Loading...
2002-03-25 SP SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETING March 25, 2002 MTG. #18 7:08 p.m RES. 167-169 TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER TOWN COMPTROLLER HENRY HESS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHRIS ROUND GUESTS MAYOR ROBERT REGAN COUNCILMAN HAROLD G. T AYLOR Councilwoman TEENA M. WEBER Councilman 1. SCOTT P AUQUETTE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR BROWER SUPERVISOR BROWER-I would like to recognize Teena Weber and Bud Tayor from the City of Glens Falls, thank you for coming this evening. RESOLUTION OF SEQRA DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING W ASTEW ATER TREATMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND CITY OF GLENS FALLS RESOLUTION NO. 167,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering entering into a Wastewater Treatment Agreement with the City of Glens Falls ("Agreement") setting forth the terms and conditions for use of excess capacity at the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant by the Town (the "action"), and WHEREAS, in accordance with 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") Section 617.6, the Queensbury Town Board has determined that the action is an Unlisted action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and WHEREAS, coordinated SEQRA review is not required for Unlisted actions and the Town Board has determined to conduct uncoordinated SEQRA review of the action, and WHEREAS, the Town has prepared Parts I and 2 of the SEQRA Long Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") for the action, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed and fully considered the proposed Agreement and Parts I and 2 of the EAF, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the action will not result in any large or important impacts and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby finds that the action will not have a significant impact on the environment and authorizes the filing of a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Notice of Determination of Non-Significance with respect to the action substantially in the form attached to this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any documentation and take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: SUPERVISOR BROWER-Requested that Executive Director Round lead the Board through the Seqra Form. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CHRIS ROUND-You have had a full environmental assessment form prepared several weeks ago and it describes the action that is in front of you. We have done a very through job I think in describing the project the potential impacts as a result of the sewer district expansions that are going to be put forth as a result of this project and so Part I is typically put forth on behalf of the applicant. Part II is the response to the EAF and I will walk you through that. These are your responses you have a blank form in front of you and I will read you the questions and you can respond to these. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in physical change to the project site: NO Examples that would apply to column 2 Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 1O%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more then I year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) NO Specific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? NO Examples that would apply Developable area of site contains a protected water body. Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other impacts: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROUND-Typically and just to interrupt for just a second, the EAS are typically written for physical projects that are being undertaken so many of the questions are going to be no, have a direct application so it is sometimes difficult to give an action an answer to these but you will see as we walk thorough. 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? NO Examples that would apply A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. Other impacts: 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will require a discharge permit. Proposed action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. Proposed action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. Other impacts: 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Proposed action will result in the incineration of more than I ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. Other impacts: 9. Will proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. Proposed action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMP ACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? NO Examples that would apply The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) Other impacts: IMP ACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES II. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? NO Examples that would apply Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOCIAL RESOURCES 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or paleontological importance? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. Proposed action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? NO Examples that would apply The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14 (g)? NO List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? NO Examples that would apply Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources offuel or energy supply? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of any form of energy in the municipality. Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMP ACTS 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO Examples that would apply Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? NO Examples that would apply Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. Proposed action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. Other impacts: IMP ACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? NO Examples that would apply The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. Proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. Proposed action will create or eliminate employment. Other impacts: 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROUND-I might read this as part of the record, Bob, it might be helpful. Typically with projects that don't fit neatly into the frame work of SEQRA and in the questions that are asked it is often helpful to expand upon the project description or its potential impacts. Because this is a form and forms are very difficult to be completely exhaustive of all potentials and so we have prepared this on your behalf. The action is the execution of an agreement between two municipalities, the City of Glens Falls (the "City") and the Town of Queensbury (the "Town"), to set forth the terms and conditions for the Town's current and future discharge of wastewater to the City's Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Treatment Plant located on Shermantown Road in the City of Glens Falls (the "Wastewater Treatment Agreement"). Current Operating Agreements The Town currently has the right to discharge 793,975 Gallons Per Day of wastewater to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant under existing agreements with the City. The Wastewater Treatment Agreement consolidates and supersedes the terms of previously established agreements between the two municipalities for the four (4) existing wastewater disposal districts located in the Town of Queensbury. The Wastewater Treatment Agreement replaces a 1985 contract for the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District (CQQRSD), the Hiland Park Sewer District, the Pershing-Ashley-Coolidge Sewer District, and the Queensbury Technical Park Sewer District (and associated agreements) (the "1985 Agreement"), all operated and administered by the Town of Queensbury's Wastewater Disposal Department. The Wastewater Treatment Agreement also supersedes the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Town (the "MOU") which contains the basic framework for the terms and conditions that are detailed in the Wasewater Treatment Agreement, before you tonight. The MOU additionally provides for treatment of wastewater from the South Queensbury/Queensbury Avenue Sewer District ("QASD") at the Treatment Plant. The Town Board previously adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration for the QASD. The Wastewater Treatment Agreement establishes the fees payable by the Town to the City for Operation and Maintenance of the POTW Treatment Plant, the City's Administrative Costs, Operation and Maintenance of the City's Wastewater Collection System and Reconstruction of the POTW Treatment Plant. The fees and terms are generally not inconsistent with the existing contracts/agreements. The new terms are designed to simplify administration for both the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls. Additional Treatment Capacity The Wastewater Treatment Agreement will allow the Town to purchase up to 2.5 Million Gallons Per day (GPD) of additional Treatment Capacity and establishes the fees payable to the City of Glens Falls. This capacity will be purchased if and when the Town chooses to expand its existing sewer districts, is petitioned to do so by private parties or new districts are formed. Formation and extension of sewer districts are governed by local law, NYS Town Law and NYS General Municipal Law. EXEUCTIVE DIRECTOR ROUND-What I have read into previously doesn't supercede anything that is in the agreement it is meant as to try to consolidate description of the proposed action for the benefit of somebody who is just receiving just the long EAF during our transmittals and the contract would accompany the EAF. It is just for every bodys sake, it is meant to consolidate all everything we know as this wastewater treatment agreement. Evaluation of potential environmental impacts, this is the important part of this particular narrative. Evaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts The Town of Queensbury believes that the potential impacts of the Wastewater Treatment Agreement are limited to those potential environmental impacts associated with the possible future purchase of increased wastewater treatment capacity from the City. While the Agreement will allow the purchase of additional treatment capacity in the future, no additional treatment capacity is being purchased at this time. The purchase of additional wastewater treatment capacity is a discretionary action of the Queensbury Town Board and would occur only if and when an existing district is expanded or a new district is formed. The establishment or extension of sewer districts typically involves the construction of wastewater collection systems and resultant project specific impacts. The evaluation of the project- specific environmental impacts associated with district formation or expansion is best performed when the actual district extension/formation is proposed. The evaluation of potential project specific impacts of a district expansion without a clear definition of essential project components (i.e., project limits/service area, land use, environmental characteristics, etc.) would be an ineffective and speculative effort. Such an analysis would be merely hypothetical at this time. The City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was constructed in 1985 with a primary treatment capacity of 9.5 Million Gallons Per Day (MGD). The plant was sized as a regional treatment plant and the City currently utilizes less than 50% of the plant's total capacity. There are inefficiencies associated with operation of the facilities at this level. The operation has been a financial burden on the City and the potential additional of new users is seen as a positive financial and economic benefit to the City, Town and entire region. The proposed action is an outcome of several community goals most recently identified in community planning documents including the Town of Queensbury's 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and the Warren County Economic Development Corporation's "An Economic Development Strategy for Warren County" (July 2000). EXECUITIVE DIRECTOR ROUND-I think an important aspect to this for the Boards sake is that it is the position of staff and Town Counsel that the impacts associated, the environmental impacts associated with this are the best evaluated when an actual district expansion occurs. How long is the pipe line going to be, what areas will it potentially disturb or the environmental characteristics of that particular area. So, it is why you have a negative declaration in front of you and that is why you have the supporting information for this particular resolution. (Vote taken at this time) SUPERVISOR BROWER-I would like to recognize at this time previously I recognized Teena Weber a Councilman for the City of Glens Falls, and Harold (Bud) Taylor and now I would like to recognize Scott Pauquette from the City Council and Mayor Robert Regan who has also joined us. Thank you, Mayor Regan for coming this evening. Now we have our second resolution before us. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING W ASTEW ATER TREATMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND CITY OF GLENS FALLS REGARDING SEWAGE TREATMENT CAPACITY AND RELATED MATTERS RESOLUTION NO.: 168,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Robert Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the City of Glens Falls (City) owns a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) for the treatment of wastewater and the Town of Queensbury (Town) has discharged wastewater to the POTW in accordance with a 1985 Facility Agreement, as amended, between the parties, and WHEREAS, the Town and City wish to replace and supersede the 1985 Facility Agreement, along with all other Agreements between the Town and City pertaining to wastewater treatment, and WHEREAS, negotiated terms for a new Wastewater Treatment Agreement providing for the Town's purchase of sewage treatment capacity from the City and by Resolution No.: 389,2001, the Town Board authorized a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town and the City of Glens Falls providing for the Town's purchase of sewage treatment capacity from the City, and WHEREAS, the MOU provided that a Definitive Wastewater Treatment Agreement based on the MOU would be negotiated and executed between the Town and City within 90 days or by January 13, 2002, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 40,2002, the Queensbury Town Board authorized a deadline extension to February 28th, 2002 in which to sign the Definitive Wastewater Agreement, and WHEREAS, the Town and City have spent an enormous amount of time and energy negotiating terms for the Definitive Wastewater Agreement and have successfully agreed to such terms, and WHEREAS, the Town and City strongly believe that it is in the public interest to enter into the Wastewater Treatment Agreement as presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Wastewater Treatment Agreement between the Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls substantially in the form presented at this meeting, such Agreement providing for, among other things, the Town's purchase of sewage treatment capacity from the City, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Wastewater Treatment Agreement and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 2002 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer ABSENT: None Discussion held before vote: COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC-Over the past fifteen months, I have given much thought and put in a lot of effort into the sewer agreement with Glens Falls. To this day, I find the amount of time to finally reach this point, as well as the tactics used completely inexcusable. This deal is extremely generous to Glens Falls, and this comes at the expense of both Queensbury sewer customers as well as the Warren County taxpayers. In spite of this, I can accept the financial terms of this proposed contract. Sewer will serve to protect our environment and will benefit Queensbury businesses. I do however continue to object to the annexation of Veteran's field to Glens Falls for several reasons. First among these is that in paying 25% above cost for sewer and gifting 2% of county sales tax to the city, the deal is already extremely generous. No community should be pressured to trade land for sewer capacity that it is paying a 25% premium for, especially at a plant that was 87% funded by the state and federal governmens to be a "regional facility." More importantly is that the risks involved in annexation to Queensbury are too great. While I was successful in gaining several contractual protections with respect to this annexation my concern is that the track record I have witnessed over the years leads me to believe that at some point in the future the city will attempt to circumvent these protections, and that one day Queensbury will regret the annexation, with little recourse available. I hope I'm wrong, but it is up to the city's current and future leadership to prove me wrong. Where is the work towards a water deal that was publicly promised on July 9th and October 13th during the sewer negotiations? Where is the equitable resolution to the joint assessor compensation issue that we brought to the city's attention last October and again in February that to this day we have not been given a proposal or reply to? How can we rest assured that five years from now a big box store doesn't find its way into Veteran's fiel? I think I know the answers to these questions, but I'll wait and see if I'm proved wrong. For these reasons I am voting against adoption of this contract. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, anyone else care to comment on this resolution at this time? No one spoke... I would like to make a brief remark. The sewer agreement under consideration this evening is the result of more than sixteen months of serious negotiations between the City and Town. The benefits to both municipalities are numerous, however, our job is to represent the citizens of Queensbury regarding this inter-municipal business transaction. I believe this contract promotes and protects the present and future interest of our residential, business and municipal sewer district users. The agreement also enables the Town to direct and encourage like industrial, commercial and tourism related growth that will provide future employment opportunities for our population. This agreement would not have been achieved without the commitment and dedication of our sewer negotiating team members, Town Attorney Robert Hafner, Comptroller Henry Hess, Director of Community Development Christopher Round, Deputy Watewater Supt. Michael Shaw, Director of Water and Wastewater Ralph VanDusen. Each of you brought special incite and expertise to the negotiating table. I am very thankful for your devotion and effort and I want to thank you. Called for the vote Noted that Mayor Regan will bring in the contract for signing later this evening. Five minute recess called to shake hands with the Common Council Members and the Mayor. RESOLUTION ADJOURNING SPECIAL SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 169.2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury adjourns its first Special Town Board Meeting of March 25th, 2002. Duly adopted this 25th day of March 26, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT: None Respectfully submitted, Miss Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk-Queensbury