly about it. City Councilman Taylor-It those sixty men were able to come to an agreement what would you be losing? Town Councilman Brewer-I do not know. City Councilman Taylor-Nothing. Town Councilman Brewer-What would you be losing by trying to get your Union to come up with some kind of language in there contract to let us protect that? Fundamentally it is something that we agreed to Bud and that is the end of the conversation. I agreed to the annexation, I agreed to the sales tax thing, I agreed to everything that we have stated here tonight since January, not changed my position on one issue. I have had people ask me why are you going to let the City annex it? I said because I gave them my word. That is where I stand, end of my conversation. That's I am not trying to be rude, but I gave you my word I am keeping my word you gave me your word you keep your word thank you. City Councilman Taylor-I think both the City and the Town have come a long way. Town Councilman Brewer-I agree with you. City Councilman Taylor-We agreed to pay two hundred thousand dollars to help build a road Dennis. Town Councilman Brewer-That was part of the original agreement in the SEQRA when we were partners, Bud, wasn't it, don't pay the two hundred thousand ok. Mayor Regan-We will agree to that Town Supervisor Brower-That was not an offer by the way. Moderator Fosbrook-I am looking for a way to keep this thing moving forward. Town Councilman Brewer-It is all about dollars and cents for the City and I am just tired of it. Everything point to you and I am sorry you had the plant but what is going to happen to the plant if we don't buy capacity, think about that. It should not be that, I did not think that this was going to be brain surgery. We sat in a room in January we all agreed to the fundamentals of the thing put it on paper and we will sign the danm thing, we could have done it in March in my mind. But we are qualbing, pissing and moaning over stupid nonsense. We all agreed to something so lets agree to it sign the contract and be done with it. You need the revenue we need the capacity and if it doesn't balance out here pretty quick we are going to go another way. We are going to be forced to. That is the bottom line, you are going to be sitting down there with a plant with nine and a half million gallons capacity with four million gallons going into it. That does not make any sense to me. Mayor Regan-I think we are moving off track here a little bit, in terms of the fire coverage maybe I was confused by Mr. Wells comments if at one point he said we took a vote and we are against it. I am not sure what he meant by that. Moderator Fosbrook-But I do not know Mayor if that is going to, Tim has really solidified the issue here and I think Tim you said lets get on with it. I am looking for a way to do that. Town Councilman Brewer-I have told you over and over, four times I have told you tonight, what is so hard about trying to talk to the Union of the fire company. Why is that such a back breaker to you? Moderator Fosbrook-It is not. Town Councilman Brewer-Ok. You expect me to do it but you will not do it. Town Councilman Stec-I think that is what the City needs to do. Mayor Regan-I do not think that we have asked you talk to your fire department at all the fire department has indicated to us tonight, if I understood him correctly that they truly wanted the opportunity to work that out. Moderator Fosbrook-Ok. Lets give them an opportunity the City will talk to its fire department and give them a chance to work it out with West Glens Falls. Is that what I am hearing? Mayor Regan-Why don't we try that. Town Councilman Stec-Tim does West Glens Falls want to enter into a contract to protect that land? Town Councilman Brewer-Yes. Town Councilman Stec- That is what they felt unanimously about is what I thought. They have been protecting it they want to continue to protect, their fire house is right across the street from it. Moderator Fosbrook-I think it is a slippery slope because of the State Law that is the only thing I keep coming back to. I could be wrong, I could be totally wrong. Town Councilman Stec-So, as I said before say oops we can't and. Moderator Fosbrook-All right then how about the revised formula? On the reconstruction fund would that be agreeable to you if that could be worked out? Town Councilman Stec-We are not talking about the reconstruction fund. Moderator Fosbrook-No, I know but we are talking about the two issues that we still have unresolved. Town Councilman Stec-Henry has indicated that what we are calling semantics that was our offer. City Councilperson Tina Weber-Well Dennis put something out and no one has jumped on it he said something about a hundred percent of the assessed value, correct Dennis? Town Supervisor Brower-Well that was a suggestion that I made months ago. It seemed to fall on deaf ears. Town Councilman Stec- W e gave that away months ago and now we are just trying to get it back. I do not think the rest of us are interested in that. Moderator Fosbrook- There is one other item of business and I am going to put on another hat here as the administrator for the IDA. We have to have an agreement for that new sewer district out there by November 1st. or else we are going to lose nine hundred thousand dollars. There was a separate agreement negotiated can we pull that out of this agreement and get that signed? So, that, that sewer district can go forward? City Councilperson Weber-Which district is that? Moderator Fosbrook- That is the South Queensbury, it services the Airport Industrial Park it will also service along County Line Road. Mayor Regan-I would have to talk about that. Moderator Fosbrook-I bring it up, it is something that we have to have. There is a time limit on the monies that, that nine hundred thousand dollars has to be spent or we will lose it out there at that park. The package plant is in failure. So, it is under a consent order from DEC so that could be shut down and the businesses out there would be effectively closed down. Mayor Regan-I do not know enough about that issue to give you an answer. Moderator Fosbrook-Ok. I will be contacting you to talk about it. Town Supervisor Brower-We did have a letter we have a letter from you about the twenty five thousand gallons on that corridor that you agreed to sell at, I cannot remember what the price was but that was months ago and you understood what was going on at the time. But, that was I do not know how many months ago that was. Moderator Fosbrook-We do not need to discuss it here I will.. Town Supervisor Brower-We were actually at the Glen Lake Casino or they do not call it that any more, the Docksider parking lot we were talking about that. And then you sent me a letter to that effect. Mayor Regan-I recall a discussion and I reiterated this to you Len when you first brought it up I said I thought we had agreed as per twenty five thousand gallons for their existing customers because they were under consent order that is really from day one a year ago that we said we were not going to hold the hostage to the agreement. Moderator Fosbrook-But I need something. Town Councilman Brewer-It is in here. Mayor Regan-Upon signing of the MOD. Town Supervisor Brower-What are you looking for Len something more. Mayor Regan-comprehensive than the.. Moderator Fosbrook-I think I need something in order to allow the engineers to design phase and let this out for bid. Unless you, if there is a prior document that governs this. I just need a copy of that. Town Counsel Hafner-We can provide you with a copy of the letter from the City that said twenty five thousand dollars on certain terms. Town Councilman Brewer-Twenty five thousand gallons, Bob at a dollar twenty five. City Counsel Noordsy-I don't think you have one from the City I think you have one from Dennis to the Mayor. From what I have seen Bob is the inter municipal agreement that since you were talking about this MOU you did not have the City as a party you probably just add the city as a party to that inter municipal agreement and that would make it work assuming that is agreeable to the City. Mayor Regan-It was my understanding Len that you were not talking about a twenty five thousand gallon thing which was to cover the existing customers you were talking about pulling out of this contract something significantly larger than that is that correct or no? Moderator Fosbrook-I think that there is something in there for expansion, yes. I will have to go back and look I just bring it up to let you know that I will have to come back to you because. Mayor Regan-Yea. I am fuzzy on that whole issue I mean it has been a long time since we have looked at that. Moderator Fosbrook-I will have to do some research, but we do need to get something done on that item simply because there is money at risk that we do not want to lose out there. I am not sure that it would be that productive to stay here much longer tonight unless someone else has something to offer in the form of a compromise. Ok. Can we schedule another meeting? Unknown-At this point I do not know to what end, it seems like we are pretty entrenched in where we are at. Moderator Fosbrook-Shall we leave it that another meeting could be called you contact me and I will do the administrative work on arranging another meeting. Ok. Anybody else have anything else to add? Thank you very much. Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen Dougher Town of Queensbury