Loading...
2003-07-07 Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 284 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JULY 7TH, 2003 7:05 P.M. RES# 308-327 B.H.23-25 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS Marilyn R yba, Senior Planner Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development Mike Shaw, Deputy Superintendent of Wastewater Ralph VanDusen, W aterlW astewater Superintendent Jennifer Switzer, Acting Comptroller Mike Genier, Superintendent of Pine view Cemetery Dave Hatin, Director of Building & Codes PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star Supervisor Brower called meeting to order. . . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN BREWER RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 308,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE - LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ NOTICE SHOWN 7:05 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Jarrett is here on behalf of the applicant, I assume. MR. TOM JARRETT -Yes, good evening, Tom Jarrett, Jarrett-Martin Engineers. Weare here tonight seeking a variance to replace an existing holding tank for the property that would be displaced by renovations and update of the house. Instead we're proposing a new leaching system to the east of the access road leading to the properties, quite a bit further from the lake. It's the only portion of the property comes close to meeting all of the setbacks required and it meets all the Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 285 substances of setbacks specifically setbacks to wells and to the lake. The variances we seek are setbacks from the leaching system to the property line, the effluent line of forced main to the property line and the distribution box to the property line. This system will entail installing a new thousand-gallon septic tank and a new pump station to lift effluent to the leaching system. I'll entertain any questions. SUPERVISOR BROWER-At this time, do Town Board Members have any question of Mr. Jarrett? Any questions at all? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I'll wait until after. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. I guess not. Do you have something further to add before we open the public hearing? MR. JARRETT-No, I do not. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, thank you, if you'd just take a seat and we'll see if any members of the public would care to comment at this point. Well, first I think possibly our Dave; do you have anything to add at this point in time before we open the public hearing? MR. DAVE HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, I think Tom has pretty well covered it. This is the most logical place given the dwellings on the structure and the lay of the structure, it's about the only place you can really fit a system on the property. Without the variances, they would be forced to holding tanks most likely. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Okay, at this time, I'd like to open the public hearing to any members to the public that care to comment on the sewer disposal variance before us this evening. Would anyone care to comment on this particular public hearing? Seeing no one, I'll ask if there are any letters. Was there any correspondence regarding this application? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-None. SUPERVISOR BROWER-In that case, I'll close the public hearing and ask board members again, once again if you have any questions of Mr. Jarrett. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COUNCILMAN BREWER-I do Dennis. I see you've got a circle for your distance for the well, how far is the well from the MR. JARRETT - You're talking about the adjoining property? COUNCILMAN BREWER- Yes. MR. JARRETT-That's a fifty-foot radius for setback of the tanks. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I thought it had to be a hundred feet. MR. JARRETT-Not for tanks. For the field it's a hundred feet, and you'll see we have that, there's another circle for the leachfield, it's kind of faint, you'll see the label hundred-foot setback from leaching system. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't see it on here. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You can't hardly see the line. I guess that's why I'm asking the question. MR. JARRETT -You notice the well location on the property adjoining? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 286 MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director-It's measured from the septic versus from the well. It's within the circle. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh, okay, all right. MR. JARRETT-Right below that is a label I think that you're looking for. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh all right, yea. How long has that holding tank been there, out of curiosity? MR. JARRETT-Don't know the history of that, I do not know. For some time, I believe, according to the neighbors but COUNCILMAN BREWER-They haven't owned the house that long? MR. JARRETT-The Sipowicz's? I do not know that either doesn't know what the history of their ownership is. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do you know why they decided to put the system in instead of the holding tank? MR. JARRETT-Well, primarily it's because of updating the house, it's going to supplant the location for the holding tank and obviously holding tanks aren't desirable so they've asked us if we could find a way to provide a leaching system for this. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What are they doing to the house or is it all done? MR. JARRETT-It's not done, no. They're renovating it; they're replacing the house. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not making it bigger or anything. MRJARRETT-Or at least they're proposing that anyway, they're going for this first. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And there has to be, I see the lines under the garage, is that going to be any kind of a special line at all or MR. JARRETT-That's going to be removed that garage. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh, it is? MRJARRETT -Yes. There's a label just to the right of that. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is the house next door occupied, the one to our right, I guess it would be to the east? MR. JARRETT-To the north and east. I assume seasonally. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I guess where I'm going with this is, we're sure that they received notice. MR. JARRETT-I believe so, I can't speak to that right now. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Because some, I often wonder on seasonal properties when we mail notices out to the address, if in fact, the owner knows. MR. LAWRENCE SIPOWlCZ- Which property? SUPERVISOR BROWER- Would you identify yourself for the record, sir. MR. SIPOWICZ- Yes, my name is Lawrence Sipowicz. Yes, the one to the right is a year round house. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Do you know their name? Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 287 MR. SIPOWICZ-Rudnick, Lynn and Eric Rudnick. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Seven Glen Hall Drive? MR. SIPOWICZ- Yes. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-The received it. The only one that came back in the mail is Irene Olsen. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is that on the other side? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-She's 62 Reardon Road. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Oh, okay. MR. SIPOWICZ- The one to the left is Barbara Berry and she called from Cincinnati, Ohio and said she had received notice and wished me well. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-She did receive it? Is that what you said? MR. SIPOWICZ- Yup. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER- Yes, she's on the list too. Everybody within five hundred feet received it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right, I was more concerned with just, because of the location of the leachfield and that's where the relief is being sought that, I want to make sure that they received it and they have so, I'm satisfied. MR. JARRETT-If you've been up there, that, the relief sought is next to a, actually an area that was mined out on their property. So, there's nothing there that, they're not using that portion of the property. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Not now. MR. JARRETT-Right. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But I mean, they forever MR. JARRETT -Yea, future they could, sure. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Further questions of the engineer or the applicant? Hearing none, I thank you. Further comment by board members or a motion? RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF LAWRENCE & KRISTINE SIPOWICZ BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 23,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 288 WHEREAS, Lawrence and Kristine Sipowicz filed an application for vanances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of Health authorize Mr. and Mrs. Sipowicz to install: 1. An Effluent Line to D-Box two feet (2') from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 2. A Distribution Box two feet (2') from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 3. A Fill System three feet (3') from the east property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 4. A Fill System three feet (3') from the south property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; on property located on Glen Hall 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 requests on July ih, 2003, 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 variances granted are the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicants; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Lawrence and Kristine Sipowicz for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to allow Mr. and Mrs. Sipowicz to install: Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 289 1. An Effluent Line to D-Box two feet (2') from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 2. A Distribution Box two feet (2') from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 3. A Fill System three feet (3') from the east property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; 4. A Fill System three feet (3') from the south property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback; on property located on Glen Hall Road, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: (Tax Map No.: 289.11-1-28). Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF JAMES POLUNCI BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 24,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer 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 issue variances from the Town's On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, James Polunci has applied to the Local Board of Health for a variance from provisions of Chapter 136 to install a new septic system five feet (5') from the foundation in lieu of the required twenty feet (20') setback on property located at 74 Ash Drive, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health for the Town of Queensbury will hold a public hearing on July 21st, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider James Polunci's sewage disposal variance application concerning property Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 290 located at 74 Ash Drive, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 289-17-16) 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 Mr. Polunci's property as required by law. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 25,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner 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 ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR SESSION HEARING - UNSAFE STRUCTURE - PROPERTY OWNED BY MINA GRANGER 7:13 P.M. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following into the record: Dennis Brower, Supervisor Re: Premises ofMina Granger The Estate ofMina Granger Town of Queensbury Tax Map #. 226.15-1-41 10 Crossover Lane (Assembly Point), Queensbury, NY Dear Supervisor Brower, Councilman Stec, Councilman Brewer, Councilman Turner and Councilman Boor: Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 291 Please accept this letter in reply and in answer to the Resolution Setting a Hearing concerning the unsafe structure located on real property owned by Mina Granger above captioned. I indicated to Code Enforcement Officer David Hatin that I would accept notice of the resolution and act on behalf of the decedent with respect to these proceedings. I wish to report to the Town Board that there is no dispute that the premises are in extremely poor condition, however, they seem to be recoverable and capable of rehabilitation, at least in so far as there has been a substantial expressed interest on the part of independent purchases to acquire the property at a considerable sum. Warren County Real Property Tax Map Services Director, Michael Swan, estimated the property to be worth $14,000.00 as it is presently situated. This is even taking into consideration its very poor and run down condition. I can report that by competitive bidding I have obtained a firm purchase offer of $28,000.00. That purchaser is prepared to pay $10,000.00 down and will accept the property in "as is" condition subject only to receiving marketable title to the property. Those matters of marketable title that we must satisfy prior to transferring the property require appointment of an administratrix (Merle Coulter/daughter) and notice to all interested parties. Mina Granger died without a will and was survived by four distributes. Three of the distributes are known by name and whereabouts. One of the distributes is known by name and whereabouts are unknown. I do share a concern with the municipality in terms of the condition of the property; however, it will be taken care of as soon as possible. Most importantly these types of proceedings brought in the interest of the citizens of Queensbury and under the Town Code and Town Law require satisfactory notice to all interested parties. That would require notice to each of the distributes in the estate ofMina Granger. I have informed only Merle Coulter of these proceedings. Notice must be given to the other distributes, however, for the time being that has yet to be accomplished. Notice would be required from the municipality to the other interested parties. I would ask that this matter be tabled at least until September with the thought in mind that we are proceeding forward and anticipating that a Contract of Sale will allow a new owner to rehabilitate this building and restore it to the Town and County tax rolls. More importantly, there will be an expected recovery of a portion of the Social Services lien entirely to the benefit of the Warren County Department of Social Services when we complete this sale. Given consideration to all the issues that remain pending I think that it is a worthwhile effort and endeavor to postpone the anticipated hearing date and time with respect to the matter for the reasons states within. Very truly yours, Michael 1. Muller, Esq. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I received a copy of Mike Muller's letter today also. I'd just like the board to understand that this is not something that just came about, this has been going on for years and this process actually started last year when I realized Mike Muller was representing the estate, so we've been dealing with this for over a year now to even get to this point. I went up today, the ground's crew was boarding it back up again cause the family keeps going in there and tearing off the boards that cover the entrances. So, I went back up today, before they sealed and got pictures of what you're looking at and walked through the structure. The center of the structure is starting to collapse; the floors are actually sunk about a foot off level. There's water in the basement, what appears to be water in the basement and the structure is not getting any better, let me put it that way. I would ask the board tonight to follow through with the resolution to start the time clock ticking. What I don't want is another year to go on with this structure that somebody buys it and then we sit here another year from now and go through the same process again. The resolution is set forth, it gives them until October ih which is actually four months from today to do something. So, by that time, I would hope that Mike Muller is successful in his bid to sell the property but I would also hope that the new owners would also start to undertake some action to Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 292 either renovate or tear down. The piece of property, from what I understand, only surrounds the house by about twenty feet so there's not a lot of property to make this a useable piece of property without buying some neighboring property or issuing several variances. So, I'm not sure how they intend to reuse the structure, if at all, it would be a substantial undertaking to structurally repair which means pretty much gutting the interior of the home including the structural members which I don't foresee somebody doing. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I'd like to ask the attorney a question, if we start this procedure now and it changes hands, does that time clock have to start all over again cause we're serving the owners now? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-What Mike Muller has pointed out in his letter is that we have not technically served the owners because there has, the owner is deceased and they have not yet started the estate which when the estate is done and this Merle Coulter is appointed the aministratrix, she's the person that you could serve. Right now, it sounds like we can't serve the people that are interested and what Mike says in his letter, I had thought that there was someone who was appointed. MR. HA TIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, it was my understanding Merle Coulter was somewhat representing the estate. In fact, I asked Mike two weeks ago when I served him, I said, do you want me to personally serve her? He said, no, I will accept service for her. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And that will work for her but it will not work for the other three and until she's appointed, we haven't technically given notice to the owner. We have always recommended that you either get permission of the owner before doing something or that we have court permission before going on someone's property. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Well, this has also been a previous Town Board action to secure the structure several years ago. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And that could go maintains securing the structure. I mean, we haven't, I think you've been working with us on that. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-At the time, the only reason the Town Board back then didn't undertake the action, was because the elder Mrs. Granger was still alive, they didn't want to demolish the house, they wanted to wait until she passed on before they take any action with the property, that's where the board, they said, let's board it up and keep it where it is right now. Since then, it's deteriorated. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If it is the decision of the Town Board that this is an unsafe structure that requires some immediate action, then going forward makes sense. You've given more time then Mike Muller has asked for, just, we always recommend that you have the court's permission before you go on and I would like to point out that the attorney whose writing the letter happens to be one of the two Town Justices and the points he brought up are the same ones that, I mean, it wouldn't go before him because he represents it, but the same issues that Bob McNally would bring up as the other Town Justice and they're valid concerns. They're what we've raised and what we'll raise in the next item that's before the Town Board here tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, what is your recommendation? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well, it depends on how eminent the danger is and if it is something that will lead to danger in the near future then I would say go forward with this action, just realize that you're not going to be able to get back any costs if you do decide to go forward. But if it isn't something that the Town Board thinks is eminent danger of someone getting hurt, I would lean towards taking Mike Muller's recommendation and waiting to see if they can sell it to somebody else who will have to take care of it. But what Dave is bringing up is, it won't be dealt with until next year possibly because they won't be able to buy until October. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Where does it come into play on the twenty-five percent owned by the person that, whose whereabouts is undetermined? Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 293 TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That is I think another reason to wait because Mike Muller who represents the estate has the duty of finding that person or getting a Surrogates Court to serve in a different way. If you can't find somebody, you publish in a paper and you have the court decide that that's adequate, you've tried everyway that you can find them. Let him do that instead of having the town go to that expense and that will be valid, once that person is appointed, she can then be served. COUNCILMAN BOOR-However, as a Town Board, how do we put the impetus on him to either get a Surrogate Court to look at this or get on the stick? Ifhe's been dealing with this for over a year and still can't find this person, it doesn't sound like there's a tremendous effort being made. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-When did she die? MR.HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-She's been dead for several years, I think about three or four years ago now. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So there's been several years where this fourth person can't be found and I think rather then have that become a problem, I would like to tell him, if you can't find this, then go to this other measure to have it rectified so that in a timely fashion, we can deal with this. In other words, is he really looking for this person or no? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I don't know. Every once in a while those of us who do estates run into a child who is hard to find. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I'm concerned that there's no impetus for them to do anything and that they'll just wait until things shake out. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well, the impetus is to get title to sell it for this twenty-eight thousand dollars that he says he has an offer. He cannot give good title until he goes through that process. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Does the time clock start over if somebody else buys this? Because if it does, then we're just spinning our wheels. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think technically that unless you find that there's eminent danger, the clock, the official clock isn't going to start until you give them service, to the owners and we can not at this time do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, why are we even doing this? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Well, it depends on how eminent, how dangerous you think the situation is. If you think this is, we had a situation with vermin, where we had trouble reaching a person, that is the type of immediate danger where you guys find that it's necessary, you can act, you can go in and you do the best you can service. If you have something that's getting weaker but still, you know, isn't going to fall down on somebody and you know hurt them, then that isn't as eminent and you don't have as much authority to deal with other people's property and you need to give them service. My recommendation would be to wait to tell Mike Muller that he has until the end of September and ifhe hasn't gotten someone appointment by then, that we'll take action then and it will be a shorter time period, it would be the sixty days instead of the, we've given him three months here which is a pretty long time period. COUNCILMAN BREWER-My feeling is if we're talking about something that's an eminent danger, why are we waiting ninety days? We don't have to wait ninety days, do we? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-The fact that it's ninety days to me, it says that it might not be eminent. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Dave, I have two questions for you. What is the eminent danger? I mean, you said, the boards are ripped ofT, whose getting in the house, do you have any idea? Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 294 MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Family members, from what we can tell, going in and taking what they feel they want and then leaving the house un-secure when they leave. We've faced that problem over the last four years. SUPERVISOR BROWER-If this structure remains standing and someone purchases the property and builds on the same exact footprint that you currently have there on Assembly Point, they wouldn't need variances would you? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No. Once the structure is removed, you start from scratch. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Even if they can build on part of the structure on the same footprint? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I guess it would depend on what they propose but if you're talking total removal of the structure, then they start from square one. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I would think that that location would be a valuable location for somebody. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I know the person that's looking at purchasing it, according to Mike Muller is also, their family owns property just down the street, that's all I know about it. My concern is, I'd just like to start the time clock so we have some way to force the issue here at some point in time. I mean, I've been trying to deal with this without coming to the board for the last year, could get no where with it, now all of a sudden, I start to take action, now all of a sudden we have action on the property and it seems like the legal action forces the issues to come to the forefront. If you stall it for another three months, my gut feeling is, this will get stalled for another three months and I'll be back here again with the same issues. So, that's just my personal feeling dealing with these over the last fifteen years. Your action will force some action one way or another. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I appreciate your input on this. I will ask ifthere are any members of the public that would care to comment on this hearing at this time? Board members, I guess my only comment would be if the building's secure at this point, it's boarded up, I guess I don't see, as long as it's boarded up, I don't see an eminent danger. I don't know, if the building collapsed on itself, I don't know who would be injured or what problem would occur from that. So, I'd like to delay any action but that's my own personal feeling. Any other input from board members? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Obviously, we can't keep the owner out of it, right? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Keep the owner out of it's own property? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, I said obviously, we can't keep the owner out of his own property, correct? COUNCILMAN BREWER-There is no owner. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, he said the owner's been in it. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-No, the family. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Family members of the previous owner. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If there are four children, and only four children and that's what his letter implied, four distributes, each of them own a fourth. So, there are four owners, they can't find them all but they all would have the right to go to the property. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The pictures also kind of indicated people picked through most of the contents in the household, so I don't think there's much left that they would want to take at this point. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can we order it boarded up, and to remain that way? Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 295 TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We already have and that has and from what Dave has said, it continues. That resolution has been passed in the past. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-We continue to make sure it stays boarded up but it's an ongOIng process. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And he has that authority, that's continuing and I think that still is logical that it should continue and you guys granted that at a prior Town Board meeting. COUNCILMAN STEC-How are we going to communicate the urgency to, what owners we can, that we need this disposed of? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If you want I can, be glad to write to Mike Muller and tell him that, if you guys agree, that if don't hear by, if no one is appointed by the end of September that this resolution will be back, the hearing's already been held and action will be taken at that time. COUNCILMAN STEC-I think that's reasonable. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And I think that, if we do bring it back at that time, I think a sixty day period makes more sense because we're talking snow, we're getting into snow time. COUNCILMAN BREWER-He's been dealing with this for a year, why can't we make it the beginning of September that he has to appoint somebody? Force them to do something. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-If they are just starting and they can't find one of the people, you're asking to do something he can't. It's not the way the Surrogates Court proceeding, there is a, if he starts now, I think he could get through the process by the end of September, it depends on his action and the courts but that's a reasonable time, but the beginning of September, it's not going to fit with the notices that are required with the Surrogates Court. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That would be fine with me. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do we have a motion to table? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yea, I'll make a motion that we table and that we authorize Bob to write a letter as such to Mr. Muller. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Is that a motion? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Motion to table. Second? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Second. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Second by Councilman Turner. Moved by Councilman Boor, seconded by Councilman Turner, further discussion? Hearing none, let's vote. MOTION TO TABLE RESOLUTION ORDERING DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE LOCATED ON PROPERTY OWNED BY MINA GRANGER LOCATED AT 10 CROSSOVER LANE RESOLUTION NO.: 309,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 296 SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby gives motion to table resolution and authorize Town Counsel to write letter as such to Mr. Muller, counsel for property owner. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: None HEARING - UNSAFE STRUCTURE - PROPERTY OWNED BY EDWARD CORLEW 7:35 P.M. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-I'll pass some pictures around, the structure has been boarded up since your last board meeting by the grounds crew last week. What I'm here before you tonight is to ask for monies to be expended to clean up the property. This one is not much different from the last property we just talked about however; I feel we do have a little more immediate danger here. Two weeks ago, or actually three weeks ago now I received a call from the sheriff s department because they had caught kids in there playing around inside the structure, that's what prompted the order to go to Town Board to board it up. But if you look at the outside of the property, you see there's large amount of debris that we were in court with Mr. Eugene Corlew, or excuse me, Mr. Edward Corlew who was the tenant of the property and the mess you see in the pictures is what he left behind. He died last month during court proceedings so it kind of left us at a, in a quandary as to what, how to proceed so I talked to Cathy Radner and we proposed the resolution you have before you tonight to authorize me to expend money to clean the property up and eliminate the hazard on the property. The concern we have now is we have a place for rodents to start making homes, we also have kids still going on the property, I was down there today, I could see some stuff had been moved around obviously by kids and there's a sign on the ground that was leaning up against the building last week, is now on the ground broken. So, kids are still down there playing. If you look at the pictures on the back wall of the building, you'll see that there's a large amount of steel or metal shelving I should say from old refrigerators and what have you and washing machines that they could easily pull down on themselves if they decided to start climbing the building, not to mention get hurt on the property and I think put the town's liability at risk. It would be my recommendation that you authorize me to spend money to have the property cleaned up. I have a bid from Troy Bapp to completely remove all the items you see in those pictures for two thousand dollars, which is actually better, then what we thought because the original estimates from Jim Coughlin were about seven to eight thousand dollars to do it at the landfill. So, Troy will come in with his dumpsters, take it away at no risk to the town and remove all the items and when I'm satisfied, he'll get paid. COUNCILMAN STEC-How did this situation get brought to your attention, your office? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-This was from, the original we were in court originally because of a neighbor complaint. We were dealing with Mr. Corlew to get rid of the items you see in the pictures. He told us, he testified in court that he was paying somebody to remove it however, we found out that he did not remove anything he just had somebody throw it inside in the building. Because we went to board up the building, we walked through the building and found a room full of everything that was outside. So they were starting to throw everything inside the building creating more of a mess inside the building. The power has been disconnected from the building, the gas has been shut off the water has been shut ofT, so there are no utilities in the building. My gut feeling is that someday I may be back for you on this building as well but right now it is not at that point. I would like to clean up the outside so we do not have any kids get hurt there and eliminate the I guess their curiosity of going to the property and playing. If there is nothing there for them to play with they will not go there. So, that is the reason for asking for the funds to be expended. COUNCILMAN BOOR- You would clean up the entire outside? Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 297 MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-All the junk and debris, yes. And his price was two thousand dollars to do that. The resolution says a thousand dollars because I did not get Troy's price until after Pam had sent the resolutions out so, if you pass this resolution I would ask you to change that to two thousand dollars. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And that two thousand dollars that is tacked onto to the taxes for that building Bob? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That was deleted from this because. . . MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Two Thousand dollars is a flat price. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Although if there is a bankruptcy involved here so there is a high probability that even if we lean it we would not recoup, that is an issue. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Most likely not, taxes have not been paid since 1994. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And we also Dave and I talked about this last week, similar to the last one where you cannot get notice to the people who own it, no court will enforce our right to get paid back for the expenses that we incur in order to be able to do that it will require due process. It is Constitutional Law that people have the right to know before you can enforce a judgment like that against them. SUPERVISOR BROWER-This particular property is located on the Boulevard, 24 Boulevard, it is on a corner lot. It could be a potential good spot for a retail establishment in the future as it has been in the past. I did take the liberty to speak to Ed Corlew's son and told him about the action that we had been planning and I did not know if he had any interest in the property or not, but I told him about the public hearing and he simply indicated that he believed that there were thousands of dollars in leans against the property currently and that he did not have any interest in the property. MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-That's what he told me two years ago. SUPERVISOR BROWER-But I told him, ifhe did, he should show up here and state interest he might have and I don't know ifhe will speak this evening or not but certainly, at least he's aware of it. And I know this; you've been quite a number of years trying to get the televisions cleaned up too, right? MR. HATIN, Director of Building & Codes-Two years. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, thank you Dave. If anyone would care to address the matter, you're welcome to speak before the Town Board at this time. Seeing none, I'll ask Board Members if they have further comment or would care to propose an action. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I'll introduce the motion to allow him to spend up to two thousand to clean it up. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'll second it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, introduced by Councilman Brewer, seconded by Councilman Stec. Further discussion of board members? COUNCILMAN BOOR-The only thing I would say, would it be prudent to file a lien even though there's a high probability we would never collect? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I really think it would be ineffective and would be inappropriate without us giving notice to the owners. If that's something that we'd want to do, we would suggest having a court hearing first and that's going to take time. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 298 TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-And Dave's responding to police report, I think, of kids playing on the property so there's, police reports about kids being there where they could get hurt. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I'm not questioning the appropriateness of cleaning it up, I'm just saying, is it wise to also file a lien and if it' s not, it's not. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I don't think so in this case. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Okay, that's fine. RESOLUTION ORDERING CLEAN-UP OF RUBBISH ON PROPERTY OWNED BY EDWARD CORLEW AND LOCATED AT 24 BOULEVARD RESOLUTION NO.: 310,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, property located at 24 Boulevard in the Town of Queensbury has been the subject of ongoing litigation by the Town, and WHEREAS, for many years the property was occupied by Edward F. Corlew, Sr., who allowed the accumulation of rubbish consisting mainly of discarded television sets on the premises, and WHEREAS, on January 21st, 2003, the Town obtained a Decision and Order against Edward Corlew finding that he had violated Town Code 9102-3 by allowing the accumulation of rubbish at this address, and WHEREAS, approximately one month after the Court's Decision and Order was issued and before the property was brought into compliance, the Town received notice from Attorney Walter 1. Law that Edward Corlew passed away on February 25th, 2003, and WHEREAS, the property remains in violation of Town Code 9102-3 because of the accumulation of rubbish, and WHEREAS, since the death of Edward Corlew, the property has remained vacant, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Sheriffs Office contacted the Town of Queensbury's Director of Building and Codes Enforcement (Director) to report that the property was being vandalized, that minors were using the property as a gathering place and that the structure was unsafe and considered by them to be a nuisance, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 299 WHEREAS, the Director reported that the building was in violation of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 88 because it was not being maintained in accordance with the New York State Building Code and the Director represented to the Town Board that the building presented a threat to persons and property, and WHEREAS, the Town is unable to determine the current owner of the property at 24 Boulevard because, although Town tax records list the property as being owned by Eugene R. Corlew, no taxes have been paid to the Town since at least 1994 and the Warren County Treasurer reports that no taxes have been paid on the property for 1999 through the present, and WHEREAS, inquiry was made to Walter Law who represented Edward Corlew in defense of the Town Code violations but Mr. Law is unable to provide the names and addresses of any persons having or claiming an interest in the real property, and WHEREAS, on June 16th, 2003, the Town Board declared the building and premises on the property to be dangerous and unsafe to the public and authorized and directed the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and/or the Department of Buildings and Grounds to cause the building to be secured and/or boarded up to permit unauthorized entry and authorized and directed the expenditure of sums for the purpose of immediately securing the building at 24 Boulevard, and WHEREAS, the Town Board held a hearing concerning this property on July ih, 2003 and notice of this hearing was served in accordance with the provisions of New York State Town Law 9130(16) and Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60, and WHEREAS, the Director reported at the hearing that the property was secured and/or boarded up as authorized and directed by the Town Board, but there is still an accumulation of rubbish consisting mainly of discarded television sets on the premises, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement and/or the Department of Buildings and Grounds to immediately begin the clean-up of rubbish, consisting mainly of discarded television sets, on the property located at 24 Boulevard in the Town of Queensbury and authorizes and directs the expenditure of sums not to exceed $1,000 from Account No.: 001-3650-4400 for this purpose, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take all action necessary to transfer $2,000 from Account No.: 001-1990-4400 to Account No.: 001- 3650-4400 and amend the 2003 Town Budget accordingly, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 300 BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Director of Building and Codes Enforcement to serve a notice setting forth the Town Board's determinations upon the property owner or its executors, legal representatives, agents, lessees, or any person having a vested or contingent interest in the property, the contents, service and filing of the notice to be in accordance with the provisions of Queensbury Town Code Chapter 60 and New York State Town Law 9130(16). Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: None CORRESPONDENCE-NONE INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE OPEN FORUM 7:45 P.M. MR. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 Division Road, Queensbury-Referred to Resolution 6.2, Resolution Approving Incurrence of Debt by West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. for Re-Roofing of it's Fire Station, and asked if someone could explain purpose of resolution. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes, the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company approached the board, they have a leaky roof on the older section of the fire station, the main station and they needed to address it. This was not figured in their budget. Apparently previous Town Board which you mayor may not have been a member of, when they were building their building requested that they not address the old section of the old building and simply address the new section of the building with the new roof and at this time, they believe it's in need of replacement. They've gone to bid and they would like to go with Monahan and McLaughlin for re-roofing the building for a cost of eighty-five thousand, seven hundred seventy-seven dollars. They're asking the Town Board for permission to incur debt for the amount of eighty-five thousand, seven hundred seventy-seven dollars for a period not to exceed five years and such debt will be paid for from the fire companies operating budget and that's the proposal before us. MR. TUCKER-There was no guarantee? COUNCILMAN BOOR-It's a very old roof... I believe it's probably lasted the life of the roof; it's an old roof. . . COUNCILMAN BREWER-It's been patched and portions of it done... MR. TUCKER-So there was no guarantees involved? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. MR. TUCKER-Mr. Stec, we've heard quite a bit about your reductions in taxes and when are you going to come out with your plan? COUNCILMAN STEC- The board has a workshop scheduled for next week to discuss it and if we're going to take action, we have to do so by September 18t for it to take effect next year. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 301 MR. TUCKER-Are you going to let the voters know prior to Primary Day? COUNCILMAN STEC-Like I said, September 18t, if anything we're going to do, we're going to know what it is by September 18t. MR. TUCKER-Okay, are you going to invite the Democrat that's running for your job to that meeting because he's in favor of a tax reduction too? COUNCILMAN STEC-It's a public meeting, Pliney, even you can go. MR. TUCKER-Tim, can you get a hold of those people that are controlling that piece of property west of the water plant and find out how soon that they can transfer it to us? COUNCILMAN BREWER-The five acres? MR. TUCKER-The five and a half acres. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Did we get an answer back? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I reported the last time I heard from them. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We got an answer saying they were going to do it but they just didn't say when, right? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-They said that the Federal Agency involved, FERC, said that with all of the transfers, that it had gotten somewhat left behind and that they're now putting it on top of their pile and they were going to move it forward soon which is a flexible term in FERC/ MR. TUCKER-Mr. Boor, I read your article in the paper about buying television time and was everything that was in the paper true? COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't know if it was correct, I think it was true... MR. TUCKER-I've been around here for a long, long time and I remember when that stuff was done for free. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And we may well get it for free. MR. TUCKER-And until somebody decided that whoever was sitting up there did a lot of boring things and it wasn't worth putting on television. COUNCILMAN BOOR-My take on it is, probably ninety percent of what we do is extremely boring. It's a, when it's your neighbor or your house or your property that's being affected, that's when it's not boring and I think if you have the ability to turn on the TV, you are going to do it and you maybe surfing and you may see something that's of interest to you and you may stop and listen and you may learn something... I don't think it's practical to assume that we can have this kind of audience every Monday night. .. I think a lot would like to get involved, and I also think it removes the bias of a paper, the paper does a good job but you know, by the time it gets done with the editorial department and stuff, sometimes it reads like a different meeting... I think it's important that the public see us doing what we do, see how we behave, see how we misbehave and make their judgments based on that... When you look at the cost of it, it's pretty minuscule with the million- dollar surplus we have or whatever. . . COUNCILMAN BREWER-Millions. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ten, millions, several million. MR. TUCKER-Just cause we got it, we haven't got to spend it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-No, my point being though, I think it's very inexpensive for the amount of service it would provide. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 302 MR. TUCKER-I agree with you a hundred percent but work real hard to get it for free... COUNCILMAN BOOR-My only concern there is, I want it to be professional and I want the camera people to be experienced. . . I think it's important that they understand what the intent is of it being televised and so there maybe a certain portion of it that needs to be addressed in a professional manner. MR. JOHN SALVADOR, 8 Lakeview Drive, Lake George-Until this room is overflowing, I wouldn't worry about televising this meeting... Mr. Stec, with regard to your budgeting and taxing program, will there be any effort to incorporate into the town's future plans, what they might expect to collect in the way of increased sales tax revenue from the Great Escape? COUNCILMAN STEC- That's a question for the State and the Great Escape. MR. SAL V ADOR- No, it's a question for us, it's our tax money. We always hear from the county about the tourism paying the sales tax to help reduce our property taxes. It's about two million dollars going south every year and it pays for someone to be the point man on this, maybe you could do that Mr. Stec... Referred to the comprehensive look at the Bay Road Corridor with regard to wastewater management and noted, we find that the Bay Brook Townhouse Apartments will probably not be a part of this collection system that's being put in. To that end, I asked for the annual inspection report that supposed to be done on this project and I have received that and I prepared this response.... (read into the record the following) Mr. Dennis Brower, Chairman Town of Queensbury Board of Health Dear Mr. Brower: Thank you for expediting my F.O.I.L. request for the Annual Inspection Report related to the on-site wastewater treatment system servicing the Bay Brook Townhouse apartments. As might be expected, the 2002 annual report was hurriedly prepared and lacks the depth of inquiry mandated by the Queensbury Local Board of Health in its resolution of Variance Approval No. 9-98 dated April 6, 1998. Such a cursory approach to the Annual Inspection Report makes it impossible to determine whether or not the wastewater generated at the Bay Brook complex is being treated in accordance with all DEC and Town Local Board of Health issued permits even as those may be based on illicit design criteria and variance approvals. Without gathering and analyzing performance data there is insufficient foundation to determine that the on-site system is not causing pollution of the groundwater and is otherwise not a hazard to public health. Recent developments centered on the management of wastewater along the Bay Road corridor make it doubtful that Schermerhorn Construction has a continued interest in tying Bay Brook Apartments into a "community" type system, which can convey the sewage in a central treatment facility before discharge. Because of this situation and the likelihood that Bay Brook will continue to be dependent on an on-site wastewater system, the original design basis should be more closely examined to insure that the limits and conditions which were placed on Bay Brook's treated wastewater discharge were properly established at the outset and that if excessive discharges to the groundwater can be documented that they be terminated. The record shows there were two permits granted in 1998, which allowed discharge to the ground water of a limited daily flow of treated wastewater from 48 apartments. The first permit, a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit was issued as a General Permit (GP 95-01) to Schermerhorn Construction, Inc. on February 17, 1998. A DEC General Permit of the type granted to Schermerhorn Construction is valid solely for the discharge of sanitary waste from on-site treatment facilities ranging in design flow capacity from 1000 to 10,000 GPD. The flows from these 48 apartments (24 I-bedroom and 24 2-bedroom), according to the DEC design criteria, computes to 10,800 GPD, as such the 48-unit Bay Brook complex exceeds the daily design flow rates allowed by the General Permit procedure which does not allow for treatment schemes other than those referenced in DEC's Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Sewerage Facilities. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 303 SPDES Permit No. 5-5234-000385/0000 authorizes and limits the permittee, Schermerhorn Construction, to a discharge only of 8640 GPD, well below the 10,000 GPD threshold for sanitary waste discharge from an Intermediate Sized System providing that the discharge take place after treatment in a "septic tank and leach field" system and that the facility be equipped with water saver devices. The difference between 10,8000 GPD and 8640 GPD represents a 20% reduction allowed for the use of water saving fixtures: i.e., that all water fixtures are of the water saving type. Other than a statement as to the use of water saving fixtures as a design basis, was the Bay Brook facility ever equipped with water saving fixtures in number and type consistent to allow the 20% credit in average daily flow rate? Are these fixtures still in place? The annual report should address the fact that the 20% reduction in average daily design flow based on the use of water saving fixtures applies only when the toilets are maximum 1.5 gal/flush and all of the service connections including dishwashers, washing machines, sinks and bathing units are of similarly low flow design. A low flow showerhead, as part of a bathtub installation does not qualify unless the bathtub is of similar low flow design. Ever seen one??? Based on strict DEC design criteria, the Bay Brook facility has unrealistically taken a 20% credit in the daily design flow rate available when water saving fixtures are installed. The second cannon of the DEC SPDES Permit deals with the basic system permitted - that of "septic tank and leach field". A "leach field" is a trench system designed to function in natural soils. However, the design basis for the "Walker Lane Townhouses" is clearly that of a "filled system" with the "fill" material specified as that of a soil with percolation rate of a least 5-10 minutes/inch even though "trenches" within the filled material have been shown on the design drawing. Portions of the infiltration bed at Bay Brook are known to have as much as 10ft of such fill materials. The DEC SPDES Permit issued to Schermerhorn Construction for Bay Brook allowed for only 8640 GPD of treated wastewater from a treatment system consisting of a "septic tank and fill system". Each of these two systems have distinctively different design bases and posses contrasting construction features. DEC design standards for intermediate sized sewage facilities; i.e., those between 1000 and 10,000 GPD average daily flow, cover a wide range of system approaches to subsurface treatment. All except the absorption trench/beds and mound systems are presumed to be located on fairly level natural terrain. With natural grades at this site in the area of the leach fields in the order of 20%, there is no way the DEC could have issued a permit for a "filled system" on such a steep slope. In fact, the DEC has categorized sites with natural slopes between 12 and 20% as "severe sites". For openers, this "severe" natural site condition alone should have caused a reduction of 75% of the treated sewage application rate otherwise allowed; i.e., 0.67 GPD per square foot rather that the 0.90 GPD per square foot used. No such diminution in the application rate was made. This oversight means that the infiltration structure is seriously undersized - by 25% - meaning that Bay Brook should have 1/3 more leach field area. This factor alone should have been a "show- stopper" for a 48-unit apartment complex simply because there was not sufficient land in the MR-5 Zone. The second permit, a Town Permit for the same "system", was deemed to be necessary because a portion of the infiltration beds (Systems 1,2 and 3) were to be located on natural grades with greater than the 10% allowed by Town Code. However, 10NYCRR Part 75 (Public Health Code) Appendix 75-A.9(b )(2)(iii) specifies that a raised system, which is an absorption trench system constructed in fill material shall not be used where the natural slopes exceed 15%. The natural slopes at this site exceeded 20% in some areas encompassing the leach field location. Again, a "show-stopper" by NYS-DOH Public Health Code Standards! The Queensbury Local Board of Health was without authority to grant Schermerhorn Construction a variance to build a "fill system" on a slope greater than that allowed by the Public Health Codes - namely, 15%. lONYCRR Part 75 Appendix 75- A, Section 75-a.4(I) reads - "Slopes greater than 15% are unacceptable". The Queensbury Local Board of Health should have sought a waiver from the State Commissioner of Health as provided in Sec 75.6 of75-A to exceed a 15% slope where a fill type system is employed. They did not! Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 304 In summary, the Bay Brook wastewater treatment system is operating in a non- compliant state. Namely- (1) The daily design flow rate should be 10,800 GPD instead of 8640 because of failure to install and monitor proper water saving fixtures. (2) The DEC SPDES Permit was issued for a "septic tank and leach field" arrangement, whereas a "septic tank and fill system" was designed and installed. The design criteria for each are markedly dissimilar. (3) Treated wastewater infiltration structure has been located on natural slopes exceeding 15% without an application for or a grant to waiver from the Commission of Public Health. (4) The factor of treated wastewater application rate to the groundwater utilized in the design was not reduced from 0.9 GPD/Sq.Ft. to 0.67 GPD/Sq.Ft. as required by DEC standard for "severe sites". (5) The content of the annual report does not meet that required by the Queensbury Local Board of Health. The above enumerates the many reasons why a comprehensive review of Bay Brook's on-site wastewater treatment system is in order. Fundamentally, the need for on-site wastewater treatment combined with a generous supply of municipal water feeding their units, should have precluded development of this site to the density allowed in a MR-5 Zone. The facility should not be allowed to exceed its DEC permitted flow capacity of 8640 GPD. Flow rates can automatically be monitored on a daily basis and excessive flows automatically diverted to a holding tank. This holding tank septage can then be taken to the Glens Falls Sewage Treatment Plant for processing. In the alternative and with regard to the hazards to public health the Queensbury Local Board of Health should mandate that Bay Brook Apartments become a part of the recently formed sewage collection system before additional environmental degradation occurs. Yours truly, John Salvador, Jr. MRS. CATHY LABOMBARD, 30 Honey Hollow Road-I would like it for the record that I'm also a member of the Open Space Committee and I'm here to give support to the resolution that will be up before you to adopt the Open Space Vision and Map for the Town of Queensbury. We're very excited about that and I would also like to thank Marilyn Ryba and Chris Round and Barbara Sweet and all the members of the committee that have worked so hard over the past few years, it's been a very, very good experience for me. The second reason I'm here is for my husband, and he's at a Board of Education Meeting but he asked me if I would come and question as to whether there's a recreation issue on for tonight? COUNCILMAN BREWER-We anticipate talking about something. MRS. LABOMBARD-This is something that's been on my mind for a long time, so I'll ask you for some advice or direction. The town's population has really increased over the years, I've lived in this area all my life, I just believe that the population and the citizens of this town need a little more representation. Is there any way we could have more representation, two Town Board members from each district or maybe two members at-large that would be representing the whole population? How could we go about getting some kind of a referendum like that on the ballot for the people to vote on? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-That's a pretty good question, I haven't ever run into that. The five members on the Town Board are set by state law. There are provisions under the Municipal Home Rule Law where sometimes you can change the state law, like change terms from two years to four, that may permit expansion of a Town Board. I don't know, no one's ever asked me but if so, that's a mandatory referendum item before it could go forward. If it is allowed under the Municipal Home Rule Law, then the Town Board at it's own action could put it forward but again we're talking ifs and I'd rather have some, if the Town Board wants me to look into that, wants to spend money to have us check that out for them, we'll be glad to do that for them but I think it's sort of premature to write down what the answer might be until we've had a chance to look into it. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 305 MRS. LABOMBARD-I just believe that Queensbury in 2003 is not the same town that Queensbury was in 1963. I do believe that we need more representation. . . MRS. BETTY MONAHAN, Sunnyside-Referred to earlier discussion on Crossover Lane, the unsafe structure and noted, I can't be sure if it' s the same structure but we did have one up there and what we found one time, the well also was not secured and the Building Department had to go up and put a cover on that well. So, I wish you'd check and see if that's the same property and that well cover is still secure because we don't need children falling down a well around here. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I'll talk to him tomorrow. MRS. MONAHAN-With all the surplus money this town has, I wish we could do a better job of upkeep. I just walked Hudson Point trail system today, there's hazards on it, there's dangerous stuff hazards on it. The bridge as you probably know is in a state of disrepair. .. The worst of it was that there was no signage along the way that the bridge was out... For most people, once you get down that real steep part, a lot of people can make it down that aren't going to be able to make it back up. There needs some signage and there needs to be work done on that trail. As I said, take some of these millions of dollars and lets keep the facilities and the infrastructure in this town up to the condition that it ought to be in. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Betty, in defense of part of the problem, it's been so wet down there, they haven't been able to get anything down there to be able to work. MRS. MONAHAN-But the point of it is, they could put signage up at the top up where the steps are. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I agree, the bridge is out. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You do bring up a point that as we expand our parks and the land that we're responsible for, we incur greater responsibility for the upkeep of it. MRS. MONAHAN- You've got Poison Ivy started over there in the trail system. I wouldn't want somebody to go in and spray indiscriminately because unless you know the wildflowers and the protected plants, you're going to take some of those. So, I mean, it has to be somebody that knows what they're doing and would be very selective in what they do. MRS. CONNIE GOEDERT-Referred to Resolution 6.10, 'Resolution Approving New Fee Schedule for Services Provided at Pine View Cemetery and Crematorium, and questioned whether the town had given thought to a payment schedule for some that can't afford these prices? COUNCILMAN TURNER-They haven't discussed that yet. MRS. GOEDERT -So, before you approve the fee schedule, wouldn't it be wiser to approve a program that's not into affect right now? Right now, when you buy a grave or when you're cremated, you have to put that money up front. So, there is considerations for some people that are not able to afford that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Are we considering that? COUNCILMAN TURNER-No, not in this. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It certainly, I think it's something to be looked at, I don't know if it really should determine whether or not we pass this resolution but I agree that that's a concern. .. Do we take credit cards? SUPERVISOR BROWER-We don't yet, but we'd like to move toward that in the future. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That might be a really easy way to do it. MRS. GOEDERT-That's something that you guys would have to come up with but I would suggest that at some form that you have to look at something. My only other question is, is there another Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 306 department within the Town of Queensbury such as maybe the Highway Department that brings in enough money that it pays for all of it' s employees and all of it' s benefits and everything? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, the cemetery doesn't pay for itself MRS. GOEDERT-Does the Highway Department? COUNCILMAN TURNER-No. MRS. GOEDERT-Does the Rec Commission? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. MRS. GOEDERT-Is it a feasible way to think? It's a service that we get. I agree everything has to go up in time but to go from three hundred to five hundred from one day to the next. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I told them, they ought to go out and price the equipment and the costs it costs them to open the grave and that's what they did for this increase. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Connie, since I took over the Supervisor in 2000, one of the things I discovered was that we had a tremendous deficit at the cemetery to the tune of about two hundred fifty-five to sixty-five thousand a year and one of my goals was to, I talked to the Cemetery Commission yearly and ask them to raise fees... We've got it down to about a hundred and sixty thousand roughly now... I felt it was essential that we look closely at the operation and see how we could run it more efficiently then it has been run and we've been trying to bring that deficit down as much as we can. I doubt we'll ever break even in the near future but certainly we've made strides toward that goal of getting closer to reality and the Cemetery Commission, to their credit have been very responsive in looking at their fees very closely, examining what other cemeteries are charging and trying to be more competitive and to bring in more revenue for the town. However, under GASB 34 which is a new accounting standard which we also will be addressing tonight in our resolution, what now is considered revenue from the cemetery which is the sale of lots and under the proposal going to five hundred dollars per lot, will in the future be a sale of assets so it won't be considered revenue. So, it will make the picture worse again but that's an accounting principle. At least we know we've made some strides in the right direction and we continue to look at how we can operate the cemetery in a more efficient manner. .. This is the recommendation of the Cemetery Commission as well. MRS. GOEDERT-I'll give you that but with the recommendation they have to come up with a plan for the person who can't put this up front, however you want to adopt that is totally up to you but you should think about that part of it. MRS. BARBARA BENNETT-Three or four years ago I made the statement that the town had outgrown its government. You look at Glens Falls whose population has gone down, they have more on the Common Council then you do on the Town Board and I thought at the time, you needed a committee to look into other communities with the same population as this one to see what kind of governments they had... So, I agree with Mrs. LaBombard, if you can follow up on it. The other thing, isn't Henry Hess supposed to be at the board meetings. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes, he is but he's on vacation this week. MRS. BENNETT-Referred to Pine View Cemetery and noted, the only figure I brought up at the budget hearing was where he budgeted forty thousand dollars for burials and a hundred forty thousand for cremations and I asked if it was that more expensive to cremate and he said no, it's cheaper. .. How can you explain the hundred thousand dollar difference? SUPERVISOR BROWER-We do a lot more cremations. MR. MIKE GENIER, Superintendent-Regarding payment plan, New York State Law requires before a burial can take place on a piece of property, in a grave that the grave be paid for in full. What we've done at Pine View and my predecessors have done it, if folks are interested in lots in certain parts of the cemetery, we have a policy, if they don't have the money and they want a particular lot, we put them on save. We'll write their name on the particular lot, we'll put them on Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 307 save for a period of time. Some of them have been on save, that I can see for two or three years and then when the folks get the money together, they'll come in and purchase the lots. Some cemeteries in New York State do take payment plans with the final payment made prior to burial. We've recently joined the New York State Association of Cemeteries, I've had interaction with a number of cemeteries throughout the state and this is one of the things they're doing, taking partial payments until full payment. I can't speak for the budget as far as what was done before, I came onboard February 1ih. There are approximately a hundred and twenty burials a year, approximately six hundred cremations a year. So, with the amount of materials used for the cremations versus the burials, that's why I believe that there's a lot more money in the crematorium side that's budgeted, just by the sheer volume of cremations. . . SUPERVISOR BROWER-The reason the budget might have been up too, if you recall, we repaired a retort last year and that was expensive, I think that was sixty thousand. MR. GENIER-Right... Referred to fee schedule, noting that they're comparable with local cemeteries... Explained that the burial fee went from three hundred to five hundred dollars, that amount was determined by taking all of the factors involved in a burial process... Reviewed step by step burial process with board, noting that the whole process takes approximately four hours... Noted, we're still a little under what the actual cost is by a few dollars but we're closer to where our deficit is. So, yes the prices have gone up, we do make money but we're essentially a non-profit organization that provides a service. I think we provide a pretty good service. We've been working with the Town Board on some changes and they're forthcoming which would increase service. It's unfortunate that we did have to raise prices but we're trying to keep our costs even with expenses. MR. JOE DUPUIS, Sweet Road, currently acting as Chief of Queensbury Central Fire-Noted, on June 23rd Queensbury Central approached the Town Board and asked to set up a workshop, the reason for the workshop was to discuss some funding that we needed for our tower truck that was being repaired at a site in New Jersey. We approached the board and asked them for twenty-five thousand dollars, the board's response was, there's no money left.... I went to the Town Comptroller's office and with a great deal of help from that office; we came up with a list of where actually the money went. In 2001, a hundred and sixty-seven thousand three hundred forty-four dollars went to Bay Ridge Fire Company for their purchase of land and new building. 2002 there was no expenditures out of the account which at that time had a balance of three hundred seventeen thousand one hundred forty-six dollars and seventy-five cents. 2003 the expenditures were thirty- six thousand dollars for West Glens Falls for their Brush Truck, forty-one thousand dollars was appropriated to balance the budget for 2003 and eighty-one thousand dollars went to Bay Ridge EMS to purchase defibrillators. My math tells me there's still a hundred and fifty-seven thousand dollars in there. We were approached as late as Thursday when I actually got all these figures together, the president called Mr. Brower and at that time, they were still toying around with some ideas of using money out of our foreign fire tax. Baffled. Why, are we using money, which number one, it's illegal, you can't even do it out of the foreign fire tax when we still have a surplus of a hundred and fifty-seven thousand dollars in there. What we're asking for is twenty-five thousand dollars for a repair of a truck that is sitting down in New Jersey and under our contract, line 6, it details that, why we went back to the town, unforeseen events. Never in the history of Queensbury Central, has Queensbury Central ever gone back to the town for monies that exceeded their budget... Queensbury Central's assessment in 1988 was nearly a half a billion dollars. The whole assessment in the Town of Queensbury at that time was just a little over a billion. I guess we all would think and know that Queensbury has grown, large portion of that being in the Queensbury Central Fire District. Now, the town has grown to about one point eight billion in assessment. The forty-one thousand dollars that was carried over from the 2002 to offset the 2003 budget, I was confused on that because, the total budget has only increased by fifty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty-three dollars for Fire and EMS. When we get our taxes, our taxes are on two different lines, one being for fire, one being for EMS. My question to Henry, unfortunately he's not here tonight, is why are we subsidizing EMS out of the surplus that we have in the fire tax? Another thing that really bothered me is seeing eighty-one thousand dollars that was appropriated to Bay Ridge EMS. Number one, if I had ever brought a purchase of eighty-one thousand dollars to my company that wasn't budgeted for a number of years, with that type of money, I'd be kicked out... SUPERVISOR BROWER-I reviewed your budget and you've got about sixty-three thousand five hundred dollars for repair of small equipment or other equipment, why did you come back to us for that money, why didn't you just use your equipment repair funds that's already in your budget to repair the ladder truck? Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 308 MR. DUPUIS-Then what do I use for the rest of the year? We're only six months into the year. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Maybe you'd last a year. MR. DUPUIS-And maybe we wouldn't... SUPERVISOR BROWER-I guess what I'm saying is, why don't you look at your own budget and see where you can come up with the money from your own budget. MR. DUPUIS-I have looked at that budget, do you know what we have in the budget to date with those items that you just said? Exactly, nor do I. COUNCILMAN BREWER-In fairness, I don't think we said no, we wouldn't do it. MR. DUPUIS-The response was, there was no money left in that account and we were actually going to take it out of our truck fund and then reimburse the truck fund. COUNCILMAN BOOR- Yea, that's what I thought we were going to do too. A matter of fact, we said we were going to put it in for your next budget; you would have a hundred and twenty something. MR. DUPUIS-Correct, but you've got to understand my concern; I'm really concerned about taking money out of a truck fund especially when we're going to be purchasing a truck in the near future. COUNCILMAN BOOR-My only concern is, when we left that meeting, everybody felt good about it and I didn't hear this concern that I'm hearing tonight and I thought it was resolved and satisfactory that the twenty-five thousand would be added to what you would be getting. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We said that night at that meeting we didn't know what the balance was in that particular account, we said here's a way we can do it and everybody left that meeting comfortable with the way we were doing it, nobody had a problem with it until right now. MR. DUPUIS-There was a large concern when it was brought back to the company. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But it was never brought back to us. MR. DUPUIS-It was brought back to Dennis, a phone call was made to Dennis on Thursday when I got the final figures that there was still a hundred and fifty-seven thousand in that account... I believe the resolution is dated for the 218t; do we still have time to amend that? I would like that amended to come out of the unrestricted fund? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, you're assuming there is money in the unrestricted fund. MR. DUPUIS-I'm pretty sure that there is. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And I'm not aware of that. MR. DUPUIS-These figures came from the Comptroller's Office. Let's do this, with the assumption that there is money in the unsecured fund, that the monies for the repair of the 1989 Tower Truck be drawn out of that account versus taking it out of our truck fund. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Why not take it out of your repair funds that you already have in your existing budget? MR. DUPUIS-Not sure of that figure. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think it was sixty-three five. MR. DUPUIS-At the beginning of the year. I'm sure it's not the same as it was in the beginning of the year. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 309 SUPERVISOR BROWER-Twenty-five thousand is a portion of that, that's what its for. If you have the money why don't you take the money instead of taking it out of your truck fund? MR. DUPUIS-When we deplete that fund do you want me coming back saying I have equipment to repair? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Wouldn't that make sense that you would use your repair funds for repairs? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Isn't it based on history what you spend on repairs in a typical year? MR. DUPUIS-Correct. I understand what your saying. I agree a hundred percent that hasn't always been what's happened in the past. If there is a surplus of a hundred and fifty seven thousand dollars into that emergency service, which only be used for emergency service dictated by the State of New York what else are you going to use it for. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't want to characterize that without reading what it was. I think I would want to look at the whole picture of everything before I make a decision. MR. DUPUIS-Requested if there is surplus money left in the unsecured fund for emergency service that the twenty-five thousand dollars that Queensbury Central is looking for, for repairs to the Tower Truck come out of that fund. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't have a problem with that. We would also let you know in advance that were not going to bump up your truck fund twenty-five thousand like we said we were going to do previously. MR. DUPUIS-Wouldn't expect you to. Asked the board to look into why they collect the tax under EMS than collect under Fire then it falls into the General Account would like an answer to this. JOHN CARPENTER, CHIEF OF WEST GLENS FALLS FIRE COMPANY, T AXP A YER IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY-Spoke to the board regarding budget line items noting they do not put any extra into the line items than needed noting wanted to show his support. If anyone has any questions you are more than welcomed at any Firehouse. DOUG IRISH, SPEAKING AS QUEENSBURY RECREATION COMMISSION CHAlRMAN- Spoke to the board regarding E-Mail received from Councilman Stec, not sure if Town Board was going to address the issue at hand. Received call from Greg Farantino on Friday stating he received a call from Supervisor Brower was left a message that the contract we had signed was illegal and void. Received memo from Recreation Director, Harry Hansen addressed to the Town Board and himself Noted one of the concerns he has when he picked up the contract from the Attorney's Office noting Attorney Hafner did advise him that the Purchasing Policy recommended the Town Supervisor sign the contract and he recommended that the Town Supervisor sign the contract. My comment to him was that was it legal as a Recreation Commission Chairman for me to sign the contract since it was the Recreation Commission that was authorized to deal with Mr. Farantino? Bob said, yes it's under State Law, I think Local Law as well, part of the resolution that establishes the Recreation Commission that we have that authority. I don't think it's a Town Board issue as much as it is the Town Comptroller's issue with trying to exercise his authority over all departments, commissions, and all things... in the Town of Queensbury that really raised the issue here. I could have certainly taken Bob advice and let the contract go out to Greg Farantino and then back to the Supervisor and have the Supervisor sign it. As, Dennis pointed out correctly a couple of weeks ago at one point in time I recommended that the Recreation Commission be dissolved because they did not exercise their statutory authority as it was given to them under the law. We had a discussion under our board at that point noting Councilman Turner was part of that discussion and the Recreation Commission step up and starting taking on more responsibility than they had in the past. We the board now its our focus to exercise our statutory authority under this. Asked the board to address the issue of the Comptroller trying to substitute his personnel opinion for legal opinion. Noted the Town Attorney has addressed the issue a couple of different times with respect to what the authority of the Recreation Commission is always contradictory to what the Town Comptroller assumes that the authority of the Recreation Commission is. Presented board members with a copy of the Rules and Guidelines that was adopted by the Recreation Commission. Thinks in Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 310 order for them to operate in a manner that is consistent with the Rules and Guidelines and Bylaws the Town Board needs to address the situation that has been created between the Comptroller and his view. COUNCILMAN STEC-Questioned where the contract stands right now? MR. IRISH-With respect to the consultant spoke to him on Friday and told him if he was uncomfortable with meeting with us until this issue was resolved we understood that. He has indicated that he is willing to come up and work for us for free until it's resolved. Spoke with Attorney Hafner prior to meeting and he said that the contract itself is legal as far as being signed by the Recreation Commission Chairman noting it is a matter of how the board wants to dispose of this situation. ATTORNEY HAFNER-Was contacted by Councilman Stec prior to meeting to draft a resolution. I asked the Town Board before reading it in and Supervisor Brower directed me to read it in for discussion. There was a lot of discussion regarding it at that meeting. Thanked Mr. Irish for pointing out that he strongly recommended that Supervisor Brower sign it. Read resolution into the record. COUNCILMAN STEC-Asked for the date of the meeting. ATTORNEY HAFNER-May 19th. COUNCILMAN STEC-Asked for the vote. ATTORNEY HAFNER-Five to zero. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Asked Mr. Irish ifhe was elected? MR IRISH-Signed an Oath of Office. SUPERVISOR BROWER-By the constituents of Queens bury? MR. IRISH-No. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Were you appointed by the Town Board? MR. IRISH-Yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-To the Recreation Commission. Were you appointed as Chairman? MR. IRISH-I was elected as Chairman. SUPERVISOR BROWER-By whom? MR. IRISH-The Commission Members as required in State Law. SUPERVISOR BROWER- You do acknowledge you are not an Elected Official? MR. IRISH-CertainIy. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And you also acknowledge your not the Chief Executive Officer of the Town or the Comptroller? MR. IRISH-Correct. SUPERVISOR BROWER-My contention is that contracts have a process and a procedure that although the legal threshold you may have met may be accurate the Town's Purchasing Policy and its past practices have been much different than what's your contending this evening. Doesn't see why the Town should ever change its policies where a member of the Recreation Commission be it Chairman, or anyone else be able to sign contracts. Thinks the purchasing practices have been in affect for this Town for years should remain in affect. Thinks it would a mistake to have the Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 311 Recreation Commission Chairman signing contracts or particularly vouchers without the Supervisors specific approval. If the Board choose to change purchasing practices and policies and enable such an action to occur that would totally be legal and consistent with what your saying, however, I think there is a tremendous danger in that. It's not you as Chairman it could be anybody acting on behalf of the Town for contractual matters I think is dangerous. MR. IRISH- You are assuming that your purchasing policy is not contrary to State Law. State Law gives us the authority to enter into contracts. Once you approve the money State Law gives the Recreation Commission the authority to enter into contracts. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It may give you the authority, but I still think the purchasing practices of our Town and policy require the Supervisor to enter into contracts or a Manager of the Town. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Noted they are going to be talking about this thinks it should be done when Mr. Hess can be present. We acted against our Attorney's advice without a contract in front of us and without the Comptroller this is not a good way to run government. Noted his concern they are losing focus on what this is about this is a Recreation Center if we turn this into a political fiasco we sacrifice the very thing we're trying to do. COUNCILMAN STEC-Encouraged everyone to work together. MR. IRISH-Thinks that the Town Board, and the Recreation Commission, and Attorney should get together with the Comptroller to iron out those issues. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Has the consultant done any work on behalf of the Recreation Commission at this point? MR. IRISH-No. Will be meeting with us Friday to set up a schedule of meeting to start the planning process. ACCOUNT ANT, JENNIFER SWITZER-There is an issue with contract, but beyond that noting she is present on Comptroller Hess behalf if there are vouchers or purchase orders at this point the Town Comptroller is not going to validate those, which means they are not going to be paid. You need to have another contract signed by the Town Supervisor that's what you have to determine tonight, which direction you are going to take. You need to have another contract signed by the Town Supervisor or you need to change the Town's Purchasing Policy noting this is Mr. Hess's opinion. Does the Town's Purchasing Policy supercede what the State Law is? Does the Recreation Commission have to be given that ability within the Town's Purchasing Policy? Yes, they have it on the State level, but locally do they not have to be given that capability as well? ATTORNEY HAFNER-Noted he doesn't really understand Mr. Hess's Purchasing Policy argument. Reads the Purchasing Policy this is how we purchase things. We have a Town Board resolution that authorizes the purchase of these things. It has been already authorized we are past how the process that we follow to purchase things. We have now purchased it with a five to zero vote and its now to the mechanics of is he fulfilling the contract, is the Town going to fulfill its contractual obligations. COUNCILMAN STEC-Currently unless the board tries to rescind it we have an approved resolution that authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign this contract. MR. IRISH-Authorizes the Recreation Commission. ACCOUNTANT, MRS. SWITZER-The resolution says engage. Again, to me that's up to interpretation. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Thinks in the future when dealing with resolutions dealing with the Recreation Commission would like to have the Commissioners name there with the Comptroller, and Supervisor. ATTORNEY HAFNER-Noted he doesn't think anyone of us envisioned anything other than the Supervisor signing. I have never in all the years I've represented Towns never run into this situation before. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 312 SUPERVISOR BROWER-I would like to make a motion that we rescind the former resolution and start over again. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Why can't we rescind the resolution as its written now and introduce a different resolution basically the same with the signature applied as Supervisor of the Town and the Chairman of the Recreation Commission sign the contract? SUPERVISOR BROWER- You are basically seconding my motion. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Effectively when you do that you are going to start the process all over agaIn. COUNCILMAN STEC- The last resolve gives us the solution to the question. It authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and or Comptroller to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the term. If our intent is to enter into this contract and if we're upset as to who signed it the last resolve says that the Supervisor or the Comptroller can take whatever action is necessary to effectuate it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted his concern that they should of required an RFP. We should have required a statement of qualifications that the Recreation Commission interview people. We never gave anybody the ability to bid on the RFP, we went by your word that this Firm would do the best job for us for nineteen thousand plus dollars. When I voted for that I made a mistake. I think the Recreation Commission may have made a mistake by not following that process that might have provided us with more competent consultation. My motion still stands the second is here if the board agrees we can either attempt to pass another resolution or go back to square one and have this thing done the way it probably should have been in the first place not from a resolution from the floor in Open Forum. MR. IRISH-If you rescind this resolution you would have to go for a Permissive Referendum. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thinks it's the wise thing to do. ATTORNEY HAFNER-If you rescind the contract you give GDF notice they are only entitled to be paid for what they've done or cost that they've incurred up to the date you give notice. SUPERVISOR BROWER-If this is an important project to the Recreation Commission and the Town and I think you've clearly told me it is I don't think rushing this project to referendum without the best consultant you can have is a wise move. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Asked for clarification of motion. COUNCILMAN STEC-Do we vote on this now or at end of the meeting. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would like to table my motion so that we could have it written up properly for our next Regular Board Meeting. Asked the Recreation Commission to do no further action with this consultant that's another option. That not being acceptable to the board we could have a resolution to nullify the previous resolution. COUNCILMAN BREWER- You don't have to table your motion you could just withdraw it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't want to withdraw it at this point. I think we would be better off just rescinding the resolution and then coming back at our next regular meeting with a proper resolution that we've had time to deliberate on. MR. IRISH-Is they're a reason the Supervisor can't just sign the contract since that's the issue with Mr. Hess. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I brought up other reasons why I wish I had not voted in favor of that contract. I think those are more important to me than the signature. I think the signature is basic Town Purchasing Policy and Procedure feels strongly about this. My motion stands and the second stands? Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 313 COUNCILMAN TURNER-Recommended working this out at a meeting. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Asked Mr. Irish to cancel meeting for Friday morning with the consultant. We can meet with the Recreation Commission Monday night, the Town Attorney, and Comptroller. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We will have more discussion at the Workshop. JOHN STROUGH, 7 WOODCREST DRIVE, QUEENSBURY-Speaking as an Open Space Committee Member. Noted it has been two years since they sent out RFP's noting it has come to an Open Space Visionary Statement. Thanked Senior Planner, Marilyn Ryba and Chairwoman, Barbara Sweet for providing the direction and energy to get to this point. Thinks the plan provides a strategic vision for identifying and prompting what is important to this Town visually, aesthetically, historically, as well as providing a little thought process for what amenities the community may find desirable, sees this as sensible development. Thinks it provides some kind of guidance for the Planning Board. Thanked Chris Round and Town Board members for their support on the Resolution for Open Space. MRS. BETTY MONAHAN-Spoke to the board noting back in the days before everyone depended on computers every Town Board Member when sworn into office received a two-volume copy of the Laws of the State of New York as they applied to Town Government. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Noted they still have them. MRS. MONAHAN-Recommended to Board Members to read the powers that the State has given to Recreation Commissions. MR. KEVIN MONAHAN-1263 Patterson Hill Road, Salem, NY-Spoke to the board regarding the Open Space Vision. Referred to Page 16, Other Natural Areas. It says, these individual sites should be explored and evaluated as part of a more detailed phase of this Open Space initiative in 2003, asked for clarification of this? Questioned if it means that people will be able to come on other people's property and inventory what is there? COUNCILMAN BREWER-No. We are not advocating that at all. MR. MONAHAN-Questioned if they can put in there that prior notice will be given to any landowners before there land is inspected? ATTORNEY HAFNER-We always recommend before going on anyone's property that. . .. MR. MONAHAN-They have been all over my property and no one has never asked. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Not authorized by the Town. MR. MONAHAN-Referred to Page 25. It says the general public has voiced strong support for preservation for the French Mountain area containing over fifty-four hundred acres. Noted he has been present at most of the public hearings and didn't hear a lot about French Mountain specifically, would like to know where the paragraph came from? This is a new paragraph since I've read it. COUNCILMAN BOOR- You know it's been dropped, right? MR. MONAHAN-I know, but why is it still in here? Has spoken to an Attorney regarding his property noting the Town Zoning supercedes the AP A requirements. He said that basically my property I can do nothing with it. Noted under the AP A guidelines he can build one twelve by twenty-four every ten acres. Under the Town of Queensbury's he can do basically nothing with it. Asked what further restrictions does the Town want to do? COUNCILMAN BOOR-French Mountain has been taken out of the Open Space. MR. MONAHAN-Why is the paragraph in here? Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 314 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MR. ROUND-The document was developed over two years with numerous out reach efforts. We tried to be responsive to Mr. Monahan's objections to identify any trail systems on French Mountain. Noted he is not sure he can satisfy Mr. Monahan tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Its been preserved it's not going to be used. CATHERINE LABOMBARD, OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE MEMBER-When spoke to you at the end of the public comment meeting took every one of your comments very seriously to heart. Went back to that meeting very upset over the fact that I was mislead to believe that there was public access to that mountain. We changed it as fast as we could to make sure that it was not delineated on the map that could give the public the impression that they could have accessibility to that land. What we wanted to do thinks this is where these few sentences are coming from we're proud to have that mountain in our Town. It's beautiful land, it's a commodity, it's there, and it's never going to be hurt or ruined that's why these few sentences were put there. They are not implying anything there is no word that says development in there it just says preservation. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-I don't know how we're going to answer many of your questions. MR. MONAHAN-Recommended not adopting this until his questions has been answered. MRS. LABOMBARD-These are visions it doesn't necessarily mean it is going to take place. MARILYN RYBA, SENIOR PLANNER-Spoke to the board regarding the Open Space Plan noting Staff wasn't given the opportunity to speak at the last public hearing. Spoke regarding the matter of trespassing on someone's land. This stems from one of the Open Space Committee Members had asked if he could bring some photos the rest of the Committee thought it was great, we said fine. No one ever dreamed that a member of the Committee would go onto somebody else's property. It wasn't authorized by anyone it's just something that happened by a singular person. Two. This is a vision it's supposed to be a policy direction to move forward. French Mountain is really an area that everyone in the community has signified as being important that's what this vision is about. These are areas that are important to the majority of the public. We've had hundreds of people participate in this process who have said this area is important to us. Thinks we have to go back to the premise of a willing buyer, willing seller basis that is something that this entire plan is premised on. What happens from this point is something else that you'll see in this plan that there are incentives that we would like to provide that this Committee would like to provide for preservation. If somebody doesn't want to be a part of that fine. If somebody doesn't want to look at having a tax abatement for their property or some other manner for preservation to help pay for keeping it open rather than development fine. This is not something that is going to be forced upon anyone. Any project that comes out of this certainly will have additional direction and probably additional public hearings. In terms of any kind of trail system it was a vision it was put down as a potential trail. Once again, nobody ever said that anyone could go on anyone else's property. To specifically address Mr. Monahan's concerns that trail was taken off the map as well as having that area as a potential nature preserve. In terms of the additional language, there was an Open Space Plan Committee Meeting where changes were made. The Committee felt strongly that because many people in the public had discussed this area as important to the Town that there should be some reference made to the fact that the plan is not going to ignore French Mountain. In terms of scenic values I have worked in other communities where there have been scenic assessments it's a good record if nothing else. Two, you can do it quite simply from many vantage points along public roads, never have I ever walked onto somebody else's property without their permission. I think I've addressed all the concerns appreciate being able to get this out in the open. JOHN SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding tax abatements and incentives. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Read the following memo into the record. To: Supervisor Brower, Councilman Boor, Councilman Turner, Councilman Stec, Councilman Brewer, Harry Hansen, Director of Parks & Recreation, Dough Irish, Recreation Commission From: Henry Hess Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 315 Date: June 30,2003 Re: Agreement Between Town of Queensbury & GDF Management Associates By Resolution 267,2003 adopted May 19,2003 the Town Board approved the engagement ofGDF Management Associates to perform work related to a new recreation facility proposed by the Recreation Commission. In accordance with longstanding procedures and the Town's current Purchasing Policy, the resolution authorized and directed the Town Supervisor and/or Comptroller to effectuate the terms of the Resolution. I received a copy of the executed contract today, which has been signed on behalf of the Town by Doug Irish. The Town's Purchasing Policy does not suggest transactional authority that extends beyond the elected Supervisor and employed Department Managers. Additionally, Town procedures have not historically recognized transactional authority beyond Department Managers and, for incidental purchases, members of their employed staffs. And, perhaps most importantly, Resolution 267, 2003 specifies that the authority to execute the GDF contract lies with the Town Supervisor. During discussions with Bob Hafner, he cited state laws that define the responsibilities of a Recreation Commission, and state agency opinions that deal with a specific Commission's authority to act independently. Here in Queensbury, however, it has never been recognized that the Recreation Commission - or any unit of Town Government - has the authority to conduct transactions independently from Purchasing Policies adopted by the Town Board. The Town Comptroller is not going to unilaterally recognize new levels of transactional authority, nor diminish the authority and accountability of the elected Town Supervisor and employed Department Managers. I do not recommend that the Town Board grant transactional or administrative exemptions to any department, governmental unit, or commission, nor that authority be granted to non-employed commission members. Approval of contracts, purchases, bidding, vendor selection, pricing, and vouchers should be uniform throughout the Town. Likewise, I recommend that the authorities granted by the Purchasing Policy- and all other polices- should be vested solely with the elected Supervisor and employed Department Managers whose job descriptions define their responsibilities, obligations, and status as public officials. In the case of the Parks and Recreation Department, the Director is empowered to conduct the Commission's business, as is the Town Supervisor. Despite my objections, the Town Board may be inclined to amend its Purchasing Policy to grant transactional authority to non-elected, non-employed commission members. If it elects to do so, that authority should be conveyed by formal Resolution amending the current Purchasing Policy. Lacking that action, all transaction including the contract with GDF-should be executed and approved by the Department Manager or the Town Supervisor. Accordingly, until the contract with GDF is signed by the Supervisor- as specified by Resolution 267,2003 or until Purchasing Policy revisions are drafted and refined by staff, recommended to and adopted by the Town Board, we will continue to honor only the historic authority of Department Managers and the Town Supervisor to execute contracts, initiate purchase transactions, and approve payment vouchers. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION APPROVING YEAR 2002 SERVICE AWARD PROGRAM RECORDS FOR WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 311,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 316 WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously authorized engagement ofPENFLEX, Inc., to provide the 2002 Standard Year End Administration Services for the Town's Volunteer Fire Companies Service Award Program, and WHEREAS, as part of the Service Award Program, it is necessary that the Town Board approve each Fire Company's Year 2002 Service Award Program Records, and WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor's Office has received and reviewed the records from the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. and found them to be complete, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to approve these records, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the 2002 Volunteer Fire Company Service Award Program Records for the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Comptroller to take all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING INCURRENCE OF DEBT BY WEST GLENS FALLS VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. FOR RE-ROOFING OF ITS FIRE STATION RESOLUTION NO.: 312,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) have entered into an Agreement for fire protection services, which Agreement Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 317 sets forth a number of terms and conditions including a condition that the Fire Company will not purchase or enter into any binding contract to purchase any piece of apparatus, equipment, vehicles, real property, or make any improvements that would require the Fire Company to acquire a loan or mortgage or use money placed in a "vehicles fund" without prior approval of the Queensbury Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company has informed the Town Board that it is necessary for the Fire Station to re-roof its Fire Station and the Fire Company, after requesting bids from various contractors, wishes to procure Town Board approval for the Fire Company's engagement of the services of Monahan & Loughlin for such re-roofing project for an amount not to exceed $85,777, and WHEREAS, the Fire Company wishes to pay for such re-roofing by incurring debt in an amount not to exceed $85,777 for a period not to exceed five (5) years, such debt service to be paid from the Fire Company's operating budget, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize the Fire Company's proposed re-roofing project and debt incurrence, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.' s engagement of the services of Monahan & Loughlin to re-roof the West Glens Falls Fire Station for an amount not to exceed $85,777 with the understanding that the Fire Company will incur a 60 month installment debt for this project with all payments to be made from the Fire Company's Operating Budget as amended by Town Board Resolution No.: 283,2003, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Comptroller's Office to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, PART II - OPEN SPACE VISION AND MAP FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY IMPACT ON LAND Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 318 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 10%. Construction on land where the depth to the water table IS less than 3 feet. construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more then 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. 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: 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. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 319 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 of20,000 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 1 ton of refuse per hour. Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 Ibs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 320 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. IMPACT 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: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. 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. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 321 Other impacts: IMPACT 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: IMPACT 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: IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel 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. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 322 Proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? NO Examples that would apply Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Proposed action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Proposed action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 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: IMPACT 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. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 323 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 The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION ADOPTING OPEN SPACE VISION AND MAP FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 313,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board is considering adoption of the Open Space Vision Plan and Map for the Town of Queensbury (Plan) presented at this meeting, which Plan presents recommendations to guide land use in the Town of Queensbury for the next five to ten years, and WHEREAS, the Plan was prepared by the Open Space Plan Committee with the assistance of the Town of Queensbury Community Development staff; the planning consultant team of Behan Planning Associates, LLC, The Chazen Companies, and Michael Batcher, AICP; input from citizens and elected officials; and various information sources were also utilized, including published materials, interviews and reports generated by local organizations, and WHEREAS, the Open Space Plan Committee has held a number of citizen participation sessions concerning the Plan, as documented in the Plan, and a public hearing March 24,2003, and WHEREAS the Queensbury Town Board conducted a public hearing jointly with the Town Planning Board and Open Space Plan Committee on May 6,2003, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Board Resolution No.: 180,2003, the Plan was forwarded to the Adirondack Park Agency (APA), Warren County Department of Planning and City of Glens Falls for comment and no negative comments were received, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board, as SEQRA Lead Agency, has reviewed a long Environmental Assessment Form to analyze potential environmental impacts of the Plan, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 324 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby determines that adoption of the Open Space Vision Plan and Map for the Town of Queensbury will not have any significant environmental impact and a SEQRA Negative Declaration is made, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby adopts the Open Space Vision Plan and Map for the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development to send copies of this Resolution and Plan to the Warren County Planning Board, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury Planning Board and any agency involved for SEQRA purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this Plan shall take effect upon filing in the Town Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AFFIRMING CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVISIONS FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY SMALL CITIES HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT # 962HR8201 RESOLUTION NO.: 314,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 154,2001 the Queensbury Town Board authorized submission of an application for New York State Small Cities Program Community Development Block Grant funds through the New York State Governor's Office for Small Cities, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 325 WHEREAS, the grant application was submitted and the New York State Governor's Office for Small Cities awarded a $400,000 grant to the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town has received a fully executed Grant Agreement from New York State concerning the awarded grant funds, and WHEREAS, the Grant Agreement from New York State concerning the awarded grant funds and such Agreement is in form acceptable to Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 395,2001 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the Town Supervisor to execute the Grant Agreement, establish a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Special Grant Fund and set appropriations and estimated revenues for the grant award, and WHEREAS, the Grant Agreement includes reference to Conflict of Interest provisions specific to the State administered CDBG non-entitlement funds, and WHEREAS, the Town Queensbury has a Code of Ethics and Ethics Board, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury confirms that it shall follow the above policy, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Ethics Board shall be asked to review situations consistent with the Conflict of Interest provisions specific to the State administered CDBG non- entitlement funds if and when a Town employee is income eligible for and desires to participate in the Town of Queensbury Small Cities Housing Improvement Program, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that in such situations described above where the Town of Queensbury Ethics Board determines that there is no local conflict consistent with the Conflict of Interest provisions specific to the State administered CDBG non-entitlement funds, with special attention to factors to be considered for exceptions, a recommendation may be made by the Town of Queensbury Ethics Board to ask the State for a waiver upon such determination, and subsequent report to the Town Board. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 326 NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING GRANT AWARD FOR CASE FILE #4304 IN CONNECTION WITH WARD 4 REHABILITATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 315,2003 AMENDED BY RES. 331, 2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has established a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides grants to cover 100% of the cost of rehabilitation up to a maximum of $20,000, and WHEREAS, a single family property, Case File No.: 4304, has been determined to be eligible for rehabilitation grant assistance and the owner of the property has requested such assistance, and WHEREAS, property rehabilitation specifications have been provided to five (5) qualified contractors for bid, and WHEREAS, the low bid cost to complete the work specified is fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety dollars ($14,990), and WHEREAS, Shelter Planning & Development, Inc. has overseen the grant process and has verified that it has been followed in this case and recommends approving this grant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves a grant for Case File No.: 4304 in the Town of Queensbury, New York in the amount not to exceed fourteen thousand nine hundred ninety dollars ($14,990) and authorizes and directs either the Town Supervisor or Town Senior Planner to execute a Grant Award Agreement and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT None Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 327 RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON BARBARA & CHARLES INGRAHAM'S APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERMIT TO LOCATE MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME COURT RESOLUTION NO.: 316,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, in accordance with Queensbury Town Code 9113-12, the Queensbury Town Board is authorized to issue permits for mobile homes to be located outside of mobile home courts under certain circumstances, and WHEREAS, Barbara & Charles Ingraham have filed an application for a "Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit to replace their mobile home with a new model mobile home on property located at 29 Sunset Avenue, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to conduct a public hearing regarding this permit application, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall hold a public hearing on July 21 S\ 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Barbara and Charles Ingraham's application for a "Mobile Home Outside of a Mobile Home Court" Revocable Permit on property situated at 29 Sunset Avenue, Queensbury and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to publish and post a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing as required by law. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF CUSACK & COMPANY, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS TO CONSULT ON Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 328 IMPLEMENTATION OF GASB STATEMENT NO. 34 "BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS" RESOLUTION NO.: 317,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, in 1999 members of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) approved the issuance ofGASB No. 34, "Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysis for Local Governments" which sets forth changes in how state and local governments report their finances to the public, and WHEREAS, the Town Comptroller and Accountant have recommended that the Town Board authorize engagement of Cusack & Company, CPA's (Cusack) to provide consultation services to the Town concerning implementation of GASB Statement 34, and WHEREAS, Cusack has offered to provide these services at a cost of $150 per hour, with the total cost not to exceed $5,000, as more specifically set forth in Cusack's letter dated June 4th, 2003 and presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of the services of Cusack & Company, CPA's to consult on the implementation of GASB No. 34, "Basic Financial Statements and Management's Discussion and Analysis for Local Governments" for an amount of $150 per hour, with the total cost not to exceed $5,000, as more specifically set forth in Cusack's letter dated June 4th, 2003 and presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that payment for these servIces shall be paid for from Consultant Fees Account No.: 001-1315-4720, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take all action needed to transfer $1,000 from Computer Software Account No.: 001- 1315-2032 to Consultant Fees Account No.: 001-1315-4720 and amend the 2003 Town Budget accordingly, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 329 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Town Comptroller to sign any documentation and take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2003 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 318,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor 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 2003 Town Budget as follows: COURT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1110-2010 (Office Equipment) 01-1110-4791 (Equip. Mntnc. Contract) 380. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1680-2031 (Computer Hardware) 01-1680-4400 (Misc. Contractual) 500. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: None Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 330 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF CoTo MALE ASSOCIATES, PoCo FOR ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFORMING DRAFT KARNER BLUE BUTTERFL Y MANAGEMENT PLAN INTO DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (GElS) RESOLUTION NO.: 319,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 164,2003, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of c.T. Male Associates, P.c. (C.T. Male) for development of a Karner Blue Butterfly Management Plan (Plan) to ensure Town compliance with the applicable provisions of the Endangered Species Act as amended in 1973, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development has advised the Town Board that c.T. Male has completed the work authorized by Town Board Resolution No.: 164,2003 by providing the Town with a Draft Plan and now it is necessary to again engage the services of c.T. Male to transfer the draft Plan into a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS), and WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development has recommended that the Town Board engage the additional services of c.T. Male for an amount not to exceed $24,850 as delineated in C.T. Male's Proposal dated May 30th, 2003 and presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the engagement of c.T. Male Associates, P.c., for additional work in transforming the draft Karner Blue Butterfly Management Plan into a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) as delineated in c.T. Male's Proposal dated May 30th, 2003 and presented at this meeting for an amount not to exceed $24,850, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs that payment for these services in an amount not to exceed $24,850 shall be paid for through the transfer of funds from Account No.: 001-1990-4400 to Consultant Fees Account No.: 01-8020-4720, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 331 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town's Executive Director of Community Development, Town Comptroller 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 ih day of July, 2003 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED AT PINE VIEW CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM RESOLUTION NO.: 320,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Cemetery Commission has reviewed the fees presently being charged by the Town of Queensbury Pine View Cemetery and Crematorium for various services including lot purchases, cremation and refrigeration rental services and has recommended revisions to these fees, and WHEREAS, the Cemetery Commission has requested Town Board approval for the fee revisions, and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed new fee schedule has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves the new fee schedule for services provided at the Town of Queensbury Pine View Cemetery and Crematorium as delineated in the new fee schedule presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the new fees shall take effect as of August 18t, 2003, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 332 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Cemetery Superintendent to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the new fee schedule and all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF EDWARD V. CURTIN, CONSUL TING ARCHAEOLOGIST TO PREPARE PHASE 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY INVESTIGATION FOR ROUTE 9 SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 321,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 301.2002, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist, to perform a Phase l/Phase 1B Archaeological Survey in connection with the creation of the Route 9 Sewer District, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 355,2002, the Town Board authorized engagement of Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist, to perform a Phase 2 Archaeological Survey, and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 215,2003, the Town Board again authorized engagement of Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist, to perform a Phase 2 Archaeological Survey due to a change in the Route 9 sewer alignment, and WHEREAS, the Town's Deputy Wastewater Director has advised that a Phase 3 Archaeological Data Recovery Investigation is now necessary and has recommended that the Town Board engage the services of Mr. Curtin for an amount not to exceed $41,500 as delineated in Mr. Curtin's proposal presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the engagement of Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist, to prepare a Phase 3 Archaeological Data Recovery Investigation for the Route 9 Sewer District in accordance with the proposal presented at this meeting, for an amount not to exceed $41,500 to be paid for from Capital Project Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 333 Fund #136 - Route 9 Sewer District Account, 136-8150-4400 (Misc. Contractual) via a transfer from 136-1990-4417 (Contingent Account), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Wastewater Director, Deputy Wastewater Director, Comptroller 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 ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURSUIT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FROM KILBY BROTHERS, INC. IN CONNECTION WITH TIME DELAYS IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH QUEENSBURY - QUEENSBURY A VENUE SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 322,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 314.2002 the Queensbury Town Board authorized acceptance and award of the bid for the pump station and force main construction in connection with the construction of the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District (Project) from the lowest responsible bidder, Kilby Brothers, Inc., as delineated in Kilby Brothers, Inc.' s Bid Form dated July 19,2002, and WHEREAS, an Agreement dated October 8th, 2002 between the Town of Queensbury and Kilby Brothers, Inc., was executed in connection with the Project, such Agreement including Section 3.2 entitled "Liquidated Damages" which sets forth financial penalties to be paid by Kilby Brothers, Inc., to the Town in the event that Kilby Brother's Inc., does not meet the Project's substantial completion and completion dates, and WHEREAS, the substantial completion date for the Project was extended to on or before June 2ih, 2003 and the final completion date on or before July 25th, 2003, as authorized by a time extension Change Order agreed to by the Town and Kilby Brothers, Inc., as delineated in Jarrett- Martin Engineers, PLLC's June 16th, 2003 letter to Kilby Brothers, Inc., presented at this meeting, and Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 334 WHEREAS, Kilby Brothers, Inc., did not substantially complete the project by June 2ih, 2003 and the Town did not agree to any further time extensions and therefore the liquidated damages for the Project delay in the amount of one-hundred dollars ($100) for each day after June 2ih, 2003 will be due and owing by Kilby Brothers, Inc., to the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby states its intention not to grant any time extensions to Kilby Brothers, Inc., in connection with the substantial completion and completion of the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District construction project, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that as a result of Kilby Brothers, Inc., not substantially completing the construction project by June 2ih, 2003 as agreed to between Kilby Brothers, Inc., and the Town of Queensbury, the Town Board hereby states that liquidated damages in the amount of one-hundred dollars ($100) per day shall be due and owing to the Town by Kilby Brothers, Inc., as set forth in Section 3.2 of the fully-executed Agreement dated October 8th, 2002 between the Town of Queensbury and Kilby Brothers, Inc., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that should Kilby Brothers, Inc., not complete the project by the agreed to completion date of July 25th, 2003, then the liquidated damages set forth in the Agreement in the amount of two-hundred dollars ($200) per day after that date will be due and owing to the Town by Kilby Brothers, Inc., and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director, Deputy Wastewater Director and/or Town Counsel to take any and all action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 88,2003 REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 335 ASSESSMENT CASES COMMENCED BY GEORGE GOETZ AND JOHN GOETZ D/B/A RAY SUPPLY RESOLUTION NO.: 323,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 88,2003 the Queensbury Town Board authorized the settlement of pending Article 7 cases against the Town of Queensbury by George Goetz and John Goetz (d/b/a Ray Supply) concerning the Ray Supply property (tax map no.: 296.17-1-35) for the 2000/01,2001/02 and 2002/03 tax years, and WHEREAS, Town Counsel has advised that there were two typographical errors in the Court Petition and therefore, the settlement figures set forth in Resolution No.: 88,2003 were in error, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has reviewed the proposed revisions in settlement figures and recommends them to the Town Board, and Town Counsel has discussed the revised figures with the Town Assessor and also recommends the revised settlement proposal to the Town Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has reviewed the cases with Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, counsel for the Queensbury Union Free School District has advised that the School District has approved the proposed revised settlement figures, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to therefore amend Resolution No. 88,2003 accordingly, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 88,2003 and approves the settlement of the pending Article 7 cases against the Town of Queensbury by George Goetz and John Goetz (d/b/a Ray Supply) concerning the Ray Supply property (tax map no.: 296.17-1-35) for the 2000/01,2001/02 and 2002/03 tax years in accordance with the following revised settlement/assessment values: Tax Year: Current Assessment Revised Assessment 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 $452,300 462,400 462,400 $410,000 410,000 410,000 Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 336 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 88,2003 in all other respects. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF THOMAS MC NALLY TO WORK FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOLUTION NO. : 324,2003 INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation has requested Town Board authorization to hire Thomas McNally to work part-time for the Department as a seasonal Recreation Leader, and WHEREAS, Town Policy requires that familial relationships must be disclosed and that the Town Board must approve the appointment of Town employees' relatives and Thomas McNally is the son of Robert McNally, Town Justice, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Thomas McNally to work for the Town's Department of Parks and Recreation as a part-time, seasonal Recreation Leader effective July 8th, 2003, to be paid at the appropriate hourly wage approved for seasonal recreation positions, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Director of Parks and Recreation, Town Supervisor and/or Town Comptroller to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 337 Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF GRINDER PUMP EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT BACK TO W ALTER DOMBEK RESOLUTION NO.: 325,2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, in 1990 the Town of Queensbury, on behalf of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, entered into a Grinder Pump Easement and Agreement with Walter Dombek concerning property located off Quaker Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.20-1- 2), and WHEREAS, the Deputy Director of Wastewater has advised that the parcel is currently vacant, there are no grinder pumps on the property, there are no plans to construct a pump on the parcel and therefore the Grinder Pump Easement and Agreement is no longer needed, and WHEREAS, since the Grinder Pump Easement and Agreement was received for purposes no longer needed for the Sewer District, the Town of Queensbury may release such interests in real property for this specific purpose to Mr. Dombek, or to the current owner of such property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves and authorizes the release and revocation of the Grinder Pump Easement and Agreement with Walter Dombek concerning property located off Quaker Road in the Town of Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 296.20-1-2) dated July 24, 1990 and recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office at Liber 816 of Deeds at Page 294, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby determines that such Easement was given to the Town to be used for a specific purpose which the Town will not be using it for, and BE IT FURTHER, Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 338 RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to complete this transaction in form acceptable to Town Counsel and take such other and further actions as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BREWER-Noted Mr. Dombek is deceased. Questioned if they have to change language in resolution? ATTORNEY HAFNER-Noted third resolve clause, add, or to the current owner of such property. TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS COUNCILMAN BOOR-Asked Supervisor Brower ifTV8 is scheduled for next Workshop? SUPERVISOR BROWER- Yes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Received phone call from constituent regarding moving 5 M.P.H. buoys noting she is now against this. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted they would be going into Executive Session regarding a personnel matter. Spoke to the board noting that Ralph Van Dusen, Mike Shaw, and Henry Hess met with Mr. Schermerhorn regarding his transportation company. Mr. Schermerhorn has some alternative proposals that he would like to formulate and bring back to the Town Board at the appropriate time. Spoke to the board regarding Mrs. LaBombard's comments regarding expansion of Town Board Members and potentially changing the Ward structure in Queensbury to reflect the larger population, to have smaller Wards. Noted that on Thursday afternoon he went to Fisher's Marina, DEC placed the two buoys at the mouth of the bay. It did significantly help keep water skiers, people towing kids on rafts, out of the Bay. Spoke to the board regarding TV8. Received called from Gretchen Macy noted she thought they would be interested in making a proposal to the Town, but not at this time, hopes to find sponsors to sponsor the show to defray the cost from the Town. Spoke to another gentlemen today who was interested in broadcasting the Town Board Meetings by the Internet noting not sure how interested he is. Spoke to the board regarding the Fleet Management Committee noting they have met twice since the last board meeting interviewed Managers that wanted to replace vehicles. The Fleet Management Committee will make recommendations to the Town Board in the future prior to budget discussions. Reviewed Mr. Schermerhorn's Annual Report for the Bayberry Complex asked for a letter certified by an engineer that the work that was mentioned in his Annual Report was completed. Sending letter to the New York State Tax Department regarding the admission sales tax issue noting it's an important issue for the Town of Queensbury and for Warren County. ATTORNEY MATTERS Attorney Hafner-Asked board members if they want him to look into expanding the number of Town Board seats will wait until he hears from board. Assessment Matter regarding Niagara Mohawk property has been adjourned until the fall expected to be done before the end of this year. Asked ifhe should be present for next week Workshop noting he has a Town Board Meeting in Fort Ann could come afterwards, Supervisor Brower not necessary. Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 339 RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 326, 2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into Executive Session to discuss two personnel matters and one contract matter, one litigation matter, possible. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower Noes: None AbsentNone RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION AND TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 327, 2003 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and moves back into Regular Session, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this ih day of July, 2003, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor Noes: None AbsentNone No further action taken. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury Regular Town Board Meeting, 07-07-2003, Mtg #28 340