1989-12-18 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 18TH, 1989
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SUPERVISOR STEPHEN BORGOS
COUNCILMAN GEORGE KUROSAKA
COUNCILMAN MARILYN POTEN7A
COUNCILMAN RONAI;D MONTESI
COUNCILMAN BETTY'MONAHAN
TOWN ATTORNEY
PAUL DUSEK
DEPUTY ATTORNEY
KARLA CORPUS
TOWN OFFICIALS
Kathleen Kathe, Rick Missita, Paul Naylor, Dave Hatin
PRESS
Channel 8, WWSC, G.F.'Post Star
Supervisor Borgos-Presented Resolutions of Appreciation to Hildagarde Mann, and Daniel Griffin.
?doted that many people serve on Town Boards very few serve for as much as ten years. Both
of these have served long terms have spent many nights in this room and various other rooms
and have made many major decisions that weren't easy, but were very beneficial to all of us
and we certainly appreciate that service. We thank you again, very much.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 7089 1989Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its ado tion
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi: p
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby convenes as the Queensbury
Board of Health.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, bars. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
PUBLIC HEARING
SEWER VARIANCE AVIATION ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Hatin-What you have before you is a septic variance to place seepage pits under a parking
lot which is not allowed per the Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Ordinance. Aviation Road
Development Corporation is asking for a variance from that stipulation. It's similar to what
we did with the Bavarian Palace/Great Escape. ,
Supervisor Borgos-And many others for the town, is that correct? Do you at this point while
your right here do you have a recommendation for or against?
Mr. Hatin-They designed it with heavy covers as far as I can tell it would carry the load out
to the parking lot. Charlie Shudder, who's the engineer representing them can give you more
specifics.
Supervisor Borgos-Thank you.
Councilman Montesi-Dave, just one other question. Is the existing system the way it's designed
right now under the parking lot presently?
r
Mr. llatin-As far as 1 know, yes.
Mr. Borgos-Is there anyone else who wishes to speak or asked questions about this particular
property?
Charlie Adamson, Assembly Point-I would like to raise a question that relates to this or any
other septic variance for the Town of Rueensbury. That is, is the Board imposing as I believe
it should the very strict standards of water usage in otherwords, the standards for commodes
is not now 1.6 gallons, but soon will be, it seems to me that in the Town a§ well as around the
lake this is a principal that should be,there is no reason as far as I know not to impose it. There
are some situations where because the systems are business systems it has a limited amount
of water, but perhaps it was not advisable to put them, in that is, I think a minor exception.
I would just raise the question here and at any other hearing that I happen to be at until I find
out the answer whether the Board is aware that this is the way things are going; is aware of
the advantages of cutting down the amount of water.
Supervisor Borgos-For the last several time we've had.hearings of this nature we have made
that as a condition of approval those have been at the shore of the lake or I think even Glen
Lake. We could ask the engineer who's here if the project is planning that or would be willing
to consider that or other water conservation measures.
Mr. Scudder-Consulting Engineer, representing the applicant. I can inform the Board that
indeed when the new bathrooms are going to be put in which is not a part of this proceeding,
but there are going to be new bathrooms and they will have water saving toilets.
Councilman Monahan-We're asking that people use the 1.6 gallon rather than the 2.5 or the
3 gallon.
Mr. Scudder-Could you say that again.
Councilman Monahan-I said, we have been asking as a water conservation measure that people
use the 1.6 new bathroom seat rather than what the State, I think calls water saving at 2.5
or 3.5, I forget what the State is. We're asking that you go to the stricter standards which
probably will be State mandated within a few years from all we've read we like to get the
jump on places where we think this also might be the problem.
Mr. Scudder-If we get this approval our second stage is going to ask for Planning Board approval
from. . .which will replace the present toilets and we will meet that code.
Councilman Monahan-It's not a code it's a request that we would like to attach to this variance.
Mr. Scudder-Whatever you want to call it we will do it.
Supervisor Borgos-You've got the commitment on tape.
Attorney Dusek-Mr. Scudder, would you just on the record state why it is that there are
circumstances which necessitate the placing of the leaching facility under the pavement?
Mr. Schudder-Yes, it's space. The new requirements of the State are very stringent with respect
to leaching facilities. As Mr. Kurosaka, can attest in 1973 when he designed the system for
the Copper Kettle in soils of these types found at the site the allowable application rate was
3.2 gallons per square foot per day the corresponding application today is 1.2 that's a factor
of 2.7. Also the spacing requirements are stricter now the separation distances between castings
requires a large area and we just don't have the room so we need to put them under the parking
lot, but I might say, that's there is nothing contrary to good engineering practice about that.
Supervisor Borgos-As best I can tell from the map you have no other property, you can't go
toward the Northway and on the other side there is a road is that correct?
Mr. Scudder-That's correct.
Councilman Montesi-From the point of view of the Board granting the variance when you look
at hardship and obviously I'm looking here as what you've just said there is a road, the northway,
there is another road, the parking is confined. If you have a certain size restaurant you have
to have certain parking spaces to provide within the Zoning Laws or Ordinance. Also, I see
that your property is almost cut in half with a drainage easement that is probably part of the
interstate which has to be considered. From a practical difficulty you certainly meet all the
requirements for what it's going to take for the variance.
Supervisor Borgos-Any other Board members have questions? Anyone else wish to spepk for
or against this project or have any questions about it? Any Board questions or comments.
If not, I will declare that hearing closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:48 P.M.
RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST OF THE AVIATION ROAD DEVELOPMENT
CORP.
RESOLUTION NO. 55, 1989,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the Aviation Road Development Corp. filed a request for a variance from certain
provisions of the Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance'of the Town of Queensbury, such provisions
stating that "No component of a leaching facility shall be located under a driveway, roads,
parking areas or areas subject to heavy loading," and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was given in the official newspaper of the Town of
Queensbury and a public hearing was held in connection with the variance request on December
18, 1989, 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, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health grants the variance to the
Aviation Road Development Corp., allowing a leaching facility to be placed "under a parking
area, and finds as follows:
a. that there are special circumstances or conditions which justify allowing the placement
of the leaching facility under the parking area in that the entire area is paved and utilized
as a parking area;
b. that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variation will 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. .I
c. that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for
the reasonable use of the land and that the variance is granted as the minimum variance
which would alleviate the specifies unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health
to affect the applicant, and
d. that the Local Board of Health imposes a condition upon the applicant that he must also
secure the approval of the New York State Department of Health. The facility contain
water saving toilets of a maximum of 1.6 gallons when new restrooms are constructed.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN AS QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH
RESOLUTION NO. 56, 1989,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury
Board of Health into regular session.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
A BSENT:None
PUBLIC HEARING
�a
PROPOSED LOCAL LAW QEDC
NOTICE SHOWN
Supervisor Borgos-I'll ask our Town Attorney just to briefly tell us what this is about.
Attorney Dusek-This is a Local Law which is designed to authorize contributions to local
development corporations as a general proposition except that the Town of Queensbury only
has one at this point and that's the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation. Also
authorizing contracts with that corporation and basically allowing the corporation to do a
variety of things that are considered to be essentially governmental functions promoting
industry, advertising, starting up an industrial park basically trying to encourage industry to
move into that park and a variety of activities like that. This Local Law will grant the authority
for the Town to continue financing that corporation.
Supervisor Borgos-Anyone wish to speak for or against this? Any Board member have any
comments?
Councilman Montesi-As a member of the Queensbury Economic Development Corporation,
I guess I'm a Board member representing the Town Board on that Board, I'm delighted to see
that we have legitimatize ourselves. We had a contract through the years, but obviously it
has not met the critical standards of Audit Control and this obviously does want they want.
Attorney Dusek-Well we hope it does.
Councilman Montesi-Nothing seems to have change we're still handling it in the same manner.
Supervisor Borgos-Any further comments? If not we will close this public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:51 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING
CENTRAL QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT
NOTICE SIIOWN
Supervisor Borgos-Does anyone wish to speak for or against this project or ask any questions
about this?
Pliney Tucker-Queensbury-The question I wanted to ask was how did we miss so much by so
much?
Supervisor Borgos-It's a long story. We have an eloquent lineup of spokes people here this
evening. Mr. Kestner is probably best prepared to answer this part. I think your question is,
how did we go from a project that was suppose to cost $7,000.000.00 to a project that is going
to cost a little over nine is this your question? Mr. Kestner will you fill us in perhaps tell us
the years when this design took place when the estimates were calculated and what's happened
along the way.
Quentin Kestner-Vice President of Kestner Engineers, we are the engineering consultants on
this project. The question on the table is where were the cost overruns and what were the
specific areas where the cost of the project increased. In February of 1989, I prepared an
Amendment to Engineers Report for the Central Queensbury District. This was done both
for the Town Board and for the New York State Audit and Control. We listed eight areas we
had experiences increases in the project let me review those. Item one was the increase in
the forcemain diameter and length. In our project basically the system drains to the
Meadowbrook Road area then we must pump to the City of Glens Falls facilities. During the
formation of the district it was felt that we could tie in at the city line. During the design
phase we found that we could not do that we had to increase the distance from the intersection
or the point of intersection where the town meets the city to 2,000 feet into the city in order
to tie into a sewer main that could take our additional flow. We also increased the diameter
of that pipe line it's about 8,000 liner feet, we also increased the diameter of that from the
originally estimated 6-12 in anticipation of additional growth within the district and in outside
areas we wanted to be able to accommodate this growth. We felt between the time the project
was formulated in 1985 to when this was actually designed in 1986 that we're seeing a substantial
increase in the rate of growth so we did two things in order to meet the city requirements
we added 2,000 feet to it and we also increased it from 6-12. That has proved to be a good
thing to do because with the addition of 1liland Park and the addition of perhaps other areas
we are going to need that size. That represents $196,637.00 of the additional cost.
Increases In Dewatering Costs About 80% of the Town that is served experiences high
St.�3
groundwater. We have a very high groundwater table in the central Queensbury area and we
had estimated that to remove that water temporarily to install the facilities we're talking
about $500,00.00. In fact, after we completed the second of eight contracts we found that
we needed let me describe it as a second level of dewatering with all the low points embedded
in filter sand and. . .in order to bring the water down for the period of time it takes to install
the sewer line. These increases carried over into the subsequent contracts and are estimated
at $250,418.00.
Pipe Installations Increases We estimate these increases at about $629,000.00 there are several
reasons for this. We identify them as follows: 1. Between the period of 1985-1988 the
transportation costs for not only the pipe line, but all the materials that we must use in sewer
construction increased because the Department of Transportation began to enforce the laws
which limit the loads of commercial trucks. In the sanitary sewer projects not only is the
pipe . . .it has to be truck transported to the site most of the material is excavated it has to
be removed and granule material proper for bedding and the back filling of streets and roads
has to be brought in. We noticed a substantial increase in bids not only in this project, but
another project due primarily to those transportation costs. We also identified between 85-88.
. and estimated construction material increased between 85-88. These are the things being
identified as pipe installations increases and estimated about $629,000.00. We also increased
the size of various pipe lines; (1) to minimize the cut (2) to allow some future growth along
the system. . .the sum and substance of those increases for instance from and 8 to a 10, 10
to a 12, I believe the original onset for line is estimated at 12 inch we sized that up to 16, those
pipe size increases account for we estimate at $194,000.00 of cost.
Grinder pump Costs. The fifth area of increase is in a number of individual grinder pump units
that we have estimated these are individual pumping systems. We felt we would need seven
of them, now at the time you make that estimate your dealing with USDS mapping you don't
have the specific large scale 50 scale mapping that we generate during the design and when
we began to layout the system with the idea to try to minimize the excavation for that 25
feet one, to speak of the high groundwater table and two, to minimize the maintenance cost
to the sewer department should that ever have to react to it. We found that there were some
areas where we could best serve with individual grinder pumps and minimize some cost increases.
However, the act in doing that increased the project cost although not as much as if we had
gone deeper and use conventional. . .sewer line. The increase went from 7-27 and those cost
are estimated at $361,500.00.
Additional Restorations Costs. The sixth area of increase speaks to the fact that we were
-- not successful in convincing the State to allow us to install facilities within the right-of-way.
This is difficult to get up front because sometimes they let you do it and sometimes they don't.
In this particular case we found that we had to install the facilities outside the right-of-way
that increased our restorations cost in terms of sidewalks, curbs, topsoil, seeding, and we
estimate those cost for increase in restoration at about $233,000.00
Pumping Station Increases. The seventh area of increase is in the cost of installation of the
central pumping station. We had set out to build a facility with the site yet undetermined.
During the initial design of the station we sized it to take increase flow from the then Hiland
Park sewer system. We also found that it was difficult to find a site from the flotation map
we had hoped to put it somewhere in the Meadowbrook Road area and we found by doing some
sub-surface test boorings that the soils in that area were unfit for the installation of a station
with the size especially when it was upsized to accommodate an increase flow. We had to
move to a site where there is predominatly rock this was desirable from the standpoint of
stability foundation, but obviously it was more expensive to install the station that in the course
we had to increase the size of the station those cost are indicated as $334.000.00.
Additional Manhole Costs. We increased the size of manholes. (1) We made the forcemain
larger. (2) There were a number of places when we got onto private properties we had to deal
with the problem of obtaining easements that we needed to install additional manholes to get
around some existing structures and to accommodate the people who we had obtained the
easements from. Those .increases are estimated at $157.000.00, so the total of the increase
is about $2,400,000.00. Some of this increase cost will be recovered when we, and I expect
that we will eventually expand the service area through additional districts Hiland Park is
one that is already in service and also an increase in the district north on Route 9, and north
along Bay Road, and will receive reimbursement from those districts and that reimbursement
will be in the vicinity I estimate at about $400,000.00. Ultimately the increase final additional
cost will be more in the 28% area. Of those increases that I've discussed the percentage for
increase facili°lies is about 12.6% and the increase due to construction cost increases are about
16%. I also li' to bring out one other fact here. When I compare the (tape turned), cost now
reported 8% in 20 years and the Board was fortunate enough to obtain a much more attractive
interest rate ui, the $7,000.000.00 that was originally borrowed of about 5.6%. So whereas
the construction cost more the financing was better. If you look at a typical commercial
property that we looked at back in 1985 and compared the estimated cost of $941.11 to what
<6y
we feel will be the effect of this cost increase the cost goes from $941 to $1,226.00 which is
about a 23% increase in cost. This I think, speaks to the fact, and properly so that the district
charges for water use and in fact, the real purpose of this district was directed at solving
commercial wastewater treatment problems. There were residentials obviously involved but,
I think the thrust of the impact was directed at the commercials and properly so because the
biggest cost. . . be directed at the residential crowd and the recreational crowd uses these
facilities such as restaurants etc. You will also note that the project was completed on time
we originally planned to complete this project in the summer of 89 with the exception of the
grinder pumps we've been successful in doing that. I think on balance yes, we have a cost
increase, hopefully I've justified it or at least explained where those cost come from.
Supervisor Borgos-Thank you. Does that answer your question?
Pliney Tucker-Queensbury. Does his estimated cost for residential and commercial compare
to what the people are paying?
Supervisor Borgos-Yes. Who's best to answer that.
Mr. Tucker-No. You should be able to answer that.
Supervisor Borgos-We have three people who worked all day today on this, I understand, to
finish this up. The rest of us were in court giving testimony we didn't have a chance to look
at their work so normally I have the answer just like that, but I think since we have experts
who worked all day we might as well use their talent.
Councilman Montesi-Plinney, are you talking about the original estimate?
Mr. Tucker-Somewhat. I've been to quite a few meetings and there have been people here
skinning the cat because of the rates that they are required to pay for their sewer. I was
wondering if the actual rates that the customer in the sewer districts are paying correspond
to what Mr. Kestner is saying.
Councilman Montesi-I can at least as a guy in the district, I can tell you that the original sewer
district proposal for my home was something around $450.00 was the estimate six years ago.
Mr. Kestner-1985.
Councilman Montesi-My sewer bill was $497.00 this year, so from the point of view of how
close did the engineer come in six years actually for me was very close I thought, I mean I —
thought that was reasonable. Now, this will be an additional cost obviously for the owners,
.people in the Queensbury Sewer District. What's the impact here, those numbers we're just
starting to look at now.
Supervisor Borgos-We actually have them right in front of us.
Councilman Montesi-We have them right in front of us this is the first time I've seen them
too. But, to answer your question as not only a Board member, but somebody who is impacted
by it the initial bills that I got were very close to what was originally estimated.
Supervisor Borgos-Let me call on Don Tabner, an Attorney from Albany, who specializes in
infrastructure work.
Don Tabner-23 Computer Drive, West Albany, N.Y. Mr. Tucker, the original report estimated
the cost of assessed valuation at $2.05 per thousand dollars. The 1989 rate was $1.54 cents,
now this is without the increase. The projected 1990 rate without the increase is $1.68 cents
per thousand so the charge for assessed valuation has been down from the $2.05 that was
projected from the original engineers report. The original increase charge that was projected
in the engineers report was $303.16 per acre, the 1989 charge was $227.08 per acre, it's projected
that the acreage charge for 1990 will be $261.90 per acre. There are some lands (for instance)
like wetlands that will be charged less than the full acreage rate. The consumption rate was
originally estimated and I'm talking about the commercial rate the residences do have a flat
rate for the first 75,000 which has remained unchanged, but the commercial rate and the excess
rate was originally estimated at $3.43 per thousand gallons, 1989 was $2.53 per thousand gallons,
and 1990 it will be $3.83 per thousand gallons this is what is projected. Basically the assessed
valuation rate has been lower in each instance, the acreage rate has been lower in each instance,
and the consumption rate was lower, but will be .40 cents per thousand higher, this year
projected. This is what the history has been up to the present time.
Mr. Tucker-Do you have the figures with the projected cost increase the 1990 figure that your
giving me?
Mr. Tabner-No. I've given you the figure without the cost increase. We can give you the figure
with the cost increase.
Supervisor Borgos-I'm I correct in saying, I don't mean to interrupt you but, in 1990 this would
not show up as a cost increase the borrowing will take place in 90 with no repayments until
91.
Mr. Tabner-That's right. There shouldn't be any fiscal impact in 1990 it should if the Town
Board acts favorably on this the impact should begin in 1991.
Mr. Tucker-I guess my question is, is how much is it going to increase, if any, over your
projections?
Mr. Tabner-The maximum amount that the Town Board can spend on this project assuming
they act favorably on this resolution would be $9,400.000.00. They can't spend anymore than
that they would have to comeback to the comptroller again the comptroller, of course, looks
at this and says; will it place an undo burden on the property the comptroller has in effect
said no and then it would comeback to the Town Board. So if the Town Board was going to
spend any more than 9.4 million dollars on this project they would have to go back to the
controller again it would have to comeback for another public hearing.
Mr. Tucker-I understand. But, my question is I like to know what the total cost. . .
Mr. Tabner-Assuming the $2,400,000.00 is added in the project?
Mr. Tucker-Yeah.
Mr. Tabner-Okay, that we can give you. Actually Carol Green has worked up all those figures
perhaps you would like to give them.
Mr. Dusek-Before Carol speaks can I just add one thing and that is, Carol is going to go through
basically three possible scenario's of financing there are many more scenario's of financing
that may result in different rates that's the trouble with this. What we had to do to work with
hopefully we've given some high figures depending upon the type of financing that the Board
may be able to achieve,here they may be able to vary these figures somewhat. There are all
different types of ways they're taking out 1 year bonds, they're taking out 20 year bonds, they're
taking out combinations, there is a D.E.C. revolving fund as a possibility. In this area obviously
the final decision on the finance will be with the Board's decision these are just three options
because we couldn't obviously go on and on without some guidance from the Board. This will
give at least a starting point and then the Board will obviously will make the final decision.
Supervisor Borgos-We have multiple copies of this for distribution in case you don't remember
all the numbers your going to hear.
Councilman Monahan-Paul, can I ask one question please before Carol starts.
Attorney Dusek-Sure.
Councilman Monahan-These figures that Carol going to discuss is that with our present customers
or is it with growth factored in?
Attorney Dusek-It is not with growth factored in. We had to draw certain assumptions to be
ultra conservative here again, we made certain assumptions. No increase in land size, no
decrease in land size, no increase in assessed value, no decrease in assessed value. Those types
of assumptions everything basically staying constant. I thought we were going to add a
statement Carol somewhere?
Mrs. Green-On the first page.
Attorney Dusek-Okay, right. At the very bottom of the first page she has added that; some
indications as to how her rate calculations were done.
Mr. Tucker-Before we go on I have a question for Paul. Wouldn't the additional $2,400.000.00
have to be bonded the same as the original?
Attorney Dusek-At this point there are some different options available. When the $7,000,000.00
was bonded what they did is they sold serial bonds for 20 years. At this point the Town has
a few options they can; (1) go that same route with this for 20 years possible more depending
upon how the bonding market is. (2) They may be able to do some short term financing which
we call bond anticipation notes followed later by bonds if the Town Board feels that's beneficial
and that results in some different affects (for instance) the 1 year bond anticipation note will
mean that if the Board if they wanted to could do it for a full year and interest and principal
would come due the following year. Instead of any effect at all during 1990 they would have
an effect in 1991 and at that point they could roll it over again if that was their choice. Another
option in which the Supervisor has been looking into and I went to a couple of meetings with
him on this and that is the State Department of Environmental Conservation has a new revolving
loan fund which could produce a very, very good interest rate in which we set forth if things
work out we might be looking at an interest rate as low as 4.7% for 20 years which you also
obviously have in effect on which the payback of the bonds would be. So there are a few
different programs out there. There are some different combinations that the Board has at
it's disposal to consider and judge as to what it feels would be the best for the financing of
this 2.4.
Mr. Tucker-Do you have the figure based of the original loan figure on a 20 year basis? What
I'm looking for is just an idea under the same circumstances what the additional 2.4 million
it's going to cost an individual homeowner under the same circumstances. I know there are
other ways of doing this, but I would like to know.
Mrs. Green-I have the figure of what it will cost the homeowner including the 2.4 million.
However, for future reference I only have 1990's. . .without the 2.4 million. For example, in
this handout you see a 1991 tax rate, 1992, and 1993, based on the three different scenario's
that we used. We do not have that same scenario without the 2.4 million. however, we do
have the 1990 projected rates by individual tax map number we could take the difference between
the two.
Councilman Monahan-Plinney are you asking this question. If we had gone out originally and
borrowed $9,400,000.00 right at that very time at the rate we got those bonds what would
have been the effect had the borrowing been done in that method. If we have known right
off the bat we were going to have to borrow $9,400,000.00?
Mr. Tucker-Yeah.
Councilman Monahan-I thought that's what you were getting at.
Mrs. Green-1 misunderstood you, I apologize. No, but it wouldn't be that difficult to get the
numbers I just don't have it with me tonight.
Attorney Dusek-Quentin, I believe has some information for you Betty on that.
Mr. Kestner-What I did in 84, is that I think I did what you are looking for and that is to take
the additional 2.4 1 used the same interest rate the 8% for 20 years and I said; what's this going
to do to the same residential unit that we looked at in 1985 that's exactly what I did. My numbers
show that we did not reach what we had thought we would reach in 1985. I think the numbers
I indicated previously the 85 report was $399.00 and then what I did was tack on the 2.4 at
8%/20 years and came up with. . .
Councilman Monahan-Ile doesn't want you to tack it on at 8% he wants you take that. . .
Mr. Kestner-What I did is kind of a worse case actually I used an interest rate that was higher
than I think their going to be able to get so I guess it's a worse case scenario. Again, it's for
the specific user. But, in 85 it was $399.00 the estimate cost to the user with the additional,
now what I've used what I used was $2,000,000.00 and I'll tell you why I used $2,000,000.00
because $400,000.00 of it we're going to get back.
Supervisor Borgos-We hope.
Mr. Kestner-Well I think you will because I really believe there is going to be a district along
Route 9, I really believe Bay Road is going to have a sewer district and there is no question
Ililand Park is going to made a contribution here. So I think it's almost conservative to use
$400.000.00. I came up with $364.00 per year for this typical residential unit.
Mr. Tucker-With the additional $2,000,000.00?
Mr. Kestner-With the additional $2,000,000.00.
Mr. Tucker-Compared to $390?
Mr. Kestner-Com pared to what we've estimated at $399 back in 85. The reason that we're
actually lower is they got a very favorable borrowing rate when they went out for bonds in
87 and this makes a significant difference. Now, Paul mentioned and he is absolutely correct
the State has a program now that we can't use on the money that's been borrowed, but they
use to have a very substantial grants program under which it billed sewer treatments and sewers.
Now, Queensbury was not able to get involved with that because that bill runs over. But,,that
program has been restructured into a loan program basically the State is providing what it
amounts to is subsidize loan programs using the leverage that they generate from throwing
L9
�4 7
a billion dollars across the bond market. Those rates are calculated to 2/3rds what the street
rate is and it's down into 4 and 5%.
Supervisor Borgos-The good news is we've found out about this program and we applied for
the program and got on the preferential list for the program and essentially it's approved they're
waiting for final documentation but, Queensbury is right up there on the top, top priority we're
going to get this rate.
Mr. Kestner-The State has sent people out to only this client, but other clients that I've got
their marketing this they are actively trying to get people involved in this and this is going
to be very beneficial to the Town. I think my numbers are probably on the high side the other
thing that I would point out is I haven't anticipated, but I think it's obvious and that is increase
growth an increase assessed value in this district. Having been on 'the Planning Board for a
-- year the number of projects that came in every month were astronomical and just incredible
compared to the other Towns that we deal with. So you have substantial growth in this Town
that tends to lower not only water used, but the assessed value and everything.
Mr. Tucker-My concern was the taxpayer even though I'm not in the district, but I live in the
Town and anything that the Town does financially affects everyone and my concern was that
thing was going to be out of wack to what the taxpayer agrees to but it is not.
Mr. Kestner-In my judgement it does not appear that it's going to be primarily because we
used the high interest rate in our original comparison and that's somewhat certainly assisted
us in granting of budget figures.
Mr. Tucker-If everything should fall through your 8% that your talking about is legitimate
is it not?
Mr. Kestner-I know they can do 8% in 20 years. The State I'm sure in the last month or two
they've been actively guaranteeing people that they can take 2/3rds of that actually 2/3rds
is about 7.
Supervisor Borgos-They said three or four people spent several hours with Paul and me they
want us to participate at the 2/3rds rate. You indicated as a taxpayer even though your not
in the district you would feel some impact. You won't see any dollar impact right away the
only impact that technically you would feel now is in the credit rating of the Town because
we're going to pledge good faith and credit with the Town behind us. But, our credit rating
is right on top and as were able to pay this off the rate will get even better.
Mr. Tucker-I believe there is a law that a municipality can only be bonded for a certain amount
is that true?
Mr. Kestner-I think there are limits, but I'll let somebody else answer that.
Mr. Tucker-That's irrelevant.
Mr. Tabner-On that there is a constitutional debt limit, however, the Town can apply to the
controller and the controller can answer your application as the controller sees fit except
sewer indebtedness from the constitutional debt limit, water indebtedness is automatically
exempt. I'm just saying that because we might at sometime in the future wish to do that.
But, there a constitutional debt limit that you can get permission to have it excluded.
Mr. Tucker-I'm satisfied Mr. Borgos.
Supervisor Borgos-Good. Anyone else have any questions or comments?
Mrs. Barbara/not audible-I live on Ridge Road. My sewer taxes right now are approximately
$270.00 total of my Town/County water, fire, etc. Do you have any records here where you
can look at what you projected in 1985, what I've paid in 1988, what I'm going to,pay in 1989?
Supervisor Borgos-Can you tell us a bit about your property how many acres?
[?nknown-1.8 acres.
Supervisor Borgos-1.8?
Unknown-Okay. Under the propose change for next year that should drop I believe.
Unknown-From the figures that you read off you said it was $227.08 for 1989 next year the
$2.53 cents for water is going to $3.83 cents and it's going from $154 to $168.
i
Mr. Tabner-But as a residence you would have a basic charge for the first 75,000 gallons. If
you don't use over 75,000 you won't be on the basic charge.
Unknown-I don't where the water is going, but believe me it's going it's well over 100,000 gallons.
I got a bill on November 22, it was due on the 30th actually it was mailed the 22nd I received
it on the 24th, it was $120.00. . . year that's not the water that was just sewer.
Councilman Monahan-flow many in your family?
Unknown-Three. Well I have one away at school there is three at home and no one is home
all day.
Supervisor Borgos-You can call our water department to check for a leak.
Unknown-I'm not sure their speaking to me.
Councilman Monahan-Do you water the lawn?
Unknown-We didn't much this year because of all the Construction and the sewer installation
etc.
Councilman Monahan-I just wonder if that's the normal water consumption for a family of
three.
Unknown-I called and I was told that it should be between 12-15 thousand per quarter and mine
was averaging well over 25 thousand.
Councilman Monahan-Maybe you have some leaks there someplace.
Supervisor Borgos-I'm looking at the proposed rates for next year which haven't been acted
on. Correct me Kathleen, Kathleen has been working on this for months and months, but she's
lost her voice now. I noticed one property here is 1.9 acres and the rate per acre has dropped
substantially so on the large parcel such as yours would not be paying the $260 whatever.
Unknown-Well it's $227.08 that we paid for February of 1989 unless I misunderstood I have
it written down it's going to $261.90.
Supervisor Borgos-Okay. But, there are going to be different categories of property under
the new proposal and your property should according to this drop to $105.76 per acre which
is a substantial decrease. The one that's given here as an example is, 1.9 acres which in 1989
would have paid $432.99 based on acreage in 1990 it will pay $202.63 a savings more than half.
Unknown-Are these approved?
Supervisor Borgos-Not yet. These are finally in written form and I would expect next week
I hope this is one of things will do. We're going to have to set a public hearing?
Attorney Dusek-Hopefully everything will be to the Board late this week so that you could
act upon on the 27th to set the hearing.
Supervisor Borgos-To set the hearing so there would be a hearing then in early January which
would set the rates for next year. But, it look like those of you with large backyards with
wetland properties other concerns that have come to us should be taken care of.
Unknown-The guy across the street who has three babies he just moved in and he's talking
about either subdividing or moving he just can't afford the taxes. He thought that bill that
he got last year for $600.00 was a one time shot. When I told him that it wasn't I thought he
was going to die.
Supervisor Borgos-Let's hope he also has a large parcel of land and he will get a,decrease.
Councilman Monahan-I want to ask Kathleen what does the symbol DL stand for?
Ms. Kathe-D-1 is landlock, and D-2 are wetlands. Houses are being charge 100% of the first
acre, 60% on anything over one acre, 40%. . . and 10% on. . . The figures that you have in
front of you are what's proposed.
Supervisor Borgos-Thank you. We're heading in the right direction to resolve most of the
problems that were brought to our attention this past year. Any further question or comments
from the public?
Councilman Monahan-I like to ask Mr. Tabner something and it doesn't really relate to�this.
Mr. Tabner, some of our constituents have had a problem that when they get a bill on a sewer
rate part of it is put as a tax and part as a fee. Of course, under the income tax law they
can't take the fee off as a tax they paid. Do we have to have it as a fee or can all of it be
a tax?
Mr. Tabner-I think your probably referring to the O & M charge which is a fee it's similar to
Your power company bill. When we render sewer service and even when we render water service
in the old days they were known as proprietary functions and they aren't governmental functions.
Strictly speaking they aren't a tax and they shouldn't be taken off your referring to the O &
M charge the same way as Niagara Mohawk sends a bill we send a bill for that type of a service.
The tax really goes basically to payback the capital charges so your paying what was debt
of the town and that is raised by means of taxes. It could be done by fees it's perfectly
permissible under the Town Law to pay off indebtedness with fees sewer rents and things of
that nature, but that's the reason for the difference.
"ouncilman Monahan-Quentin I have something on mine and I'm sure it's a typographical error.
I have additional mestoration cost, I think that's suppose to be restoration isn't it?
Mr. Kestner-Yeah.
Supervisor Borgos-Any further questions or comments from the public or members of the Board?
Does anyone still want Carol to go through this scenario or can you pretty much read it on
your own?
Carol Green-C.P.A. with Fitzgerald & Williams. There is one point that I wanted to bring
out so there isn't any misunderstanding. On the rates on the second page the rate per effective
acre that effective acre is for example, the scenario that we had just a few minutes ago says
you have two acres with one acre in the back the effective acre would then be 1.6. It's not
the full acreage that's why the rate is so much higher because once you have backland or once
you have wetlands your actual acreage comes down. We do have under all three of these
scenario's we do have and it will be available in the Town actual realms of what your property
by tax map number would be paying under each one of these scenario's. If anyone is interested
they are available.
Councilman Montesi-I understand what you've done here and obviously it's going to be a keen
effort of this Board with your expertise which scenario best serves the needs of us the Town
and their constituents? I have a question in looking at a tax rate here and we can play with
these numbers all we want there is a additional cost I believe that isn't shown here or is it
►icluded? What is the O & M charge for the city to us which affects the tax which is a bill
ve have to pay and also there is a O & M charge for the Town of Queensbury sewer lines?
!_n otherwords, we have to maintain the lines and fix them that's an O & M charge that the
Queensbury Sewer District charges to run the sewer district.
Mrs. Green-This is only the capital portion of the rate.
Councilman Montesi-We must have figure here or else we're going to look silly saying, it's
going to cost you $500.00, oh by the way it's another $300.00 for O & M charges. Is that a
figure that we should absolutely know is it meaningful?
Mrs. Green-It's not a figure that's built into these three scenario's this is only to repay the
capital portion of indebtedness.
Councilman Montesi-That constant though, there is a O & M charge that this couple is paying
that I'm paying, anyone.
Councilman Kurosaka-It's has nothing to do with the bonding.
Councilman Montesi-It's has nothing to do with the bonding it's a constant.
Councilman Monahan-And your O & M shows up as a separate item on your tax bill right?
Mrs. Green-Yes, I believe it does.
;ouncilman Montesi-I'm not trying to pin you down I just want everyone to know that this
�n't the total bill you get.
(`Cape turned)
Mrs. Green-This is only for the indebtedness the capital portion of it.
Councilman Montesi-We would pay operating and maintenance whether we went and got these
additional 2 million anyway.
Mrs. Green-That's correct.
Councilman Kurosaka-Nothing is going to be more than 2 million.
Councilman Montesi-The point I'm making George, is that we should all know that this is not
the total bill.
Mrs. Green-I think it becomes somewhat confusing simply because of the way the capital
component is derived being 1/3rd based on acreage, 1/3rd on assessed valuation, and 1/3rd
based on consumption. That throws that word "consu-niption" and you get the idea of operation
and maintenance it has nothing to do with operation and maintenance. It's just how to allocate
the actual indebtedness to the various homeowners.
Supervisor Borgos-As I understand it should decrease as we use our pumping station more
efficiently, is that correct? As we have more consumers on line as more people splitting the
total cost of the operation of electricity and everything else it should go down.
Mrs. Green-The other point I'd like to make is on the front sheet it does give you, these are
strictly estimates it's based on the information available today that we're using to come up
with the 1990 rate. Obviously if there are major subdivisions, if there are new commercial
entities that increase the assessed valuation the individuals are going to go down this is very
conservative. The interest rates, the interest factors come in differently then what we project,
the rates will change.
Councilman Monahan-Carol, can I request so that we don't confuse people that on the front
of one of your sheets that people may check that their tax map number that you put a notation
that this does not include the operation and maintenance fee that it is strictly the capital
cost. I'm afraid that when people looked at that total and think of what the total bill was
this year and say, gee that's not bad, but they forgot to put in one more piece.
Mrs. Green-What we do have is one for each scenario we only did it for the 1991 tax rates.
Each one of them take quite a while to run off we ran out of time.
Councilman Montesi-Carol, the worse case scenario having the 1991 that assumes the most
interest owed, that assumes the most money owned with principal and interest so from that
point on it should be less shouldn't it?
Mrs. Green-Not necessarily. For example, if you look at scenario #2, and scenario #2 calls
for bond anticipation note issued for a year and then going to bondage after one year. If you
look at the 1991 tax rate under scenario #2 you will see that the actual rates are the less under
scenario #2. But, if you then go to 1992 and 1993 for example, in 1992 scenario #2 becomes
the highest.
Councilman Montesi-Yeah.
Mrs. Green-And that's where this Board has to analyze the various options open to you and
determine which way you want to proceed.
Supervisor Borgos-Anyone else which to add?
Councilman Montesi-Carol, I just need one more question answered. On the front page scenario
1,2, and 3 we're borrowing $2,400,000.00 for 20 years bond issued 2/1/90 at 7% interest. It
says interest payments due in February $120,000 each February starting 2/1/91. They all say
$120,000 what do I read when I read this front page scenario 1,2, and 3? I'm sure I understand
it I see the rates change, but they all say the samething.
Mrs. Green-The difference between 1 and 2 is in #1 your going to make a principal payment
in the first year in 1991.
Councilman Montesi-Of $120,000.
Mrs. Green-Of $120,000. Scenario 2, your going to a bond anticipation note and then bonding
a year later your not reducing your principal in anyway that's why the rate is so low in scenario
2. In Scenario 3, it's just simply because the D.E.C. revolving loan fund the interest rate is
so much different. Your talking about a difference from 4.74 we got today and 7.25.
Councilman Potenza-That's the only difference between scenario 1 and 3 the interest rate?
Mrs. Green-Right.
Councilman Montesi-Why wouldn't you go with #3 then?
Mrs. Green-When we were doing this today we really had not that much experience with D.E.C.
we're not sure what you had to do to apply, obviously, Steve was in court all day and I didn't
get a chance to talk to him. Whether you would be limited to how much you could borrow.
Supervisor Borgos-We've been pre-approved essentially for $11,000,000.00, but we only need
2.4 million.
Mrs. Green-I think that's great personally. The other thing John wanted me to bring up was
that you don't necessarily have to payback $120,000 a year. You can pay back less in your
earlier years and more in the later years 50% role, I'll let John talk about.
Councilman Montesi-But, if you do pay it off in $120,000 increments what happens in essence
though is that as more people come into the sewer district and you get more users your actual
cost should go down somewhere along the line.
Mr. Tabner-Unit cost.
Councilman Montesi-Right.
Councilman Monahan-Steve, just one question about the New York State Grant Loan Fund
or whatever you want to call it. There is no chance that as more people apply for this and
perhaps there is not enough money to run around then it will go to a point system and we could
loose out because. . .like we have lost out before.
Supervisor Borgos-Fortunately we got into the process earlier enough the point system is already
been calculated and we're well into the safe range. Again, they've been here they're just waiting
for information from us now. They've looked at lots of documentation at this point unless
they told Paul differently they're saying the money's there finish filling out the forms.
Attorney Dusek-Just to add one point Betty that will maybe help to answer your question too.
Is that interestingly enough part of the point system that D.E.C. developed in this loan as Steve
mentioned we already have been thorough, but in addition to that part of it is based on the
fact of the sewer location with reference to Halfway Brook. So because of that we got a
considerable number of points just because of that relationship.
"ouncilman Monahan-We were trying to make a point of that before when we were looking
for some. . .
Supervisor Borgos-It's called the Halfway Brook project in the D.E.C. manuals.
Councilman Monahan-Remember before we first started we were trying to. . .sewage going
into Halfway Brook and they didn't care.
Supervisor Borgos-Now they've heard us.
Councilman Monahan-It takes a long time to get that message across.
Councilman Montesi-Paul and the group. If 4.7 was an assured rate for us and we could
guarantee by some degree of expedients in getting in on this would you recommend that this
Board to look at Scenario 3 and eagerly after this public hearing pursue that option? Obviously
there are a whole bunch of other things you listed this as a 20 year bond at 4.7 that's the least
that they'll give?
Attorney Dusek-The rate that the revolving fund will ultimately give depends on market
conditions. Basically this is not exactly the rule, but it's basically 2/3rds of what the going
rate is roughly. Right now the going rate is somewhere around 7.2, 7.3 as a result 2/3rds
becomes 4.74. I guess maybe to try to answer your question from initial appearances my feeling
would be that this certainly looks attractive for the Boards consideration. I think that there
would be some more questions to be asked with respect to the rates when we would jump in
how these rates might work out in connection with looking at maybe some bond anticipation
cotes to see if we could put together a entire package that would work out idealy. But, certainly
:his looks like it would be one of the main ingredients and maybe the only way to go.
{Councilman Montesi-It doesn't appear that commercially we could ever beat that kind of a
rate.
Attorney Dusek-Not on the open market on your own, no.
Councilman Montesi-Are we locked into, does the State say, if you buy this package you can
buy our rate you have to do it for 20 years, is that a fixed 20 years?
i
Attorney Dusek-Interestingly enough a lot of the eliminates of this, this is another area the
Board will want to study is that you have to negotiate some of this with D.E.C. and they in
turn will obviously will negotiate in the open market. There might besome variables there
that you would have to study there maybe a lock in feature, but overall you take a look at
the entire package and size it up.
Councilman Montesi-Is 20 years a good figure for us to work with?
Supervisor Borgos-We're locked in right now to the five point something interest rate otherwise,
D.E.C. would refinance what's out there.
Attorney Dusek-Right. Your previous bonding is noncollable and your locked in that's not
uncommon in a 20 year bonding. In talking to several people including I have to give John
Tabner, some credit here because tie's done a lot of work on this and helped educate me in
some fashion here. But, it appears that a 20 year bonding in pretty much lease as is standard.
Councilman Montesi-Given all those criteria's that the rate is 2/3rds the market value it appears
to be some justification for us being in early on that, is there some reason why we shouldn't
act expediently with this and say, let's go with this rate there maybe some variables here,
but basically make the commitment that we want to go with the scenario that gets us into
the D.E.C. fund balance?
Attorney Dusek-I will say this that the Supervisor has already laid a foundation for you in this
leaving all options opened to you he's gone as he could go before committing the Board. The
Board at this point has the option if you want to say, go right ahead and do everything possible
and tie it down for us and comeback to us your in a position right now to do that.
Councilman Montesi-John, do you think as Council for the Sewer District that it would behoove
of us to be expedient in this? I'm thinking in terms of the State puts a fund of money together
before you know it's gone. Should we be acting expediently?
Mr. Tabner-I don't think there is any question if you can get that far under the market rate
it's certainly going to be to your advantage. Of course, assuming you approve the project
approve the increase in cost I would certainly say, unless there is something that comes up
in the process as to cost that they anticipate for auditing and things of that nature.
Councilman Montesi-Of course, there are restrictions.
Mr. Tabner-That's right. It looks as though that's the obvious route to follow because of the
low cost that your going to have with the rate. Your never going to beat 2/3rds of the going
rate.
Councilman Monahan-John,. of administration cost put on top of this by the State and if
so do have any idea of what the percentage of that would be?
Supervisor Borgos-Yes, there will be. Yes, they have the numbers I don't remember them they
are is Paul's office. I think there more or almost exclusively the first year I'm pretty sure
that's the case.
Attorney Dusek-There are some flat cost that are paid up front. That's another one of those
elements that I've indicated the Board would want to take a look at and weigh.
Councilman Monahan-And factor it in.
Attorney Dusek-Due to your unique situation it still very well maybe less expensive for you
considerable less expensive going this route.
Councilman Montesi-Paul., this is a public hearing the public is to be heard all of all comments,
but what would you recommendations be when we close this public hearing to take action
tonight?
Attorney Dusek-Yes. There is a propose resolution before the Board if it meets with your
approval authorized the increase and expenditure of 2.4 million dollars and basically sets it --
up so it's then published and it will be subject to a permissive referendum in 30 days it would
become binding.
Councilman Montesi-Okay how do we indicate as a Board if we wish to indicate as a Board
that we want to go to 2.4 million and we're going to wait for the permissive referendum, but
we would like to go with the approach of scenario #3 and D.E.C.?
Attorney Dusek-If the Board wants to do that I think all you have to do is just indicate that
the Supervisor with obviously my office can assist should just immediately take all further
steps to continue securing that information for you.
Councilman Montesi-As an addendum to this resolution?
Attorney Dusek-I think you can do it by way of a separate resolution.
Councilman Monahan-Frankly, first I would want to know what those flat costs are and what
the impact is going to be. I think we can wait a few days and figure that how.
Supervisor Borgos-I think we like to relate these actual numbers to the State's proposal let
them plug in for us working with them then come back to the Board with those numbers I'd
feel more comfortable with that. Any other comments from the public.
Mr. Tucker-I guess I'll called it operation and maintenance, the rate that your charging now
_-- is based on the improvements that your bonding the money for, right?
Supervisor Borgos-O & M'consists of those things that are non-capital expenditures. So personnel
in the Waste Water Dept./Sewer Dept. their vehicles, -their benefits, the electricity charged
to run the pumps that's a very large expenditure charged to the City of Glens Falls, Wastewater
Dept. A whole bunch of things that relate to the operation and maintenance inspections of
what's in the sewer maps they have a sampler that has to go in there and sample a product.
Over control is a new line foot pump station.
Mr. Tucker-These are all included now aren't they?
Councilman Monahan-That's separate under O & M. You pay two different charges, one is
the tax and one is the fees
Councilman Montesi-City of Glens Falls takes 4 million gallons a day with the sewer treatment
plant, let's say 5 million we give them 400,000 of that 5 million therefore, we are a little less
than 10% of the total operation of their sewer treatment plant. They could conceivably send
us a bill the Town of Queensbury for 10% of what it cost to operate their sewer plant in their
distribution lines. Obviously we get our sewage to them through city lines.
Supervisor Borgos-That's a very simplified version. There is actually a very complicated complex
formula.
Councilman Montesi-It certainly is, but that's the idea that's the kind of cost that O & M
represents. The Town of Queensbury also operates a sewer treatment/sewer wastewater
-- department. There are people who go around they hook up the lines, clean the lines, manholes,
that kind of stuff. The cost of that department is divided up amongst the taxpayers too it's
a budget.
Mr. Tucker-What I'm trying to get at here this includes the maintenance of the actual sewer
line?
Supervisor Borgos-Yes.
Mr. Tucker-The engineer said they increased the sizes from 6-12 on force lines and from 12-16
this is already in operation I take it? The O & M is already figured on that?
Mr. Kestner-That's figured every year.
Councilman Monahan-But, the increase and cost of pipe capital.
Mr. Tucker-I understand that, that's part of the 2.4. In otherwords, yourself in the sewer district
with this additional 2.4 your not going to see an increase in your O & M rate?
Mr. Kestner-Not due to the 2.4, no. Absolutely no relation 2.4 and the O & M.
Councilman Kurosaka-It's the capital cost not operating cost.
Mr. Tucker-Thank you. .
Supervisor Borgos-Any further comments, questions? If not will close this hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:50 P.M..
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN EXPENDITURES TO CENTRAL QUEENSBURY
QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 709, 1989 Introduced Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, has heretofore created the Central
Queensbury/Quaker Road Sewer District, hereinafter called "District"; and
WHEREAS, the said Town Board has undertaken to construct improvements in such District
consisting of a sanitary sewer system hereinafter called the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the completion of all improvements within such District and upon such project
have not been completed; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been informed that it is necessary
to increase the maximum amount to be expended on the District from the amount of
$7,000,000.00 to $9,400,00.00; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, has heretofore or on or about the
4th day of December, 1989, adopted an order calling for a public hearing on said increase in
the maximum amount to be expended and specifying the December 18, 1989 at 7:30 o'clock
in the evening at the Town Activity Center in said Town as the place where the said Board
would meet to hear all persons interested in the subject matter thereof concerning the same;
and to take such action thereon as is required or authorized by law; and
WHEREAS, a hearing was duly held on said matter by the said Town Board on the 18th day
of December, 1989, beginning at 7:30 o'clock in the evening of that day at the Queensbury
Activity Center of said Town and full discussion was had and all persons desiring to be heard
having been heard; and
WHEREAS, the Comptroller of the State of New York has heretofore and on or about November
15, 1989 issued a certificate of the State Comptroller approving such increase in the amount
to be expended on the District to the sum of $9,400,000.00.
WHEREAS, an examination of the amendment to the Engineers Report for the Central
Queensbury Road Sewer District dated February 1989 and furnished to evaluate the increase
in expenditures to complete all improvements previously planned for the District indicates
that there is an increase cost due to an unanticipated expense in cost of some increase in size
of facilities already planned and not in the scope of construction for the Sewer Project and
WHEREAS, the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Environmental Conservation which
implement the State Environmental Quality Review Act indicate in 6NYCRR Section 617.13
and 617.14 (.5) that routine or continuing Agency administration and management, not including
new programs or major reordering of priorities are Type II actions for which an Environmental
Impact Statement of other determination of proceedings under the said Rules and Regulations
are not necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations
of the Department of Environmental Conservation and specifically 6NYCRR Sections 617.13
and 617.14 it is determined that the action about to be undertaken is a Type II action for which
no further SEQRA determinations of proceedings are necessary and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, and determined that the authorization of the proposed increase for expenditures
for the improvements and upon the Project from the sum of $7,000,000.00 to the sum of
$9,400,000.00 is hereby approved, and it is further
RESOLVED AND DETERMINED, that this resolution is subject to a permissive referendum
as provided in the Town Law of the State of New York.
Duty adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT.-None
OPEN FORUM 8:50 P.M.
Mr. Tucker-Questioned where the PVC Pipe Law stood? Asked if the Board decided to adopt
the Local Law?
Supervisor Borgos-Noted that they are going in that direction. Asked Paul to explain the status
Sts^
of the PVC pipe.
Attorney Dusek-Explained that they were able to get before the council on the 13th. The Council
in turn steered the proposal to the subcommittee that has to review it and give their
recommendation. We have to furnish the subcommittee with additional information. They
would like to see manufacturer specifications on this type of piping they have some additional
questions that we have to respond to. We may have to go down and make an appearance before
that committee they will in turn issue the report to the council. The question at this point
that I still haven't gotten cleared up is the subcommittee has a very late meeting date I'm
concerned whether they are going to be meeting before the council meets the next time. If
they do we should have an answer by March, if they don't we may have to wait as late as May.
Stated he will do everything possible to expedite the matter and will continue to follow up
to look for any avenue possible to get an answer as soon as I can.
Supervisor Borgos-Asked if he was correct in saying that we're going in concurring routes.
Your working that through Albany and we're probably in house now drafting what we have
for public hearings?
Attorney Dusek-Noted the public hearing for the Local Law will be easy to do we have to get
the schedule of allowances that they'll give us first. Explained the way it would work, they
would most likely approve their final schedule of what they will allow, as soon as we know
that we can set the public hearing.
Supervisor Borgos-Stated they are waiting for them, but we're doing some paperwork.
Attorney Dusek-Stated he met with Dave Hatin and he is in the process of setting up the
information he is going to need to respond to their demands.
Councilman Kurosaka-Added that there are other forms of PVC pipes.
Attorney Dusek-Stated he will make sure that the documents do reflect the generic brand
of pipe.
Mr. Tucker-Understood that Warren County passed a law for what we're trying to do.
Councilman Potenza-Stated in discussion someone said they support it, but haven't passed
a law.
Councilman Monahan-Asked Paul that during the discussion we were going to ask the council
if they would consider not implementing that provision since there was little notice before
that date.
Attorney Dusek-Tried a few different things basically they indicated that this has been a matter
that has been in the works for them for about 11 years. The council supported it and thought
the council was very close behind it, anything else to try to either stop implementation or
possible change the regulations would take probably six months at a minimum to get through
so this appeared to be the fastest route.
Charlie Adamson-Questioned the building plans for the Town. Stated it all goes back to what
went wrong with these buildings and the last time I was here you could not discuss that because
you were in court. Asked if they were in court today for that purpose?
Supervisor Borgos-Yes.
Mr. Adamson-Asked if he could go to listen?
Supervisor Borgos-Stated at some point maybe three or four months from now he would be
able to find out what's happening.
Deputy Attorney-Stated because of the number of people involved and questions involved it
would take that amount of time.
Mr. Adamson-Requested at some point in time he would like an open discussion on this matter.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 710, 1989, Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Stephen Borgos:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves to approve the
b '
minutes of November 20th, 29th, 1989 and December 4th, 14th 1989.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
RESOLUTION NO. 7 1989 Introduced by THE ENTIRE TOWN BOARD:
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to recognize Hildagarde Mann's work with the
Town Planning Board, and
WHEREAS, Hildagarde Mann, a resident of the Town of Queensbury, has served the community
with distinction, and
WHEREAS, Hildagarde Mann was a dedicated member of the Queensbury Planning Board from
May 25, 1976 through September 30, 1989, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has grown dramatically since Hildagarde Mann took office,
and she has contributed to progressive planning within the Town of Queensbury,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT-
RESOLVED, that the Town Board, on behalf of the residents of the Town of Queensbury, wishes
to express its sincere appreciation to Hildagarde Mann for the time and talent she has so
generously contributed toward making Queensbury a better place in which to live.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
RESOLUTION NO. 712, 1989 Introduced by THE ENTIRE TOWN BOARD:
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to recognize Daniel Griffin for his work with
the Town Zoning Board of Appeals, and
WHEREAS, Daniel Griffin, a resident of the Town of Queensbury, has served the community
with distinction, and
WHEREAS, Daniel Griffin was a dedicated member of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
from September 18, 1979 through September 18, 1989, and
WHEREAS, during the past decade, Daniel Griffin has contributed to fair and equitable decisions
on zoning issues that ensure the individual rights of the community,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board, on behalf of the residents of the Town of Queensbury, wishes
to express its sincere appreciation to Daniel Griffin for the time and talent he has so generously
contributed toward making Queensbury a better place in which to live.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote: --_-
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
Councilman Monahan-Noted because the Town does has dedicated volunteers of this calibre
is one of the reasons why Queensbury is a strong community.
RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 693
RESOLUTION NO. 713,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, by Resolution no. 693, accepted the
dedication of Founders Way and McCrea Road, and
WHEREAS, the description of Founder Way and McCrea Road were incorrect in the original
resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends Resolution No.
693 and corrects the descriptions to read as follows:
Description: West Mountain extending northeasterly to Brookshire Trace
Name: Founders Way
Feet: 2150
Description: Beginning Corinth Road westerly ending at Founders Way
Name: McCrea Road
Feet: 1000
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSTAIN:Mr. Kurosaka
Councilman Monahan-Noted that riding through different areas between the Town of Queensbury
nd Warren County our roads are the best kept roads in the area.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING TWO TOWN JUSTICE COURT CLERKS
RESOLUTION NO.7141, 1989,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza moved for its adoption, seconded
by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Town Justice has requested that current employees of
the Town of Queensbury employed in the Justice Court, Carol Finamore and Karen Stockwell
be appointed Deputy Town Justice Court Clerks,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, that
Pursuant to Section 20, Subdivision 1 (a) of the Town Law of the State of New York and Section
109 of the Uniform Justice Court Act of the State of New York,
Both Carol Finamore and Karen Stockwell are hereby appointed to the positions of Deputy
Town Justice Court Clerk, and
BR IT FURTHER, ,
lt.FSOLVED, that the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference of the State of New
York shall be notified of the said appointments.
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Compensation for the above-named Deputy Town Justice Court Clerks
shall remain at its present level, as provided for the Town of Queensbury budget.
Duly adopted this 18th of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION TO AMEND BUDGET TO PAY SALARY OF DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO. 715, 1989,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, on December 6, 1989 the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury did approve the
hiring of Karla M. Corpus as Deputy Town Attorney, pursuant to Resolution No. 702, and
WHEREAS, Karla M. Corpus was hired on December 12, 1989, and
WHEREAS, the funding for said position was not included in the Town of Queensbury 1989 budget
but is included in the 1990 budget, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of funding this position
by amending the Town of Queensbury budget for 1989.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends the Town of
Queensbury 1989 budget to increase the appropriations in account number A-11-5-1420-180 (Deputy
Attorney) in the amount of $2,600.00 and increase appropriated fund balance account number
A 3310599 in the amount of $2,600.00 and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the aforesaid
fi.inding and immediate payment of the salary of Karla M. Corpus, Deputy Town Attorney.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None —
RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 683
RESOLUTION NO. 716, 1989,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury by Resolution No. 683 amended ordinance
No. 23 of the Town of Queensbury which exempts persons 65 years or older from Town Taxes,
and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 638 stated the date of the public hearing as November 20, 1989
which was incorrect, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RFSOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby amends Resolution No.
683, to state the correct date of the public hearing which was December 4, 1989.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos '
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO. 717, 1989,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
WHEREAS, certain departments in the Town of Queensbury wish to transfer funds because
of a lack of funds in certain accounts, and
WHEREAS, the Town Supervisor of the Town of Rueensbury has reviewed the department's
requests for transfers of certain funds and has approved the same, NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT
RESOLVED, that the following funds be transferred in the following manner:
Town Clerk
------------
From A1051410440 To A1051410408 500.00
(Miscellaneous) (Advertising)
Fire Marshal
A1753410404 A1753410482 400.00
(Dues/Registration) (Uniforms)
A1753410407 A1753410420 100.00
(Office Equipment) (Insurance)
A1753410418 A1753410420 100.00
(Dry Cleaning) (Insurance)
A1753410440 A1753410405 25.00
(Miscellaneous) Books/Publ/Subsc)
A1753410440 A1753410441 125.00
(Miscellaneous) (Gas)
A1753410440 A1753410401 150.00
(Miscellaneous) (Office Supplies)
A1753410163 A1753410200 700.00
(fire Marshall) (Equipment)
Town Attorney
A1151420189 A1151420126 4,000.00
(Conf Legal Sec) (Conf Legal Sec/PT)
A1151420189 A1151420107 500.00
(Conf Legal Sec) (Clerk, PT)
A1151420440 A1151420441 2,000.00
(Miscellaneous) (Attorney, Labor)
A1151420189 A1151420441 2,000.00
(Conf Legal Sec) (Attorney, Labor)
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
DISCUSSION HELD
Supervisor Borgos-Asked Attorney Dusek, if he was able to work out a resolution for the
Retirement System?
Attorney Dusek-I have worked on it and I do have an answer. There is a bonding provision
under the law, but the bonding provision is that you can bond for not more than 17 years and
not less than 5 years. It has to be by way of a serial bond and it cannot be by way of bond
anticipation note. For some reason they've locked you into the 5 years minimum. If you go
5 years you avoid a permissive referendum. If you go more than 5 years your forced into a
permissive referendum which is from this Board prospective not bad, but it is bad from the
extent that your looking at 30 days before the resolution takes effect.
Supervisor Borgos-Asked if this would take longer to do than the bond anticipation note?
Attorney Dusek-Stated the bond resolution itself could be done very quickly the sale of a serial
bond could take a little longer.
Supervisor Borgos-Stated it wouldn't be wise to make more than the,minimum payment if we
do that. Asked what Attorney Dusek's recommendation would be?
Attorney Dusek-It's what the Board plan is for payment, if the plan for the Board is to pay
this off within 1 or 2 years it maybe less expensive to go with the State financing.
Supervisor Borgos-Asked the Board if it would be agreeable to prepare for a 5 year borrowing
with the rest of it so the impact would be nothing? The State gave us two options to pay the
whole thing now or make the minimum payment now and the State will automatically finance
the rest.
Councilman Monahan-Asked if they couldn't take the money from another place and use that
to pay for this.
Attorney Dusek-Thats is a option. Thinks that what she is considering is to do a inter-fund
transfer take it out of one existing account and put it to this account to pay it off and then
for whatever you were going to use the previous money for go from a bond to that. One option
for the Board to consider is if the Board wanted to pay the minimum amount now and then
let the State finance it for this year coming up, and then at the end of 1990 at that point have
a plan in mind to pick up the balance.
Supervisor Borgos-Stated based on the evidence related to the bonding requirements of the
State, I propose that we pay the minimum amount and let the State finance it.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO MAKE PAYMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 718,1989,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorized the Supervisor
to make payment of the minimum amount due for the State Retirement Fund Payment, with
the rest to be financed by the State under the provision as set forth in the notice of the Town,
to be paid from the budgeted amount for 1989.
Duly adopted this 18th day"of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
COMMUNICATIONS
A. Bid opening-4x4 Utility. Vehicle
Whiteman Chevrolet NC Attached 1990 Chev. ,T10 Blazer
79-89 Dix Avenue $15,450.00
Ross Truck Center NC-Attached 1990 Jimmy - $16,364.00
1991 Jimmy - $16,532.00
Town Clerk-Stated it's the recommendation of the Water Department to go with Whiteman
Chevrolet.
............._.. ......____...... ._ _ _____ ___
_._... ......
SDI/
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS FOR ONE 4 X 4 UTILITY PASSENGER TYPE VEHICLE
RESOLUTION NO. 719, 19891,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
duly advertised for bids for one (1) 1989 or newer 4 X 4 Utility Passenger Type Vehicle, to be
used by the Waste Water Department for the Town of Queensbury, and
WIIEREAS, the firm of Whiteman Chevrolet, Inc., has submitted a bid for a Blazer, namely
one (1) 1990 Chevrolet T10 Blazer, complete as per Town of Queensbury specifications, and
WIIEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, Water Superintendent, has recommended that the bid be
awarded to Whiteman Chevrolet, Inc.,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby
awards the contract for one 1990 Blazer, complete as per Town of Queensbury specifications,
to Whiteman Chevrolet, Inc.
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the amounts due Whiteman Chevrolet, Inc., pursuant to the terms of the
contract shall be paid from Account #S43858130.202.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mr. Borgos
NOES: Mrs. Monahan
ABSEiNT:None
B. Bid Opening Foundation Generator Building
Wallace I. Johnson Inc 5`uo Bid Bond
RD 1 Box 50 RT 7 & Schoharie Trpk. NC attached $35,380.00
Delanson, New York 12053
Duplex Construction Co. 5% Bid Bond $38,000.00
Dix Avenue PO. Box 349 NC attached
Glens Falls, NY 12801
Schultz Construction Inc. 5% Bid Bond $49,000.00
P.O. Box 637 Round Lake Road NC attached
Round Lake, NY 12151
Kruger Concerte Inc. Corporate Check $49,350.00
10 Sugar Pine Road NC attached
Queensbury, NY 12804
Adirondack Construction Corp. 5% Bid Bond $52,200.00
73 Mohican Street NC attached
(,lens Falls, NY 12801
111,13 General Construction 5% Bid Bond $53,777.00
3 Northway Lane NC attached
Latham, NY 12110
Mohawk Valley Construction Corp. 5% Bid Bond $67,800.00
P.O. Box 118 NC attached
Burnt Bills, NY 12027
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BIDS FOR FOUNDATION FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
GENERATOR BUILDING
RESOLUTION NO. 720, 1989 Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
duly advertised for bids for a foundation for the water treatment plant generator building,
to be used by the water department for the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the Company of Wallace I. Johnson, Inc., has submitted a bid for said foundation,
complete as per Town of Queensbury specifications, and
WIIEREAS, Thomas K. Flaherty, has recommended that the bid be awarded to Wallace I.
Johnson, Inc.,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York, hereby awards the
contract for a foundation for the water treatment plant generator building to Wallace I. Johnson,
Inc.,
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the amounts due Wallace I. Johnson, Inc., pursuant to the terms of the contract
shall be paid from Account #W12759951.90.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
A BSENT:None
C. Bid Opening Traffic Signal
Stilsing Electric Inc. 5% Bond Bid $18,500.00
555 South Street NC attached
Rensselaer, NY 12144
Town Clerk-Stated it is recommended by the Highway Superintendent to accept the bid.
Attorney Dusek-Asked if the traffic signal should be paid for out of the highway fund or the
general fund? Secondly do you wish to pay for this by a transfer of surplus monies or do you
wish to bond?
Supervisor Borgos-Proposed to pay this out of surplus funds.
Board-Agreed.
Attorney Dusek-Asked if there is a general account for traffic lights?
Mr. Alissita-Yes.
Supervisor Borgos-Asked if they have an account for capital construction?
Mr. Missita-Stated traffic is under the general account.
Supervisor Borgos-Stated a new account would have to be open for captial construction of
traffic signals.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID TRAFFIC SIGNAL
RESOLUTION NO. 7241989,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Ronald Montesi:
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York -
duly advertised for bids for installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Bay and Haviland
Roads, in the Town of Queensbury, and
WIIEREAS, the company Sti.lsing Electric Inc., has submitted a bid for installation of said traffic
light as per Town of Queensbury specifications, and
WIIEREAS, Paul Naylor, Superintendent of Highways, has recommended that the bid be awarded
to Stilsing Electric Inc.,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that appropriations in an account to be created and a number assigned by the
Director of Accounting Services, to be known as a capital construction account for traffic
signals is hereby increased by $18,550.00 and that appropriations in the surplus account for
unappropriated fund balance is hereby increased and the 1989 Town Budget is hereby amended
accordingly, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York hereby
awards the contract for a traffic light as per Town of Queensbury specification to Stilsing
Electric Inc., and
13E IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the cost of the installation of said traffic light shall be paid from the new
account previously described.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
D. Bid Opening Bridge Installation
Kubricky Construction Corp. 5% Bid Bond $69,565.32
237 Bay Road NC attached
Glens Falls, NY 12804
Schultz Construction Inc. 5% Bid Bond 112,000.00
_ P.O. Box 637 NC attached
Round Lake, NY 12151
Beldon Company 5% Bid Bond 125,260.00
P.O. Box 6480 NC attached
Rutland, Vermont
Delaney Excavation Inc. Cert. Check 127,721.00
15 North School St. NC attached
Mayfield, NY 12117
Duke Kubricky Corp. 5% Bid Bond 152,995.92
#2 Aviation Rd. NC attached
P.O. Box 4860
Queensbury, NY 12804
Duplex Construction 5% Bid Bond 183,540.00
Dix Avenue NC attached
P.O. Box 349
Glens Falls, NY 12801
Town Clerk-Stated it is recommended that the bid go to Kubricky Construction.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF A CONCRETE BOX CULVERT BRIDGE
TO REPLACE AN EXISTING BRIDGE ON CRONIN ROAD IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $75,000.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF $75,000.00 IN SERIAL BONDS OF SAID TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO PAY PART OF THE
COST THEREOF
RESOLUTION NO. 722, 1989, Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of authorizing the installation
of a concrete box culvert bridge to replace an existing bridge on Cronin Road in the Town
of Queensbury.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury as follows:
SECTION 1. The specific object or purpose to be financed pursuant to this resolution is the
installation of a three sided concrete box culvert bridge and other engineering and associated
costs.
SECTION 2. The maximum estimated cost of such object or purpose is $75,000.00 and the
plan for financing thereof is the issuance of $75,000.00 serial bonds.
SECTION 3. It is hereby determined that the period of probably usefulness of the aforesaid
specific object or purpose is 20 years, pursuant to Subdivision 10 of Paragraph A of Section
11 of the Local Finance Law of the State of New York. It is hereby further determined that
the maximum maturity of the serial bonds herein authorized shall not exceed five years and
that a five percent down-payment is not required therefore pursuant to Section 107 (d) (4) of
the Local Finance Law.
SECTION 4. The faith and credit of the said Town of Queensbury, New York, are hereby
irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on such bonds as the same
respectively become due and payable. An annual appropriation shall be made in each year
sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on such bonds becoming due and payable in such
year. Unless paid from revenues derived from the aforesaid specific object or purpose, there
shall annually be levied on all the taxable real property of said Town of Queensbury a tax
sufficient to pay the principal of and interest of such bonds as the same become due and payable.
SECTION 5. Subject to the provisions of the Local Finance Law, the power to authorize the
Issuance of and to sell bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance and sale of the
serial bonds herein authorized, including renewals of such notes, is hereby delegated to the
Town Supervisor, the Chief Fiscal Officer. Such notes shall be of such terms, form and contents,
and shall be sold in such manner, as may be prescribed by said Town Supervisor, consistent
with the provisions of the Local Finance Law.
SECTION 6. This resolution shall be subject to permissive referendum in accordance with
New York State Local Finance Law, Section 35, and Town Law, Article 7, and the Town Clerk
of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed to publish and post such notice
of this resolution as may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
A BSENT:None
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT BID CONCRETE BOX CULVERT (CRONIN ROAD)
RESOLUTION NO. 723, 1989,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the Director of Purchasing for the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York,
duly advertised for bids for the installation of a concrete box culvert to replace an existing
bridge on Cronin Road in the Town of Queensbury, and
WIIEREAS, the company of Kubricky Construction Corporation has submitted a bid for the
installation of said concrete box culvert as per Town of Queensbury specifications, and
WHEREAS, Paul Naylor, Superintendent of Highways, has recommended that the bid be awarded
to Kubricky Construction Corporation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the bid is hereby awarded to Kubricky Construction Corporation who's bid
was in the amount of $69,565.32, and
t
BE IT FURTHER
S'$S�
RESOLVED, that notices of awards shall be sent to Kubricky Construction and that contracts
shall be signed in accordance with the bid documents and that all other matters shall be attended
to by the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury as required by contracts documents, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that this resolution is contingent upon the adoption of the resolution authorizing
the installation and bonding of this concrete box culvert.
Duly adopted this l8th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mc. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
I . Bid Opening Excavator
Schroon Lake Tractors NC attached $38,840.00
Schroon Lake, NY Model #490D John Deere
Abele Tractor & Equip. NC attached
72 Evereet Road New Kobelco $55,300.00
Albany, NY 12205 1989 Rental 51,300.00
Contractor Sales Inc. NC attached 64,900.00
P.O. Box 12010 Model #FI1120/Fiatallis
State Equipment New Model LS-2650C
Link Belt 65,000.00
912 Albany-Shaker Rds. (Alter Bid) Model LS 2650C
Latham, NY 12210 1988 Model 46,000.00
NC not attached to either one
Town Clerk-Stated that no recommendation has been received from the Water Department.
F. North Queensbury Rescue Squad
Town Clerk-Letter dated December 12, 1989 from North Queensbury Rescue Squad, requesting
a refund of $120.00 that was paid for rescue squad building expansion.
RESOLUTION REFUND NORTH QUEENSBURY RESCUE SQUAD, INC.
RESOLUTION NO. 724, 1989,Introduced by Mrs. Betty Monahan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury hereby returns the fee of $120.00 paid by North
Queensbury Rescue Squad Inc., for the expansion of the Rescue Squad Building.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None '
— DISCUSSION HELD
Supervisor Borgos-Stated the State DOT has contacted him and has requested the Board to
pass a resolution in regard to maintenance of sidewalks between Ceiba Geigy and Hudson Falls,
the Board denied this request.
RESOLUTION REJECTING REQUEST OF D.O.T.
RESOLUTION NO. 725, 1989, Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for it,4 adoption,
--3
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation proposed the construction of
the Route 254, Sandy Hill/Glens Falls Road S.H. 656 in the Town of Queensbury, and
WHEREAS, the State proposes to included as part of the construction, reconstruction, or
improvements of the above mentioned project the construction of sidewalks pursuant to Section
10, Subdivision 22, Section 46 of Section 349-C of the highway Law and will provide with the
removal, relocation, replacement and or reconstruction of existing sidewalks pursuant to Section
10, Subdivision 24 of the Highway Law as shown on the contracts plans relating to the project,
and
WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Transportation has requested that the Town
Board of the Town of Queensbury approve the removal, relocation, replacement, and or
reconstruction of such existing sidewalks and undertake the maintenance of said relocated
or replaced sidewalks,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby denies the request of
the Department of Transportation and indicates that it does not wish to become a part of the
project and does not desire to maintain the relocated or replaced sidewalks performed, and
BE PI' FURTHER
RESOLVED, that this resolution should not in anyway be interpreted as a resolution approving
of said project.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSI3NT:None
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 726, 1989 Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills showing on abstract December 18th, 1989, numbering 89
3067 and 89 4840 and totaling $281,888.48 be and hereby is approved.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 727, 1989,Introduced by Mr. George Kurosaka who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza:
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves into Executive Session
to discuss the following personnel, professional services, real property acquisition and litigation.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
A BSEN T:None
RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE
RESOLUTION NO. 728, 1989,Introduced by Mrs. Marilyn Potenza who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. George Kurosaka:
IVIIEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby moves back in Regular Session.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
A I3SENT:None
RESOLUTION TO RETAIN C.P.A. FIRM
RESOLUTION NO. 729, 1989,Introduced by Mr. Ronald Montesi who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mrs. Betty Monahan:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the Town
Supervisor to retain Edwards, Williams, McManus C.P.A. to assist the Director of Accounting
Services in connection with year end closing and account adjustments for the Town of
Rueensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the amounts to be paid to Edwards, Williams, McManus C.P.A. firm shall
not exceed the amount of $7,500.00 under this resolution, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the services of said C.P.A. firm shall be paid from - A0551320440.
Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 1989, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kurosaka, Mrs. Potenza, Mr. Montesi, Mrs. Monahan, Mr. Borgos
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Darleen M. Dougher
Town Clerk
Town of Rueensbury
t