Loading...
2000-07-24 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING JULY 24,2000 7:05 p.m. MTG#32 RES#29l-309 B.H.23-24 L.L.#8-1O Introductory No. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN JAMES MARTIN COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL ROBERT HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, RICK MISSIT A WATER SUPERINTENDENT, RALPH VAN DUSEN DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF W ASTEW ATER, MIKE SHAW COMPTROLLER, HENRY HESS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CHRIS ROUND PRESS POST STAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER SUPERVISOR BROWER-Opened meeting. RESOLUTION ENTERING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 291. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and moves into the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE - KAREN CULVER AND ROBERT RICCIO PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7:05 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BROWER-Dave Hatin is not here this evening, but we do have a letter from Dave, do you have that Karen? DEPUTY CLERK, O'BRIEN-Yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would you read that into the record please. DEPUTY CLERK O'BRIEN-Letter dated 7/20/2000 Dear Board Members: The property, as you can tell from the plot plan, is very small and limited, and has only one practical location for a new septic system. The design that you have before you is the only possible sewage disposal design that will fit on this property, as there is no other location on the property to install a new system. Without the approval of this variance you now have before you, the only other alternative would be holding tanks for the same area as the new system that is proposed. In your packets you do have signoffs from the neighbors, regarding the setback variances, and from the owners themselves. I trust this will answer all your questions. If not, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Hatin Director of Building and Code Enforcement SUPERVISOR BROWER-Is they're anyone in the public that would like to speak on this issue? CHARLES MOUZALAS-128 Sunnyside North right next to the property in question. He approached me and asked me if I would sign a document stating that it would be okay for him to put a holding tank for his septic system. I agreed but I wasn't there my wife signed. My wife asked him also was it going to be a holding tank she asked him five times and five times he said it was. Then we got the letter from the town saying that he wants to put a septic system with a leach field in. It is about fifty feet from where my well IS.. . SUPERVISOR BROWER-I've been to the property. MR. MOUZALAS- Thank you. The letter that my wife signed we don't want you to know because like I said he said it was going to be a holding tank not a septic system. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You would be in favor ofa holding tank, but not a septic system? MR. MOUZALAS-Holding tank I don't have a problem, but the septic I do. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. I appreciate it. Anyone else care to address the board at this time on this issue, Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. As this application pertains to a holding tank is this dwelling used for a year round residence? COUNCILMAN TURNER-Can't tell you John is Mr. Riccio in the audience? UNKNOWN-It is a year round residence. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It appears that it was a camp at one time and now that is a year round residence, yes one of the many conversions in the area. MR. SALVADOR-As you know the public health code does not allow a use of a holding tank for year round residence Appendix 75A of the Public Health Code does not allow it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Right John, but I do believe the DOH regs indicate that holding tanks are allowed for year round use as a replacement system where no other alternative is viable. This may be the case is this instance. MR. SALVADOR-Where is that in the regulation where is that cited in the regulations I'm not aware of that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Hatin gave me that information today a matter off act we were discussing it earlier today. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We've gone over this before the same point has been made before we've heard this testimony before. MR. SALVADOR-Is they're a reference on that regulation? There should be a reference a number. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We'll check it out and get back to you. MR. SALVADOR-Before you move ahead with the approval of a holding tank for a year round residence you should check the regulation. It has a 6NYCRR or the Health Department is eight, I think New York Codes Rules and Regulations identification. I would like to know where that is written it is important to us up on Lake George if that is allowed it is very very important to us. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Please hold on your approval of this if this is a year round residence. RICHARD MERRILL, 6 Sunset Trail-It is my recollection that holding tanks are allowed in case of a failed system where there is no alternative I believe that's how it is stated. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's the understanding we had. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We had this citation given to us earlier this year Dave provided it to us earlier this year we've gone over this before. MR. MERRILL-That's the question is this a failed system? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. MR. MERRILL-In which case I think it is allowed according to the New York State Department of Health Code. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Anyone else care to address the board. KATHLEEN SALVADOR-The way that the public notice was noted there is no mention of a holding tank. There is mention of a septic tank to be located one foot from the dwelling rather than the required ten feet. The absorption field to be located approximately six inches to one foot from the property line rather than the required ten foot setback. The absorption field to be located fifty feet from a neighbor's well rather than the required one hundred foot setback. The absorption field to be located eight feet from the dwelling well rather than the required twenty feet setback that was the way this public hearing was noticed not a holding tank. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I believe you're correct. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It is not for a holding tank. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It was for a system. MRS. SALVADOR-It was for a system and a holding tank is not a system. COUNCILMAN BROWER-That's correct. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay let's get that straight. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-So the notice is correct let's get that on the record. MRS. SAL V ADOR- That is correct okay so we should not at this point be talking about a holding tank at this public hearing? COUNCILMAN BREWER-We can't talk about an alternative? MRS. SAL V ADOR-A holding tank is not an alternative. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It is the only alternative. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'll check with our attorney. If we are going to consider a holding tank we may need to re-advertise that would be advice I'd like to get from Mr. Hafner our Attorney. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I think we would have to send the public notice again for both reasons. One that's not what they asked for we don't know that's something that's acceptable to them. Second because it is a different response than what we put in the notice. MRS. SALVADOR-Right now we are talking about what has been noticed. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's correct. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-As far as the septic tank to be located one foot from the dwelling rather than the required ten feet setback are you aware of what your percentage of relief that they are asking for all four of these might be. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yes. MRS. SALVADOR-For the first one what is that percentage of relief? COUNCILMAN STEC-Ninety percent. MRS. SALVADOR-Ninety percent right. What is the percentage of relieffor the second one? COUNCILMAN TURNER-One is fifty. MRS. SAL V ADOR-Ninety-five percent. COUNCILMAN TURNER-You've got fifty feet to the well you need a hundred you've got half the distance. MRS. SALVADOR-It is six feet to one inch rather than the required ten feet. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I'm not talking about that one. MRS. SALVADOR-The third? COUNCILMAN STEC-Fifty percent. MRS. SALVADOR-Thefour? COUNCILMAN STEC-Forty percent. MRS. SALVADOR-Sixty percent. I really feel this is a lot of relief that they are asking. I believe that what has been set forth what the required ten feet or whatever are these are design standards established by the State of New York. I know the Town has granted variances and waivers from these standards. In fact the Town has established its own set of sanitary ordinance and is granting variances from it. That's less than the state code and I feel that it is improper. We had at the last ZBA meeting supposedly people from the Sunnyside Lake Association coming in and they are talking about the milfoil that is on the lake they do want to do something about that I think we have to be very very careful. I'm very conscious of water quality and all being in business we have to be. I do feel that these distances that they are asking for are just not proper at all. I really would like to see you not except this and perhaps have to renounce a meeting and perhaps go to a holding tank which I again feel is not proper for a year round residence. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Anyone else care to address the board that hasn't addressed the board yet? Yes, please come foreword. KAREN CUL VER-I am here to ask for your cooperation. This is a letter from Lee Barton actually he signed the letter that was mailed out. Also to make a correction on the fourth item it says the absorption field to be located eight feet from the dwelling well, we do not have a well so that's not an accurate statement. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It says dwelling foundation. COUNCILMAN STEC-Dwelling foundation. MS. CULVER-My letter said dwelling well. The letter that was mailed out said dwelling well. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Our resolution says foundation. If there was an error, I apologize. MS. CULVER-So that has been corrected? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. MS . CULVER-The other thing was when I approached this project I talked to Dave and he said the Eljen System is a new technology the water coming out of it is a better quality than with your traditional perc field. This system is an improvement over the system, which is there in the exact same spot. So I don't really see any grounds for complaints if you are upgrading a system. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. MR. SAL V ADOR-I have a copy of the Public Health Code Appendix 75A it is only a few lines long I'd like to read to you very carefully what it says. I am sure that the New York State Health Department would take care that their regulations promulgated as a result of this reflect what I'm reading here okay. Holding tanks. The use of holding tanks shall not be permitted for new home construction except where occupancy of a home is permitted while the sewage treatment system is under construction this is not a new home I take it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Right. MR. SALVADOR-So that sentence doesn't apply is not on point. The use of holding tanks shall not be permitted except so that exception doesn't apply to this let's go on. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Why are we talking about holding tanks John we just got done hearing from your wife confirming that we're not talking about holding tanks this is an application for a leach bed why are we talking about holding tanks? MR. SALVADOR-Because Mr. Hatin has submitted to you a recommendation that you accept for this application an alternative of a holding tank. If you want to set Mr. Hatin's recommendation aside I'll stand aside. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-In my mind I'm doing that. I have an application before me for a leach bed. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But, Dave Hatin's letter Jim says without the approval of this variance you now have before you the only other alternative would be holding tanks. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-At that time if they choose to make that application then I'll hear it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-He is not saying that we should approve holding tanks he said that's the only other alternative. MR. SAL V ADOR-Ifyou can assure me Mr. Supervisor that this will be the outcome of this meeting you will not consider holding tanks I will step down. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We won't consider holding tanks at this meeting. MR. SALVADOR-Very good thank you. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's not to say we won't consider them at another meeting though. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's up to the applicant. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else care to address the board at this time on this topic? Okay in that case I'll declare the public hearing closed and I'll entertain discussion from board members. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:20 P.M. DISCUSSION HELD COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think this is pretty easy in my mind. I think the relief is too.... COUNCILMAN STEC- Too much... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Too much.... COUNCILMAN STEC-I agree way too much. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Even though this may be an improvement over the existing system I still think there could be a limitation here for a hazard to the neighbors well. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Turner and I visited the site and it is within fifty feet of another well which concerned both of us COUNCILMAN BREWER-There is no place on the property you could put it without being that close. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I tend to agree allowing a system even an Elgin System in there could potentially be dangerous to their neighbors. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I appreciate the lengths they've gone to and they are trying to do the right thing here, but still I just think its too much that's speaking for me. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do I hear then I believe I hear a consensus. Does someone want to make a motion to deny this application? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I move a denial, as the request of relief is too much. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'll second it. The following resolution was passed: RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF KAREN CULVER AND ROBERT RICCIO RESOLUTION NO.: BOH 23. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION DENIED SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Karen Culver and Robert Riccio filed an application for four (4) variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of Health grant variances to allow: 5. a septic tank to be located one foot (1 ') from the dwelling rather than the required ten feet (10') setback; 6. the absorption field to be located approximately six inches to one foot (6" - 1') from the property line rather than the required ten feet (10') setback; 7. the absorption field to be located fifty feet (50') from a neighbor's well rather than the required one- hundred feet (100') setback; and 8. the absorption field to be located eight feet (8') from the dwelling foundation rather than the required twenty feet (20') setback; concerning their property located at 124 Sunnyside North, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk's Office published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Town's official newspaper and the Local Board of Health conducted a public hearing concerning the variance requests on July 24th, 2000, 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, e) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and f) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances granted are the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicants; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves the application of Karen Culver and Robert Riccio to allow: l.a septic tank to be located one foot (1 ') from the dwelling rather than the required ten feet (10') setback; 2.the absorption field to be located approximately six inches to one foot (6" - 1') from the property line rather than the required ten feet (10') setback; 3.the absorption field to be located fifty feet (50') from a neighbor's well rather than the required one- hundred feet (100') setback; and 4.the absorption field to be located eight feet (8') from the dwelling foundation rather than the required twenty feet (20') setback; on property located at 124 Sunnyside North, Queensbury and bearing Tax Map No.: 50-1-84. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: None NOES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower ABSENT:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. BOH 24. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns as the Queensbury Board of Health and moves into the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower Noes: None Absent:None PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED EXTENSION NO.7 TO CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT - BA YBRIDGE HOMES DEVELOPMENT OPENED 7:24 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do we have anyone here to speak on behalf of the project, Mr. Vollaro. BOB VOLLARO, 5 GENTRY LANE, QUEENSBURY-I come before you this evening as no longer the President of this association, however, I believe that by vote of the association I can continue to speak for them on the sewer project. I just want to find out whether the current President is present? Okay. I'm just going to start off just real quick Mr. Hafner's letter all of you have received that of seven July, requested the deletion of certain paragraphs on page one and seven of the Map, Plan, and Report that has been done and has been submitted to the clerk. The same letter requested revision of page five in the Map, Plan, and Report that has also been done and submitted to the clerk and I see Mr. Hafner nodding I assume that you've gotten there. Therefore, I consider the Map, Plan, and Report to be a complete document and I would like the board to be able to tell me that they have accepted the Map, Plan, and Report as a complete and satisfactory document. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. HAFNER-At this stage it is a complete document for filing like anything else with the Town Clerk, but your action is two fold. One is after the public hearing you often take action I think that he is going to get on to that Martin Auffredou and I have talked and set up a meeting about the agreement that was one of the things that we normally have signed before. You take action after the public hearing to start the process of creating the extension. At this meeting I thought that we were just going to have the public hearing and not take any action. That's usually where you after the input of any public you would have any comments about the fullness or whether you think that any other property should be into it and all those things that can't be done at this stage. Technically he's made the changes that we've asked for and we're satisfied with them, but I really don't think that's appropriate for the board to make at this time. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I understand what Mr. Hafner's saying. I'd like to read from the last paragraph of Mr. Hafner's 7-7-letter. He said we will need the revised Map, Plan, and Report a signed agreement and an acceptable letter from Martin Auffredou concerning Baybridge's existence and authority to enter into the agreement and the enforceability of the agreement before we can advise the Town Board to create the extension. I think that's what you are referring to in that paragraph is that correct? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Yes we are going to meet Thursday afternoon. MR. VOLLARO-I will be there silently, however. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Martin said just a few small things. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Even if you weren't there Bob you'd be there in spirit. MR. VOLLARO- Oh yes. I can tell you that the agreement requires a good deal of work we are not in my opinion close. I would like to get into the resolution itself for a minute. There are some things in there I would like to discuss I would like the Town Board to know about. You all have a copy of the resolution in front of you. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Resolution No. 268, 2000. In the first paragraph where it says whereas, the Baybridge Homeowners that should be corrected to be the Queensbury Baybridge Homeowners Association that's how we're known through the Attorney Generals Office. That's the actual name so I think it ought to be stated that way here on the resolution. Secondly, the bottom of page one, I would like to call your attention to three parcels just get to the last part of that start off with active units with other parcels bearing tax map nos.: 61.-2-13, 61.-2-999, 61.-1-47 and 61.-2-102 then there are three more. One is 61.-1-43.3,60.-2-54 and 61. -1-42 these are additional parcels that we put into the Map, Plan, and Report at the town's request. However, it is my understanding the Town Wastewater Department can correct me if I'm wrong these people are not going to share in the initial installation cost. Baybridge is putting in X amount of dollars per unit I believe it is six hundred and sixty seven dollars per unit for each member in sixty-eight units. The reason it is not sixty-nine I have the answer to it if anybody wants to know that. In any event these other three are not putting any money into as far as capital is concerned the installation capital and I'm not sure why. There may be a reason I think I've discussed this reason with Mr. Shaw he has told me what his reasoning is behind it. I just want the Town Board to recognize there are three parcels coming into this district who do not intend to pay a pro-rated share of the capital costs. COUNCILMAN BREWER-When they hookup they would be expected to pay would they Dennis or not? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'll ask Mike Shaw that question. MR. VOLLARO- The hookup I will answer that. . . .. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well not that I doubt what you are saying Bob, but I'd like to hear..... MR. VOLLARO- I can tell you that the public hearing extension the resolution says on page 7, number 6. . . . COUNCILMAN BREWER-Page 7, number 6. MR. VOLLARO-It starts off with the estimated costs of hookup fees to the typical property will be zero. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't think we have that in front of us. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-You mean Map, Plan, and Report? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't have that in front of me Bob. MR. VOLLARO-No. I'm talking about resolution no. 268,2000. DEPUTY CLERK O'BRIEN-That was approved at a previous meeting the ones that we have before us are these. That was setting the public hearing the one your talking about. MR. VOLLARO- Y es and setting the public hearing that document says that the estimated costs of hookup fees to the typical property will be zero. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I've got it. MR. VOLLARO- Y ou got it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I got it. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-That's right off your Map, Plan, and Report. MR. VOLLARO- That is the sixty-nine units are already hooked up in a sense we have to replace obviously those septic systems, but there is no hookup from the unit to the collection point. The three properties that are on the southern portion of Bay Road will have to hook up there should be a hook up fee for that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was my question was when they hookup will they have pay Mike? MR. VOLLARO-It says no in number six. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-Three of those properties that are in there two of the properties are contract customers are all existing and have service. The only thing were doing is including them in the district extensions so we don't have to include them as a contract customer anymore just saving them five percent. The other customer along the way is one person that asked to be in the district that bordered the sewer district line. When they connect generally those situations what we do individual homes try to encourage them to connect we don't charge them anything usually. Their connection fee to connect to their house to the main will be at their expense in a sense that's their connection fee at that point they will pay accordingly to the charges of the district. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's all we did with Ridge Road and Quaker Road right everybody had to pay their own way from their house to the line. COUNCILMAN TURNER-That's right. MR. VOLLARO-I'm not raising any objections to this I just want you to know where we stand on that. I don't have any other questions on this resolution that was set to establish the public hearing. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I am somewhat concerned if we're this far into this process and I heard you start your statement off by saying you don't even think we're close on the agreement how can that be? MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you some of the areas of the agreement and I didn't want to get into that until we have our meeting. . ... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'm concerned. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I thought we were ready to go. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We've got a lot of time and money invested in this and to hear that now I can throw a hand grenade and not hit anything is concerning me. MR. VOLLARO-It depends on how big a hand grenade you've got. A couple of things in here in the agreement itself one there is no time certain in here for when the town pays Baybridge for a phase completed. We're going to try to develop language that allows us to make time certain after Henry gets a chance to look at all our valid invoices and all those things then X number of days after that the town has to pay us cause we have to pay the contractor. There are no words in here like that at all. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We can address that. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-We have a meeting schedule to go through this sort of stuff..... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I just want to make sure there is no deal breakers in here. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I was surprised at what he said because I talked to Martin Auffredou. I've worked with him quite often last Thursday I think it was he said it's all small things we can work it out just sit through an hour and a half and work through the changes. He lead me to believe that we were just going to firm up some language that could make them feel more comfortable and that the Town would still be protected. I think we should wait until we meet with him and then we'll first report back. . .. MR. VOLLARO- The other thing that we're somewhat concerned with just so you know it says in the draft agreement the sewage treatment facility estimated at a $1.35 a gallon shall be due to the municipality prior to adoption of the final order establishing the extension district. The Town and the City are currently negotiating the cost of such capacity and the Town makes no representation as to the actual amount that the City will charge. The $1.35 a gallon is an estimate if the City charges less the Town will reimburse the difference if the City charges more Baybridge will pay the difference. I think our position is going to be at least my position is whether it is Mr. Auffredou's or not is that the $1.35 stays at a not to exceed price. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. HAFNER-How can you it's a flow through. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse Mr. Hafner I'm not finished yet. It's been with us since the beginning for fourteen months as we've been discussing this a $1.35 has been on the table. We feel that it is only fair that the $1. 3 5 stays frozen. COUNCILMAN BREWER-For capacity that we have and we have that capacity that was my understanding. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's my understanding as well. You don't have a problem with that do you Mike with that language? DEPUTY W ASTEW A TER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-The capacity we currently have now is paid by the original district by those original people in the original district. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That was based on that number wasn't it? DEPUTY WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-It is properly not correct to allow another district extension to use that. I don't know that legally I would question that it maybe something Bob could answer. All the district extensions we've done in the past have paid for buy-in. The buy-ins have ranged from anywhere to seventy-five cents up to now we're hearing two dollars and above and they have gone up and down for a number of reasons. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Isn't the higher number for capacity we want to buy not capacity we have? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's his point. He is saying in the event that we can't take capacity that has already been purchased and apply it to this we have to go out and buy new to accommodate this. . . . COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why did we buy all the capacity that we have then we didn't have sewers to fill that capacity? DEPUTY W ASTEW A TER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-The capacity was bought for the original district and the original district has several acres of vacant land and still does. . . COUNCILMAN MARTIN-The area and parcels within that district. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I thought we bought the capacity for just this reason? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No it's within a specified area that's a district. Now we're expanding that area that's a district, and now we're expanding that area and we're saying well we'll dip into that capacity that's already been purchased for a specified area and apply it to this area it was not originally foreseen for. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't why the $1.35..... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-So we're at the good graces of the Mayor again. COUNCILMAN STEC-We made a lot of progress with the Mayor yesterday Jim. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Oh we did. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What did he do Jim buy you a hotdog. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I can understand the associations position their not swimming in money they want to know there is a not to exceed cost. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think we've been talking about a $1.35 all along. SUPERVISOR BROWER-My assumption also Mike was a buck thirty-five a gallon. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I understands it's a flow, it's a pass through. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. HAFNER-The town can't underwrite that. The State Law says these people in the extension have to pay their cost. The Town can't underwrite it if it comes in at two bucks we can't.... SUPERVISOR BROWER-Bob we still have capacity on that sector. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. HAFNER-That's not theirs the town can't sell that that belongs to the people in the district that they are extending into. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What it is going to come down to is we're going to have to get an agreement from the city that it is in fact a $1.35 buy-in prior to this moving forward that's what I'm hearing that's like watching hens teeth grow. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What were the last extensions or Stewart's down there what did they pay? DEPUTY WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHAW-We quoted Stewart's a $1.35.... COUNCILMAN BREWER-What the hells the problem then if we did iffor Stewart's why can't we do it for these people? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. HAFNER-It's the same exact language as what was in the Stewart's agreement. It is exactly the same as all the agreements we done since we've been Town Counsel and before. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What I'm understanding now is I've been around for a lot of sewer districts extensions and it has been for Wal-Mart and Srewart's and places like that in deep pockets. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Exactly. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-These people are not deep pockets they have to go into this agreement knowing that there is an up set amount a fixed cost. If it goes up to two dollars and something a gallon they are not going to be able to pay it. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And there goes the extension. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It is very clear to me your position is that we've got to know up front so we've got to get an agreement from the city. SUPERVISOR BROWER-What's the Stewart's deal they paid a buck thirty-five up front for their capacity? If we get additional capacity on that line if the price is higher than that they'll pay the difference is that what you're telling me? TOWN COUNSEL, MR. HAFNER-Our agreements have always provided that it will be a flow through that we estimate it at a $1.35 because historically it has been. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We have to get an iron clad on this one. TOWN COUNSEL, MR. HAFNER-The city has not been willing to continue to do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-All of a sudden why is their rock in the way? MR. TUCKER-Because the Mayor is asking two dollars. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that Pliney, but we still have capacity we did it a year ago for Stewart's and if there is capacity left I cannot understand in my life why we can't do it for these people. MR. TUCKER-Because the capacity belongs to the people in the district.... COUNCILMAN BREWER-Then how did we give it to Stewart's? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-They purchased more from the city. COUNCILMAN TURNER-They are in the district. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It was the same type oflanguage we didn't give from within the district. We extended the capacity to accommodate the new extension. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We got the buck thirty-five from the city for the Stewart's extension? DEPUTY WASTEWATER DIRECTOR, MR. SHA W-I believe the city was a dollar thirty-five. The city has quoted several prices on several projects we've done anywhere from a dollar to a dollar thirty-five. Normally the way we've done it in the past is there has been a clause in there that says estimated a dollar thirty-five. Years ago we used to estimate a dollar then they started charging more than that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Just for the audiences knowledge we've tried to negotiate bulk sewer capacity for about three hundred fifty thousand additional gallons of capacity from the city for an up front fee. We we're hoping that because of the bulk sewer capacity deal we might be able to negotiate something lower than a dollar thirty-five a gallon. To date the Mayor and I and our respected departments have not been able to agree on a price for additional sewer capacity so that's where we currently stand at that. The Mayor has made an offer for the South Queensbury Sewer District, which was a special offer. He made it very clear that it was a special offer of a dollar twenty-five a gallon buy-in for twenty five thousand gallons of existing capacity that currently is flowing to Washington County. He understands that we want to reverse the flow to Warren County and to Glens Falls and in order to do that he gave us what he termed a special offer of a dollar and a quarter a gallon buy-in for that South Queensbury Sewer Extension. We hope to have agreement on that in the near future. I honestly thought, I didn't think capacity was an issue on this corridor. . . . COUNCILMAN BREWER-I didn't either. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I was a little surprised also Mike. COUNCILMAN STEC-Dennis since we're doing a little background on where things go. When you started negotiations for the three hundred and fifty thousand gallons capacity what kind of numbers was the Mayor coming in with? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Two dollars. COUNCILMAN STEC-What concerns me is that in the eighties I believe the gallons were around seventy cents a gallon buy-in. If you take three percent interest over the last fifteen years today dollars that's about a buck ten a gallon, a buck fifteen a gallon. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can sit there with straight face and propose two dollars a gallon especially after criticizing our offer for water at cost. SUPERVISOR BROWER-At least you have a little idea of the background on this so it make a little bit of sense. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Dennis I'm just perplexed. How much are the people over on Meadowbrook Road paying Schermerhorn and Michael's Group? SUPERVISOR BROWER-They are in the Hiland District. The City gave the Girl Scouts a special deal of a dollar a gallon and they gave ACC a dollar a gallon for twenty-five thousand gallons. COUNCILMAN STEC- That's another thing that confuses me. You got one sewer plant how can different parts of the town be paying significantly different rates I don't understand that either? SUPERVISOR BROWER-This was the whole idea. What we wanted to do and Mike may be able to address this. What we wanted to do is to take the various contracts we have with the City of Glens Falls merge them all into one bulk sewer capacity and pay the same rate for every district. We haven't been able to achieve that, that was the whole idea we got like several different agreements. How many different contracts do we have with the city Mike? DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-We actually have four different contracts they are all figured on different sets of billing systems. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What has been the average time of negotiation to get a rate in the city and get that locked in on the average? DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF W ASTEW ATER, MR. SHAW-There really hasn't been an average Jim it's been everywhere. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I know they are all over that's why I asked for the average. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-We've had several in the past for instance like Stewart's and the Girl Scouts they've quoted us prices and we've never actually completed one. You do a buy-in you have to modify the contract..... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-They've never really modified the contract. ACC was one too that they did actually act on his Water and Sewer Board did actually act on and approved a per dollar gallon, but the contract was never modified that's over a year old. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We're sitting here trying to get a sewer pipe in the ground in September given what I've heard tonight I think the chances of that happening have drastically dropped. COUNCILMAN STEC-And this is a relative easy concept for us. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF W ASTEW ATER, MR. SHAW-With the other projects we've moved ahead we've taken the buy-in number and moved ahead and didn't hold the project up. As Bob says some of the other agreements we quoted the dollar in there or a certain price. When the city gave us a dollar amount it was adjusted or we bought in at that time we never held the extensions up for those reasons. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We've got the other party here that has to sign this agreement before the extension can move forward right? DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-Correct. COUNCILMAN STEC- That's right. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Absolutely. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-They are not willing to sign until they have an up set amount a not to exceed amount. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-All we can do is go to the city and ask them. I guess if that's what we're asking that's what we can do. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think it's completely reasonable given the fact we are talking about essentially a non-profit entity. COUNCILMAN BREWER-They are ready to go we've been seven months. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Even that we have a growing health problem out there in the form of that leach bed. COUNCILMAN STEC-January Baybridge approached us and conceptually it was a no brainer for this board. This is an easy project it has unanimous support from the get-go and we're seven months into a simple project that's frustrating. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What are we going to do with Route 9? DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-Pardon me? COUNCILMAN BREWER-What are we going to do with Route 9 forget it or what? COUNCILMAN STEC-I'll tell you how we should negotiate sewer price just like we negotiated a water price. We'll have Henry sit down with the City's Treasurer just like we opened our books and figure out cost publicly what our cost was we should ask the City to figure out their costs and we will work from that number. They keep pulling different numbers every time turn there is a big difference between a dollar thirty-five and two dollars what's that percentage Mrs. Salvador it's about another fifty percent on top that's ridiculous. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-I agree, I agree. MR. VOLLARO-Just to put that in perspective right now each unit at Baybridge is looking to put in six hundred and sixty seven dollars. This would take us up another seventy-five bucks a unit. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-They are not going to do that it's not right. MR. VOLLARO-I already sort of committed this to the community that this is what they are going to pay. COUNCILMAN STEC-We all have, yeah very reasonably so. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We've all agreed to that. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We've got to go to the city then to see if they are going to take a dollar thirty- five. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We'll talk to the Mayor again. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Tomorrow. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We haven't stop negotiating pricing for bulk capacity. COUNCILMAN STEC-I just don't think we should jump at a dollar thirty-five. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I believe the Mayor knows we're serious about extending our sewers and we're hoping we can come to some agreement. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would propose that we go to the Mayor tomorrow give him this amount of capacity, can we lock in at this price and move this project forward. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We got what thirteen thousand gallons we're looking for here for a buy-in? MR. VOLLARO-Eight thousand. COUNCILMAN STEC-My only concern is that we are still looking at a three hundred fifty thousand gallon negotiation and they are going to use this thirteen thousand as leverage to get the price they want for three hundred fifty thousand gallons on a plant that's running at thirty percent capacity that was eight-five percent funded by the federal government. I'm mad the people of Baybridge should be made anyone that buys in at a dollar thirty-five a gallon should be angry. I've got a lot of issues with where this buck thirty- five is coming from. I think we're too quick to sign off on that and I think two dollars is an insult. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You and I think alike on that Dan so. MR. VOLLARO-I like to just add one other thing to this and I think Mr. Stec touched on it a week or two or three ago I can't remember when it was. Back up stream a way I had questioned the source of this dollar thirty-five whether it was a resolution, whether it was an agreement, what kind of a document was negotiated that compelled Queensbury to pay a buy-in fee to the City of Glens Falls and to date we haven't gotten an answer to that? I think Mr. Brower you gave me answer to it in your office one afternoon when you said we don't have a document we haven't been able to locate it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We don't have a document. COUNCILMAN TURNER-No we don't Bob. MR. VOLLARO- Y ou don't. What is the basis that obligates this town to pay this money? Where did that come from? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Michael. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-The contracts we do have with the city each contract calls for the town to do a buy-in. With the contract it states the number of gallons and the amount paid. I guess if you want to lean on that and call that the document that requires you to pay since they are the owners of the plant I guess that's the document you would be talking about. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-What is those buy-ins fees in the four agreements on a per gallon basis? DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-What are they? Some of them are very old, some are based on units, some are based on cubic feet, and some are based on gallons. You're scratching your head Jim that's why we want to redo all these contracts into one understandable contract for both parties. COUNCILMAN TURNER-It starts at seventy-five cents and goes to a dollar thirty-five. COUNCILMAN STEC-We have a viable health issue and our hands are tied by the city. The city is impacting public health and public safety as far as I'm concerned in Baybridge. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think we all ought to call the Mayor everyone of us. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I have a feeling the Mayor may cooperate with us on this. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Okay you're the man. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Monday night we'll know right? COUNCILMAN STEC-Can we quote you on that? SUPERVISOR BROWER-You can quote me sure absolutely. MR. VOLLARO- The rest of the topics are as Mr. Hafner described probably doable in this document. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Thank you Bob. MR. VOLLARO- There has been a SEQRA document submitted. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We're prepared to do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We still have to finish the public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-I don't know if the public hearing can go forward without all of the documents that Mr. Hafner has asked us to not just the documents, but the agreement and the letter from our Attorney. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Can't we just leave it opened Bob? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Actually I had thought you would finish the public hearing tonight give other people their opportunity when everyone is done you close the public hearing you don't have to take action tonight. COUNCILMAN TURNER-Don't take any action? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-You take action save it for the future. You are required to have a public hearing and give the notice, which you will have done. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We can get through the public hearing tonight I would think. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-You get through the public hearing you can close it and you can just save the action for the future when we have finished these last few details. MR. VOLLARO-I like the way you did that that was cool. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I'm trying to be optimistic about this we're trying to move forward. COUNCILMAN MARTIN- Optimism is good. COUNCILMAN STEC- That's the frustrating part both parties have been very amicable on this whole negotiation and we're just seven months into this simple project. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I keep saying then you wonder why you don't have economic development and jobs it's not a mystery. Seven months to do a sewer district extension is not going to do, you know gamer well attracting companies and doing business. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-On this matter Bob and Mike and we have all worked together. The hold up is the agreement with the City of Glens Falls, which is not here it, is not any of these parties. Dennis I wish you luck it's a lot of hard work. COUNCILMAN STEC-We had them close yesterday didn't we? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else like to speak on behalf or opposing the project one or the other, yes Mrs. Salvador. KATHLEEN SAL V ADOR- To answer Mr. Stec's question that's about forty-eight percent increase and I don't have my slide rule with me tonight. COUNCILMAN STEC- Thank you Kathleen. MRS. SAL V ADOR- Y our welcome. What I'm hearing tonight is appalling. I think these people have worked diligently all of this time going on this dollar thirty-five buy-in.... COUNCILMAN MARTIN-And we have as well. MRS. SALVADOR-You have as well and all ofa sudden here we are talking two dollars whatever. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's right. We agree a hundred percent with you. COUNCILMAN STEC-It is ridiculous. MRS. SALVADOR-It really is. What I'm asking I heard for the first time tonight that the ACC buy-in was a dollar. Why can't this non-profit organization buy-in? COUNCILMAN STEC-We don't own the sewer plant. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Exactly most of the people are senior citizens. MRS. SALVADOR-The last meeting I have foiled the minutes of the last meeting they are not available yet, but I believe I heard at the last meeting that when this plant was built it was built with federal funds. COUNCILMAN STEC-Eight-five percent. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Eighty-seven and a half- percent federal funds. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But the city owns it. MRS. SALVADOR-The city owns it.... COUNCILMAN STEC-It was a gift. MRS. SALVADOR-But, I think iffederal funds are involved how can one entity owns it? COUNCILMAN BREWER-We have no idea. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It was actually funded as a regional sewer plant. MRS. SALVADOR-It was a regional project. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Exactly to handle the Lake George basin sewer originally. COUNCILMAN STEC-It was funded as a regional plant but all the profit goes to the City of Glens Falls. MRS. SALVADOR-Aren't we in the region? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Yeah we are. COUNCILMAN STEC-Profit at a hundred percent. COUNCILMAN BREWER-This is all new to us also. MRS. SAL V ADOR-I understand that. I feel very deeply for these people as you say you do have health hazard going. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Every intention is to break ground in September to have this all squared away by the time snow fly's. MRS. SALVADOR-November or so. COUNCILMAN STEC-And that should have been very achievable. Anyone negotiating any side of this in good faith. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Lets not be...it still is I'm still of that hope. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I don't think we've lost this project by any chance. MRS. SAL V ADOR- There is going to be good discussions and we're going to go forward with this. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-We're going to make every effort like I said he's the man. COUNCILMAN STEC-Dennis is the man. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No pressure though. JOHN SALVADOR-I, too am agassed to hear that the community college bought in for a dollar a gallon. Why don't we raise their rate and reduce Baybridge. The community college was supposed to be on the Bay Road Sewer Corridor. With the community college on that corridor as a kicker their rate wouldn't be as high. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Exactly. MR. SALVADOR-They were let out of the hopper by the previous administration and it's the previous administration that negotiated the one dollar. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We have no control over that John. MR. SALVADOR-There are too many open issues for this public hearing to be closed tonight you should keep this public hearing open. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's an option we have. MR. SALVADOR-In fact, in fact, when you look at the economics of an operating plant as you buy in more capacity the rate should go down. COUNCILMAN STEC-Absolutely. MR. SALVADOR-It doesn't make any sense. COUNCILMAN STEC-It is called economy of scales John. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's why we wanted to buy the bulk capacity. MR. SAL V ADOR-I think we have to take a close look at this what's going on with this sewer plant downtown there. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If you were to put a graph on this the costs are even going to drop even further when the so called privatization kicks in cause now all the labor costs to operate the facility are going to drop substantially. MR. SAL V ADOR-I think we should exercise our mite as a participant in the regional project back when. If that Lake George wastewater was to go to Glens Falls are expected to pay a buy-in someday if it still goes down there? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Sure are. MR. SALVADOR-Boy, they must think we got bags of money up there. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Three bucks a gallon for you guys up there, John. MR. SALVADOR - We can all laugh but these are serious problems the public financing of this project is senous. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-John it is a very serious matter. SUPERVISOR BROWER-John you can't believe how frustrating it is to want to see sewers move forward in our community which they haven't for years, and years, and years primarily because we didn't' have the ability to connect with the city. Now we've got that ability we just need to negotiate a price that is feasible. If the price is to high the businesses in the district will opt out they will not go in and we won't have the economic development that we need and also the sanitary environment that we need. MR. SAL V ADOR- Why doesn't Queensbury take the lead and develop our own sewage treating capacity. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's the last thing I want to think of. COUNCILMAN STEC-At two dollars a gallon we're going to look at that and we'll talk to Kingsbury. MR. SALVADOR-If you're going to be dependent on that city from now until the end of time your going to go through this aggravation every time you want to extend the sewer district. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's why we want bulk capacity and I think the city and the town will cooperate with each other hopefully and will be able to come up with some kind of contract. MR. SALVADOR -You set a plan in motion to develop your own treatment capacity and you will find them coming to the table, but you have no alternatives and they know it. COUNCILMAN STEC- That's right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We do have alternatives. COUNCILMAN STEC-Kingsbury's looking at a project maybe we'll talk to them. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's not really viable. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It may not be, but it's not viable sitting here in negotiations and not getting a price that's not viable either. COUNCILMAN STEC- Two dollars is an insult. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else like to comment on this? GARFIELD RAYMOND, OWNS PROPERTY 421 BAY ROAD-I came with one question, but now I have two. One of them are we going to be mandated to hooked into this? This sewer line is going to be running up adjacent to the property that we own? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-No. MR. RA YMOND- When I called they weren't sure about that. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-He's on a piece of property that fronts on Bay Road to the south of this just north of the dance studio aren't it, but south of this parcel. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Your in the Map, Plan, and Report? MR. RAYMOND-No, but are they going to be mandating that we tie in? SUPERVISOR BROWER-No. You could ask to be included, but you won't be forced to be included. MR. RA YMOND- That was the question the only other point I got is on your paragraph ten. I 'm not quite even sure if the public hearing is proper because you guys condition it upon the agreement being executed even to hold this hearing. Since that was not done I'm not even sure when you said that notification a new notification doesn't have to be sent out I think you might be wrong on that. I don't really care cause it doesn't affect me. MR. SALVADOR - I just have some information. We have the same problem that we had in Lake George quite a few years ago. Back in 1976 the DEC came forth with a plan to run a sewer line down Route 9N taking the wastewater from Hearthstone State Campground to the Village Sewage Treatment Plant a force main. At that time the DEC approached the Town of Lake George with a proposal that they tie in all those businesses along the way. There is quite a concentration of resorts, motels, and restaurants on that corridor. The brilliant Town Supervisor at the time, I think it was Bob Flacke said no we're not interested in that. That line a six inch force main from Hearthstone down to the Village of Lake George its in there today and has been servicing that campground all these years and Lake George elected to by pass it and look where we are today. That corridor that T Island Bay there is one of the most polluted bays it's a pocket. I heard this gentlemen say something about him not being in the sewer district as the line passes his doorway I don't think that's proper. The district is not just where the line is the district encompasses an area of land that's to be serviced someday if his dwelling is in this he should be part of this district. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would agree if the land is vacant and there is development they would have to go in that's only my opinion I would agree with you. MR. SAL V ADOR-Mr. Hafner referred to state law and all Ijust don't think this is proper the line passing the doorway and you don't tie it in. The other thing I think there is a lot of confusion with regard to this capacity we purchased and the buy-in. We bought in how many gallons originally three hundred fifty? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Four hundred and eighty or something. MR. SALVADOR-The original Quaker Road Sewer District bought in four hundred and eighty thousand dollars. There have been six sewer extensions since then. What's the total amount now that we bought it? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mike do you know that figure by any chance? DEPUTY WASTEWATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. SHAW-The total buy-in under contract with the City of Glens Falls now is four eleven. As I said before we have a number of contracts or additions we had talked to the City about buy-in but have not completed that. MR. SALVADOR-Are we sending the wastewater to the city? DEPUTY W ASTEW ATER SUPERINTENDENT, MR. SHA W- We're sending the wastewater to the city. MR. SALVADOR-And they haven't bought in? DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF W ASTEW ATER, MR. SHAW-We have a payment in escrow we're trying to negotiate a buy-in once, again as Dennis has said we haven't been very successful. MR. SALVADOR-If it's a pass through you should have not had commenced the project without a contract a firm agreement. We have something Mike says it's four eleven it couldn't of been forty eighty originally. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-It was four hundred originally. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-If we were to execute all of those agreements it would probably somewhere about five hundred thousand at this point wouldn't it? MR. VOLLARO-Three hundred and thirty thousand is what it is including 1999. MR. SALVADOR-Not the use the buy-in. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-If he executed all of what we wanted to do we would be four seventy-five somewhere in there. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-So in answer to your question we would probably add about another seventy- five thousand gallons above and beyond the original four hundred if we fully executed everything that has been done out there. MR. SALVADOR-Everyone of those gallons is allocated to somebody even to a piece of vacant land. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Right. MR. SALVADOR-So if that vacant land get utilized someday, are these people on the vacant land paying a sewer tax? SUPERVISOR BROWER-If they are in the district. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WASTEWATER, MR. SHAW-The people in the original district they are on vacant land when the original district they are paying sewer tax. . ... MR. SALVADOR-If they are paying a sewer tax by god that capacity is reserved for them. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-It's been done. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's what he was telling you. MR. SALVADOR-Nobody else can use it. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's been the practice. MR. SALVADOR -You have no right to allow someone else to send wastewater through that system without a buy-in contract with the city you just have no right to do that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's what we're saying we have to get. MR. SALVADOR -You are sending the wastewater and you don't have the contract. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We have an agreement. MR. SALVADOR-Contract, agreement, a handshake. SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's basically what it is. Anyone else care to comment on this particular pubic hearing? In that case I'm going to suggest that we leave this public hearing open I guess we'll take no action on it at this time. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPENED PUBLIC HEARING - ENACT LOCAL LAW - ENTITLED "TERMS OF OFFICE" EXTENDING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR TOWN CLERK OPENED 8:06 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BROWER-This local law would extend the Town Clerk's term from two years to four years. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Wouldn't it only put it in the ballot for referendum? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. The proposal is to bring this to referendum this coming November to extend the term of office of the Town Clerk from two years to four years. Does anyone have any comment on this particular item? Any comment? MR. SALVADOR-Is everyone bashful? MR. KOUBA-No we don't want to hog the meeting though. MR. SALVADOR-I'm just trying to preserve the public hearing please if someone would like to speak go ahead. LINDA MC NULTY, 14 TWICWOOD LANE-I am not in favor on increasing the length of the term of officers I would prefer to see it stay at two years. If we get stuck somebody who is an ineffective politician we're stuck with him for four years instead of two. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Anyone else like to comment on this particular item? Now remember we're talking Town Clerk at this time. BETTY MONAHAN-Now having heard the whole text of that resolution is it in the resolution that this will go to referendum or are you just saying the Town Board is proposing this? SUPERVISOR BROWER-It would go to referendum. MRS. MONAHAN-It's in the local law? TOWN BOARD-Yes. MRS. MONAHAN-As far as the Town Clerk I really don't have a problem since his or her duties are prescribed by law. It is not a policy making position I will have further to say on policy making positions. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else care to comment at this time? Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR-With regard to all four of the. .. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Your going to lump it into one. MR. SALVADOR-Might as well. The founders knew what they were doing when they limited the number of years that a person would serve the people in the House of Representatives. It is really up to the people if a person is not performing properly or effectively or whatever get off their duff and get to the polls. I would not want to see this town usurp the power of the people. The people have the ultimate power and they discharge this power in the voting booth. To take this privilege that they have to vote every two years on these offfices to take that away from them I think would be grossly improper. If you're doing a good job you'll hear about it on Election Day. If your not your going to hear that, too. If for some reason a good man gets voted out he can come back again that's how we learn. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Or woman. MR. SALVADOR-Or woman I'm sorry. I'm not in favor of this proposal to extend the term of elected office to four years. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Appreciate your comment, thank you. Anyone else care to comment on this at this time? Being none I'll close the public hearing on this and ask for any comments from the Town Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:10 P.M. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I'll just make a comment that I would agree with John. I think if you do a good job, I said this two years ago when the same topics came up. It's a lot of work to campaign every year and a half, but I think if you want the job in my own opinion if you want the job and you do a good you'll be reelected year after year so I'm not in favor of changing the terms. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I'll say just for the clerk. I agree a lot with what Betty said I'll reserve my comments it is relatively prescribed what this person does. Correspondingly giving the voice to the people I don't think it wise for us on the basis of this we got two public comments about this issue to let that be the voice of the people. I think the full voice should be in a referendum, I mean that's all this is for let's send it to the full town and the voting public and see what happens. I have no problem with the resolution sending to referendum. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'll echo what Jim said. I think the best way to hear what the voice of the people is, is to put this on the referendum. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Put in the ballot. COUNCILMAN STEC- This has been discussed in exhaust for many years the most democratic way to find out how the town wants to run itself is to put it to the voter let the voter have the say. I agree with Jim not just a couple people or anyone on the board it's a mandatory referendum it's been discussed there are pros and cons for both. This one, I agree with Betty this one is a lower risk because it is very prescribed it is not a policy position. I'm in favor of this resolution. SUPERVISOR BROWER-In that case do I hear a motion from any board member. The following resolution was passed. RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY NO.: 8, OF 2000 TO AMEND THE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER _ ENTITLED, "TERMS OF OFFICE" AND EXTENDING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR TOWN CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 292, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Queensbury Town Board, Local Law Introductory No. :8, of 2000 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter _ entitled, "Terms of Office," which Chapter shall provide for the extension of the term of office for the Queensbury Town Clerk from two (2) years in duration to four (4) years in duration, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law ~ 10 and is subject to a mandatory referendum in accordance with Municipal Home Rule Law ~23,and WHEREAS, on July 24th, 2000, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning this Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law Introductory No. :8, of 2000 to Amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter _ entitled, "Terms of Office" and extending the term of office for the Queensbury Town Clerk subject to a mandatory referendum at the November 7th, 2000 general election, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Town Counsel to prepare a proposition relating to this Local Law to be placed on the November 7th, 2000 general election ballot for the voters' approval or disapproval and the Town Clerk, with the advice of Town Counsel, to prepare an abstract of the Local Law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to transmit a certified copy of this Town Board Resolution along with the proposition and abstract to the Warren County Board of Elections or other appropriate officials so that the proposition will be placed on the November 7th, 2000 general election ballot in all the voting locations in the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that if and when the proposition is adopted by the Town of Queensbury electorate, the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING - ENACT LOCAL LAW ENTITLED "TERMS OF OFFICE" EXTENDING TERM OF OFFICE FOR TOWN BOARD MEMBERS OTHER THAN TOWN SUPERVISOR OPENED 8:14 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone care to comment? PAUL ABESS, QUEENSBURY-I don't have any problem at all with a referendum because as you say it's giving people the option to express how they feel about it. My personal opinion is that I think that not dealing personally with any of the board members that are up here, but I do appreciate and I think many people appreciate the opportunity to express themselves in the participating government that really doubles opportunities they have. Another point that maybe you haven't thought of is that I look at the board here and I see four out of five new faces and if we had the four year term, of course, four of you wouldn't be here right now so it gave you an opportunity to be here by having the two year terms. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else care to comment at this time? PLINEY TUCKER-I tried to find a copy of this law do you propose to alternate the board members? SUPERVISOR BROWER-No we talked about it, but it came out to what we figured it didn't really matter. MR. TUCKER-I happened to be on the board that Tim was talking about recommending this we recommended that every two years two members of the board elected. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We did discuss that. COUNCILMAN STEC- There is a plus and minus to both. MR. TUCKER-What happens is that and I'm sure you guys run into it you come on to a board and.... COUNCILMAN BREWER-It's difficult it really is. MR. TUCKER-It's really difficult because you don't know what's going on or anything like that. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So next time Tucker don't run against me. MR. TUCKER-I won't promise you anything. SUPERVISOR BROWER-No promises. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-There is a campaign already started. MR. TUCKER-I just feel from the get go it would be a lot better situation if you had two board members on the board.... SUPERVISOR BROWER-It's been suggested by some other people as well and yet there are others that don't feel it will make a difference, I guess everyone has their own feeling on that. COUNCILMAN STEC-I think the counter point would be what about a big project. Look at this Baybridge Sewer Project a no brainier we're seven months into it what happens if we try to tackle something a little more challenging and then you've got to worry about shuffling the deck. If you had all four at the same time then you would have stability for four years. MR. TUCKER-I've got to point out to you guys you guys did ajob you did a wonderful job your being held hostage by the morgue down there in Glens Falls build your own sewer plant. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The who? MR. TUCKER-The morgue. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-How do you really feel, I'm kidding. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Anyone else care to comment? BETTY MONAHAN-My question is why is this resurfacing again? I thought and I'm disappointed with the turnout here this came up about two years ago and I'm going to make some of the comments that I did then. Has there been a big outcry from the people out in the community that these terms go to four years? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think there is a ground swell of support. MRS. MONAHAN-You must have been hearing a different; it must be way underground Dennis way underground. The concern I have also is we say let the people decide and that's fine. If you look at the number of people that turn out at a normal town election and I realize this will come up not in a normal town election is about forty percent turnout so we will really are being governed by the minority today. COUNCILMAN STEC- That's the forty percent that care. MRS. MONAHAN-I'm just saying we really are being governed by the minority and it's to bad that people don't realize that and get out and vote. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I'll agree a hundred percent. MRS. MONAHAN-You guys presented this you didn't present any pros and cons, you didn't do your research to give the people out here any pros and cons to think of which I think is your job since you presented this. I worked on many projects and that's what normally we do. I have a different feeling about the Town Board because you are policy makers. I guess what I want to be able to evaluate every two years is what your vision is? How you're doing your homework? Are you really doing your homework? Are you researching? Are you investigating? Are you finding all avenues to get opinions from? How are you relating to your constituency? So, right now I prefer to make that judgement every two years. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I appreciate your comments. Anyone else care to address the board? DONALD SIPP, COURTHOUSE DRIVE-I think if we look at this past year elections we were quite lucky in the fact that with the large turnover we got people who are experienced in what has happened in the Town of Queensbury. Being on the Planning Board, Zoning Board, and an ex-Town Planner plus an at large Supervisor, but in coming years we may not be as lucky. I realize that going the four-year terms there is a lot less campaigning there is a lot less campaign finance seeing that we don't have John McCain in the Town I don't know his campaign finances will ever be straighten out. It is a lot less signage stuck on people's lawns and telephones all over the town. In the case of four-year terms we have ability for long term planning which I can see with continuity for a least that term of four years. I would agree with Mr. Tucker here in the fact that this could be staggered in a way so that Wards One, and Three, or Two and Four could be elected on an alternating basis. How you would elect the Supervisor I think you would have to leave that to a separate thing in doing this you would have this continuity. This two-year term we elect an U.S. Representative and one third of the Senate every two years we bring this out to the people and I think this is the way it should be done. In the case of the Senate one third is elected every two years. In the case of this Town I can see where if we had one half of the board elected every two years. The staggering could be done the worst part is starting it off some two wards would have to have a four year term. I could see that you would then have continuity with two people would be then able to bring the two new people up to speed if it were. There is a possibility that all five of you could be replaced in one election. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's true. MR. SIPP- This I think would leave somebody floundering probably the Town. COUNCILMAN STEC- Thank god for Ted or boy I don't know what we do. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-The pillar of stability. MR. SIPP-I think this is a help Mr. Turner has been here and he knows what has happened in the past he knows where as we used to say in my line of work, where the bodies are buried and therefore, he was able to fill a lot of people in. So, therefore I would suggest the staggered system of election be part of this referendum. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Anyone else care to comment at this time? CHUCK MCNULTY, -14 Twicwood Lane-Several comments. One, I'd like to recommend that you be careful about saying let's just send something like this to the referendum and let the people speak because when you do that you can be ducking your job. There is a responsibility one to make sure if you are going to ask somebody a question or give them a referendum that you are asking them something that they are capable of correctly answering. That means if you are sending something like this to referendum like Betty mentioned you have a responsibility to provide the people with the pros and cons so that they are capable of making an intelligent decision. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think that's the newspaper job actually, but yes. MR. MCNULTY-That's what we elected you people for. You are proposing a resolution like this then you ought to be putting forth what are the pluses, what are the minuses. I will agree with the people that have said that they feel they have a more responsive government if you people are elected every two years, I'll agree. I also agree with a comment that I heard earlier that the people that originally put this law in place probably knew what they were doing. Two years local government you are closer to the people it's not like having to campaign across the whole country. In some ways if you are doing your jobs well you shouldn't have to do a lot of campaigning people should know the person that's representing their ward already because they've been the ward and been talking with them. The two-year campaign shouldn't be a burden if the job is being done right. I'm also concerned about voter turnout. It is tough enough now to get people out get them involved in town politics, town issues, and understand what's going on so they can make informed decisions. If you give them four years between elections it is going to be even tougher to get them out and have them be informed. They may come out if you mesh this election with one of the two year alternates either when the President is elected or when the State Assembly, Senate selected then you may get bigger turnout. Whether the people will have as much knowledge of what's going on in the town or not is another question if they're not voting every two years. For the same reason I'm concerned about the idea of staggered elections. I can understand the idea if we were using the old setup that the town used to have where each Town Board member represented the entire Town then staggering the terms might make more sense, but that's not the case. Consequently a ward who doesn't have a representative up for election on the off year isn't going to be involved in town politics anywhere near as much as they would be if they knew they were electing their own personal representative as well as the Town Supervisor. I don't know if I want to say don't send it to referendum, but if you do send it for a referendum I think you should include a information program that puts forth the pluses and minuses that you people see so that the people are informed. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much for your comments. Anyone else care to address the board at this time? DONALD MILNE, 25 FITZGERALD ROAD, QUEENSBURY-Our ward representative has been responsive to his electorate, but I have to disagree here Jim. If you send this to a referendum to the people by your very action your are inferring that this is a needed change. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I think that's correct. Ifwe send this on to referendum we would agree that it's a positive change. If we don't we wouldn't agree it is a positive change. MR. MILNE-I think the general consensus of people in this room now in the public is that we would prefer to keep it as it is and elect our representatives every two years. I realize it is tougher on politicians, but sorry Jim didn't mean to call you a politician. SUPERVISOR BROWER-He's an elected official he tells me. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-That's right. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Would anyone else care to address the board? MRS. MONAHAN-Has anyone checked to see if it's legal under the Ward System to have four-year terms and have staggered elections? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I believe it's been run by our Attorney's and I don't believe they've foreseen any problems. MRS. MONAHAN-I'm talking about staggered elections not where you elect two every two years, alternating? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I did not do the research Mark did the research, but Mark said you could do it either way. I thought he did the research while you were on the Town Board also. MRS. MONAHAN-No we never brought this question up. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-I'm pretty sure that under the Municipal Home Rule Law that if you do decide to go you can pick either way you want to do it, it's up to the mandatory referendum. MRS. MONAHAN-I would just respond to what Dan said about being in the middle of a big project. I don't care what your terms are if this board is doing its work your are always in the middle of a big project it wouldn't matter if you were elected for ten years you'd never get done. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, Betty. Anyone else care to address the board at this time, no takers. In that case I'll close the public hearing and I'll ask Town Board members if they have any comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:30 P.M. COUNCILMAN STEC-Betty asked some questions and they were good ones actually a lot of good comments. She asked us basically to lie out the pluses and the minuses. I know the Post Star was very diligent and accurate in reporting a couple of our comments a few weeks ago for matter of public record. The pluses that I see participating in the political process for the first time last year. I saw that the wheels of government came to a screeching halt around June last year because all five people up here were jockeying for position worried about what was going to happen in November. A lot of town business didn't happen for the last six months of those twenty-four months so that's twenty-five percent of the time that government had tucked its tail, frankly and I suspect that it happens a lot. I still say that, again we had a very good example tonight some thing that should be on the face of it, in fact should be at the core of it a very simple thing to accomplish Baybridge Homeowners should be commended for the work that their group has done. They presented a problem and unlike many people that come before the board they also brought a solution with them it was a solution that was immediately embraced by the entire board. We had staff working on it we had two parties that want to work together to put a sewer in the ground this is not rocket science, this is not controversial, and its seven months and we're not much closer today than we were then so I think that there would be stability and continuity. Frankly, not just on the Town Board members in the future Supervisor resolution or for that matter the Highway Department or the Clerk I think four-year terms will attract more qualified better candidates. I think a lot of people that are very qualified to serve are intimidated knowing that a full time paid position their livelihood hinges on a two-year election. I think that would dissuade a lot of would-be candidates especially for the full time position so those are the pluses as I see them. The minus as Mrs. McNulty pointed out that's right you could get a bad apple. I have faith in the public that they are good at sniffing out the bad apples. I also have faith in the public that presented the information in the resolution that we will have a more scientific and statistically significant answer to this question than a handful of people in this room. That's where previous boards got in trouble with things like Fuller Road. This board and the previous board have been criticized because we made decisions based on a few loud voices put it out to referendum once and for all. We answer the question it's been talked about for many years obviously I see the pluses out way the minuses, but I'm one vote just as everyone else in this room is. If forty percent of the people turn out those are the forty- percent that have the say so. I think that this year is a good year to pick our timing I think we're picking our timing right for putting this out to the public. This is a Presidential Election this is the Hillary, Lazio, election there is going to be excellent voter turnout. You can't ask for more scientific result to the question. I'm not afraid with what the voters have to say. I'm not worried about anyone's tenure up here on this board we'll all take care of ourselves. This question is a viable one I don't think it's one that should be made by five people or a dozen people or two dozen people. Throw it out to the thirty thousand residents of the town and let them decide and that's how I feel. COUNCILMAN BREWER-You almost convinced me. COUNCILMAN STEC-Well I'm a pretty bright guy. People always criticize government because government does things and they don't have the say so. This is a mandatory referendum this is a no brainier put it before the people. I won't say another word on it. I won't talk to the Post Star on it. I won't stump on the door on it. I'll have my say like everyone else and I'll flick the lever how I feel. I think it would be wrong to deny the public especially when tomorrow we turn around and criticize government for denying the public their say on something put it before the Town leave it at that it's easy. COUNCILMAN TURNER-I've been here the longest of any of them so I'll take it from here. Two years is a short time you go in that room and you think you are going to accomplish a lot of things you don't accomplish very many things at all. Everything takes so long to get coordinated to get into motion to get it to a place where you can vote on it. Four years I'll go whatever way the public wants to go, but I want the public to vote on four years. I want to know what their feelings are whether they want a two-year government or four-year government. I think you will have more continuity you'll have a board that's in four years can get more things done and are a closer nit board because they are together for a longer time. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-I think in terms of the pluses and minuses. First of all on that matter, I don't think it's a good idea for us as so called politicians, I don't like to think of myself that way, but I guess some people will. I don't think it is a good idea for us to list our pluses and minuses a lot of people aren't going to have a lot of faith in that. I would advocate and would like to actively pursue Dennis if we could a group like the League of Women Voters or something like that objective body putting together a list of pluses and minuses. I think people would have more respect for that then certainly what we're going to say. I'll do my best to point out what I see are those and you consider for what you will. I think continuity is an obvious one on the pro side. The other thing on the pro side people talked about when they was first originally done. This was first originally done when the Town was a lot less complex of a place to be in and these positions were a lot less complex do deal with. We're talking about right now budgets in the millions of dollars, legal issues at every turn, planning, zoning, constantly changing federal and state mandates, Adirondack Park Agency Rules, Department of Environmental Conservation Rules, SEQRA Long Form Assessment Form blah, blah, blah, the list goes on. It is a very difficult thing I campaigned and came into this as somebody with some knowledge of these things and felt relatively comfortable from day one. I would feel really concerned about the average citizen coming in and dealing with these issues and having any base to deal with and knowledge and comfort level in those early weeks and months until you become familiar. That's not to say that people like that should be discourage those sometimes make the best representatives. I think four-years in this day and age would give time for people to build that knowledge and make a quality representative. In terms of the elections I don't care two years you do, you know me I didn't spend a dime. I spent as much as it took me to go down to Lowe's and buy some cans of paint and some plywood and make my own signs. That's what I did they didn't look very good, but none the less that's what I did. I didn't ask anybody for a dime I did it myself out in my driveway and I'll do the same thing probably next elections so that's how I feel about it. The cons, I guess are obvious certainly every two years just by frequency that's easy people have a shot at the apple. I think all things considered in this day and age and the continuity in my mind just speaking for me personally I feel more comfortable with a four- year term. I don't think I should be out there expressing those pros and cons and being an advocate or a naysayer. I feel much more comfortable if a third party group did that and I hope somebody steps forth. If we can advocate that for a group like the League of W omen Voters or somebody like that or Citizens for Queensbury or somebody like that. I like to hear from an objective body like that and have them put together pros and cons I think people would have much faith in that analysis. I think that is an excellent idea prior to election. I stand in favor of it and I appreciate the thoughtful comments we've heard. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I see both sides of this. I see the cons being that the public doesn't get the opportunity to vote every two years. I think being able to vote for your representatives on a frequent basis is a plus. By the same token having been a County Supervisor At Large first for Warren County I can tell you there is a great deal to leam. I've had an advantage coming in as your Town Supervisor because I've had the County experience so I don't have the leaming curve that a normal Supervisor would have. I've got a leaming curve at the Town and believe me it is a very interesting business I find it very enjoyable, but by the same token it is a great deal of work. Once you get moving and you have an agenda and you want to accomplish goals and your moving towards your goals I can easily see two-year terms your not always able to see the accomplishment of all your goals. You are lucky if you are able to get some of your goals accomplished I think the board members can see that. Of course, in Queensbury with the ward system the campaigning is not quite as intense as it is at the County Board of Supervisors level or the Supervisor level where you have seventy two square miles to cover if you try to do it on your own like I did it's a hell of a lot of work. Does that mean I'm adverse to work no, but I can tell you it's got to detract from the job you can do? If you're out pounding the payment nights and weekends you certainly can't be taking the extra time to be studying issues determining what your positions are on the variety of issues that you have to face in this position. In the Town Board positions if you saw the paperwork that these gentlemen bring home some of you know you've been there before others probably can't quite imagine the amount of paper that we actually have to read through and try to absorb. From that persepctive I honestly see an advantage in a four-year term even though I like to give the voting public their opportunity. I haven't heard anyone this evening compare it to the City of Glens Falls where their elected representatives are elected on a four year basis and have the opportunity to really move toward achieving goals on a longer term basis. I appreciate the input that you've all had because your opinions are important and I think it's important that you air and . . . VOIce your OpInIOns. MR. ABESS-Ijust want to add one thing. I think two years is a very short term also you just get up ahead of steam and start making progress and you may have to start over again. But, I want to clarify we don't want you to be here for just two years we want to be here for four, six, eight, ten, twenty, years. All we're asking for is a two-year review of how you are doing. I think you're kind of assuming that it's a two-year term it shouldn't be a two-year term. You have a big advantage as incumbents if you are doing a good job, a decent job you should be in for a long time. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Interesting perspective, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to share their thoughts at this time? Do I hear any motion from any board member? RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY NO.: 9, OF 2000 TO AMEND THE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER _ ENTITLED, "TERMS OF OFFICE" AND EXTENDING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR TOWN BOARD MEMBERS OTHER THAN TOWN SUPERVISOR RESOLUTION NO. 293. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Queensbury Town Board, Local Law Introductory No.:9, of 2000 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter _ entitled, "Terms of Office," Chapter shall provide for the extension of the terms of office for Queensbury Town Board members other than the Town Supervisor from two (2) years in duration to four (4) years in duration, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law ~ 10 and is subject to a mandatory referendum in accordance with Municipal Home Rule Law ~23,and WHEREAS, on July 24th, 2000, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning this Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law Introductory No.9, of 2000 to Amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter _ entitled, "Terms of Office" and extending the terms of office for Town Board Members other than Town Supervisor subject to a mandatory referendum at the November 7th, 2000 general election, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Town Counsel to prepare a proposition relating to this Local Law to be placed on the November 7th, 2000 general election ballot for the voters' approval or disapproval and the Town Clerk, with the advice of Town Counsel, to prepare an abstract of the Local Law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to transmit a certified copy of this Town Board Resolution along with the proposition and abstract to the Warren County Board of Elections or other appropriate officials so that the proposition will be placed on the November 7th, 2000 general election ballot in all the voting locations in the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that if and when the proposition is adopted by the Town of Queensbury electorate, the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT:None PUBLIC HEARING ENACT LOCAL LAW - ENTITLED "TERMS OF OFFICE" EXTENDING TERM OF OFFICE FOR HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT OPENED 8:40 P.M. NOTICE SHOWN SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'll take any comments from the public? COUNCILMAN STEC-Dennis I just have a quick comment. In the future if we ever go back and look at these minutes I just want it on record that whoever is reading the minutes should probably also look at the previous discussion on the previous resolution. A lot of what was said before applies here so for those of you in the future that are reviewing five, ten, years from now for posterity they should look at the previous discussion on the previous resolution as well just to eliminate the need for redundancy. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We have an open public hearing I don't know if there is any comment on this or not? MR. TUCKER-You are going to send it on aren't you? Supervisors BROWER-You might be able to influence me not to I don't know. NO PUBLIC COMMENT SUPERVISOR BROWER-In that case with no public comment I'll close the public hearing on the Office of Highway Superintendent. Board members any comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:45 P.M. COUNCILMAN STEC-What I said before goes. I see the pluses that there may be people out there that would say, you know I'd like that job but I don't want to worry about losing my job every two years so that may attract some other qualified people not saying that our current incumbent isn't qualified. I just think in general down the road when he is ready to retire many years from now this may attract other people. The down side is that you could get a guy in there that just doesn't do it for you. Like I said that's the biggest risk I see with going to a four-year term. Again, I don't want to be criticized for not letting the public have the opportunity to finally have the say on this issue. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-My prior comments stand. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I heard a statistic I believe there are more four-year Highway Superintendents in the North Country than there are any other positions. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That was in the paper last year. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any other discussion from board members at this time? BOARD MEMBERS-No. RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY NO.: IO,OF 2000 TO AMEND THE QUEENSBURY TOWN CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER ENTITLED, "TERMS OF OFFICE" AND EXTENDING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR TOWN HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT RESOLUTION NO. 294. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, at this meeting there has been presented for adoption by the Queensbury Town Board, Local Law Introductory No. 10, of 2000 to amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter _ entitled, "Terms of Office," which Chapter shall provide for the extension of the term of office for the Queensbury Town Highway Superintendent from two (2) years in duration to four (4) years in duration, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with New York State Municipal Home Rule Law ~ 10 and is subject to a mandatory referendum in accordance with Municipal Home Rule Law ~23,and WHEREAS, on July 24th, 2000, the Town Board duly conducted a public hearing and heard all interested persons concerning this Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law Introductory No.: 10, of 2000 to Amend the Queensbury Town Code by adding a new Chapter _ entitled, "Terms of Office" and extending the term of office for Town Highway Superintendent subject to a mandatory referendum at the November 7th, 2000 general election, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Town Counsel to prepare a proposition relating to this Local Law to be placed on the November 7th, 2000 general election ballot for the voters' approval or disapproval and the Town Clerk, with the advice of Town Counsel, to prepare an abstract of the Local Law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to transmit a certified copy of this Town Board Resolution along with the proposition and abstract to the Warren County Board of Elections or other appropriate officials so that the proposition will be placed on the November 7th, 2000 general election ballot in all the voting locations in the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that if and when the proposition is adopted by the Town of Queensbury electorate, the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and acknowledges that the Local Law will take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT:None CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY TOWN CLERK, O'BRIEN-Read the following letters into the record. Letter dated June 15,2000 Dear Supervisor Brower: On behalf of the Queensbury "Town's Citizen Advisory Committee on Environmental Issues, " we want to congratulate and commend the Town Board and the Queensbury highway department for instituting the residential yard-waste pick-up program that was conducted in the town this spring. We concur that its objective of "enhancing the beauty of the town," and "disposing of the waste in a manner not harmful to the environment," was successfully accomplished. Hopefully, this program will continue to be an annual event as planned - one that will definitely benefit all the citizens of Queensbury. Once again, congratulations for instituting and executing the new yard-waste pick-up program. Sincerely yours, Deborah Roberts Tom Jarrett Co-Chairpersons of the "Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Issues" Letter dated July 14, 2000 Dear Mr. Brower: A newcomer in our neighborhood, upset by an accident that occurred near her home, asked me recently to sign a petition requesting a sheriffs patrol to enforce the speed limit on Chestnut Ridge Road. A few days later, I found in my mailbox a flyer, indicating that the petition was directed to the Town Board and had the entirely different objective of securing a lower speed limit. I am in favor of observing the law but I also think the existing 40-mph. limit is reasonable and appropriate. I should like it to be known that if my name appears on a petition to lower it, my signature was obtained under false pretenses, however, well intended. Sincerely, Florence W. McILvaine 259 Chestnut Ridge Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Petition dated July 21,2000 To: Town Board Members: We the undersigned request a reduction in the speed limit on Meadowbrook Road, which has three speed zones. Excessive speeding factored in with the many new homes, families, the narrow roadway are the compelling reason to reduce the speed on the roadway. Request the present 55 M.P.H. zone reduced to 45 m.p.h. Request the present 40 M.P.H. zoned reduced to 30 m.p.h. Request the present 35 M.P.H. zone reduced to 30 m.p.h. DISCUSSION HELD COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Noted he doesn't think it is proper for the board to take any congratulations on the waste pickup feels the Highway Superintendent, Mr. Missita deserves the credit noted he needs to be congratulated on that. Noted he is in agreement with reducing the speed on Meadowbrook Road. COUNCILMAN STEC-Noted a lot of neighborhoods throughout the Town have complained about speed feels a lot of this can be addressed to enforcement, recommended calling the Sheriffs Department. HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, MR. MISSIT A-Recommended contacting the State making them aware of what's going on with Meadowbrook Road before they go out and set the speed limit. OPEN FORUM FOR GENERAL & RESOLUTIONS 8:50 P.M. MR. PLINEY TUCKER, DIVISION ROAD, QUEENSBURY-Asked if the board will appeal the case regarding Fuller Road? SUPERVISOR BROWER-No action was taken in executive session the board does not plan on appealing the case. MR. TUCKER-Spoke to the board regarding the nine million dollars regarding the cigarette refund. Asked if the Town of Queensbury will get their thirty seven percent share of the nine million dollars? SUPERVISOR BROWER-No. It comes directly to the County from the State there is no local share. Noted they received 1.2 million last year the State has been reducing some of our reimbursements by approximately the same amount of money that we are getting in tobacco revenue. Instead of the tobacco revenue having been considered a bonus to the counties we've been expending it in unfunded items that the State is not reimbursing us for. MR. TUCKER-Noted whatever the County paid out they took it away from the taxpayers in the County whatever you are doing with the money at the County level it is a gift to you. Spoke to the board regarding Burke Apartment Sidewalks asked the procedure they are following to establish this district? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-The Town is not establishing a district. Under the Highway Law Section there is a section that allows the Highway Superintendent to build sidewalks along town roads as long as the funds come from general fund money. That is what the Town Board and the Highway Superintendent is proposing for Burke Drive. MR. TUCKER-Questioned how long the law has been on the books noting they wanted to build sidewalks along Dixon Road and the Town Attorney at that time said it was illegal? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-There are different ways sidewalks can be built you could do a special district but that's not necessary. MR. TUCKER-Questioned if Burke Apartments are privately owned? COUNCILMAN STEC-Believes so, yes. MR. TUCKER-The tenants don't own anything? COUNCILMAN STEC- They pay rent. MR. TUCKER-Thinks the board is setting a bad situation by doing this. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted the reason why they decided to make an exception in this case is the great number of children that walk to school in that area feel that it would be much safer for the number of kids that are going to school to have a sidewalk to walk on. MR. TUCKER-Noted children in Hidden Hills walk to the Kensington Road School. Tried to establish a district and people along Dixon Road didn't want the district noting the Highway Department made a wider shoulder. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-The people in that district didn't want the special taxing district. Noted he would not be opposed to reconsidering Dixon Road again. MR. TUCKER -Asked the status of the five and a half acres from Hudson Pointe? COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Received recommendation from Recreation Commission they recommend us to accept. DONALD MILNE, 25 FITZGERALD ROAD, QUEENSBURY-Spoke to the board as a Queensbury resident and President of the Coalition of Lakes against Milfoil representing Glen Lake to this organization. Noted he is very familiar with the problem noting it is a problem that is a responsbility for both Federal and State and Local Governments, asked the board for their help with this problem. JO ANN KING, 112 SUNNYSIDE NORTH-Vice President of Protective Association of Lake Sunnyside. Noted they made a presentation last week was told that we would get an answer tonight. Seapro the company that would supply the sonar has used us if we can come up with the monies as a test pilot program for the fall. They will apply it in the fall monitor it to make sure the right concentration, which is a very low concentration. If it is not totally effective in the spring will reapply it at their cost. If it didn't work they would refund all of our monies. Noted they don't have the monies asking for help for a serious and potential dangerous problem on our lake. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Can we propose the results of your research? TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-If it's something that the Town Board wants to do it is something they are allowed to pay for. It should be contingent upon them getting any required DEC permits. If they get the refund we get the refund. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Given what I've just heard I'm going to be an advocate of $5,000 expenditure for consideration August 7th. COUNCILMAN STEC-Would like to see this for August 7th. MRS. KING-Would like to get all of this done by the first week in August in order to have it all okay in that time frame. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-If you want a resolution you can do one. COUNCILMAN STEC- Can we do it tonight? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Recommended Town Counsel to draft a resolution to present later in the meeting. JOHN SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding Fuller Road noting he has filed a Notice of Appeal at the Appellate Division in the case of Rowlands v. Town of Queensbury. Asked who will be representing the Town in their case? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Believes Mr. Lebowitz will be represent us in both cases. TOWN COUNSEL, HAFNER-Has written Judge Sheridan informing him that Jack Lebowitz will be representing the Town. MR. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding Assembly Point Road. Read into the record State Highway Law, Section 140. Noted they are going about this wrong. Using the Planning Department to set in motion a survey that is going to be used to do something to a Town Road, noting this is the wrong procedure. It is the Highway Superintendents responsibility to set the project in motion by notifying the County Superintendent. CONNIE LANFORD, ASSEMBLY POINT -Asked letter to be read into the record. DEPUTY CLERK, O'BRIEN-Read the following letter into the record. To: Supervisor Dennis Brower and Queensbury Town Board Members Subject: Proposed repair of Assembly Point Road and Reasons for Considering Relocation of Existing Road Re: Town of Queensbury Workshop Meeting July 17, 2000 ISSUE At the referenced meeting, the Town of Queensbury requested C.T. Male Associates to investigate the deterioration of Assembly Point Road where the road is adjacent to the Lake George shore. The Town Board requested a proposal for emergency repairs where needed, a permanent solution to prevent future deterioration, and a solution to the associated safety and drainage concerns. Many residents of Assembly Point fee strongly that the engineering studies should carefully examine another alternative, i.e., relocating the existing road. BRIEF HISTORY The dangerous situation and damage to the lake because of the close proximity of the existing road to the shoreline have been recognized for many years. The original road providing access to Assembly Point did, in fact, lie on land directly behind the properties, which border Assembly Point Road. At a later time, the road was diverted along the shoreline. Although the reason for doing this is not known, the increase in traffic and weight of vehicles were certainly not anticipated. When Shore Colony was developed, a right of way was provided to connect Honeysuckle Lane with old roadway. Over the last forty years, several attempts have been made to relocate the road to a location at or near the ancient road bed. A road behind the properties adjacent to the Lake still appears a feasible alternative. Although not all of the affected homeowners have been canvassed, many residents have indicated a willingness to contribute land to relocate the road, if necessary. PRESENT PROBLEMS The road as it presently exists presents monumental problems impacting the ecology of the Lake and the safety of residents. I. The road is sinking, pushing the bank toward the water. 2. The existing road right of way is too narrow for vehicles to safely pass. 3. There is no barrier between the narrow road and the Lake. A vehicle - THINK SCHOOL BUS - could easily slide on a patch of ice causing a disaster, and ensuing liability for the Town and/or School District. 4.The salt and sand used in the winter wash directly into the Lake. 5.Storm water runs along the road directly into the lake. 6. There are 23 driveways, most of which are hidden from view, causing a dangerous situation for passing traffic and pedestrians. Stairways and other entrances to dock complexes terminate at the edge of the road, creating additional risks. 7.Utility poles are not anchored properly, and have shifted to dangerous positions. CONCERNS WITH REPAIRING PRESENT ROAD The problems associated with proper permanent repairs to the existing road appear to be insurmountable when time frame and potential expense are considered. A major concern: a solution to this problem should not be considered in segments. A safe, well blended, natural result must be the goal. A "band aid" here and there is not in the best interest of the Lake and its residents. Un many areas, the road may not be wide enough to allow effective repairs without stabilizing the bank. This could adversely impact the shoreline. Docks and boathouses may need to be moved increasing the costs. The resulting vista might be unnatural and seriously compromise the scenic setting for which Lake George is noted. 2.The existing road was treated with PCB oil for decades before blacktop was applied. Proper removal and disposal of the contaminated soil will be required. 3.All homes require a supply oflake water for drinking and other domestic uses. Any repair must provide for these water pipes, as well as electric cables, under the road. The ability to repair or replace these services in the future also must be considered. 4.Electric power, telephone, and cable is overhead on poles which are already leaning precariously. There is inadequate buffer to anchor the poles next the Lake. Underground cables should be considered. 5.During repairs, access to Assembly Point residences beyond the point of construction will need to be maintained either by providing one-way traffic or an alternate route. For any potential temporary alternate route, full SEQRA review would be required because wetlands (directly emptying into the Lake) and private property are involved. 6.Barriers capable of preventing a large vehicle, such as a school bus, from falling into the lake would be difficult or impossible to construct in such close proximity to the shore, and would certainly adversely impact the scenic vistas. ADDITIONAL ADV ANT AGES OF MOVING ROAD AWAY FROM LAKE SHORE I.An ample buffer zone would eliminate water runoff and protect the ecology of the Lake. No road salt, sand, or other pollutants would be present. 2.Relocating the road would allow sufficient width for vehicles to pass safely, particularly emergency vehicles. The North Queensbury Fire Company and the Lake George School District have supported this alternative. 3.Alternate access to residences during repairs need not be a concern since the existing road would not be blocked until the new road is completed. 4.Unsightly barriers will not be needed. 5.The integrity of the Lake would not be compromised. In summary, the residents of Assembly Point have been concerned about the dangerous conditions along the Assembly Point Road for decades. We feel the Town would be negligent if a proposal does not include an in-depth study to move the road to a safer location. This alternative would obviously be the best solution for preservation of Lake George and the safety of everyone. Also, the alternative road may be the most cost effective solution. A map of the Shore Colony development plan shows a proposed street to connect with a road in the vicinity of the original road, and is attached for information. We request this letter be included in the Town of Queensbury records. Respectfully submitted, Concerned Assembly Point Residents For additional information, contact: Peter Thomas William Stapleton David Watson Gardner Harris Lois Garrand MRS. LANFORD-Questioned if the board received any correspondence from c.T. Male and where we go from here? EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-They submitted a proposal today in response to last Monday's meeting noting there is a draft resolution for tonight. It is limited in scope it doesn't include many of the components that are articulated in today's correspondence, it is a different project than what we were talking about last week. SUPERVISOR BROWER- Noted he met with Assembly Point residents today. There are a lot of residents in favor of this and thinks there are also a number of residents opposed to this concept. Recommended before hiring an engineer to do something for Lake remediation maybe we ought to look at an alternative. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Appreciate the position and points made in the letter doesn't see in this day and age with what would have to be done to run that section of road that it's feasible. SUPERVISOR BROWER-If going to hire an engineering firm for a solution better be sure that we agree that this is the best solution. Recommended residents to decide what they want and come back to board with decision. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Recommended having this as an agenda item with all the residents being here. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Recommended going with proposal that was prepared and wait for their conclusion. BETTY MONAHAN-Noted it isn't something that you can make a snap decision on tonight. Recommended having a meeting just on this subject at the firehouse and to publicize it well. Recommended trying to get the State of New York involved in this to try to share in the cost because this is involving Lake George. MRS. LANFORD-Asked the board to look at this to investigate it. 1. GARDNER HARRIS, ASSEMBLY POINT, RESIDENT SINCE 1942-Spoke to the board regarding Assembly Point Road noting they should gets the facts first regarding the cost before they go any farther. PETER THOMAS, 179 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD-Spoke to the board regarding Assembly Point Road noted he lives in one of the houses that were designated a hot spot. Concerned for the water source they receive from the lake, what will happen to it? Noted everything the Town has done in prior years has been done negatively and not done with any thought or consideration or what's going to happen with their repairs. Questioned how houses were built on the wetlands. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Noted they had an APA representative at the site and look at it and specifically wrote a letter saying that it wasn't a jurisdictional wetland and the construction could proceed. MR. THOMAS-Looked at a map noting it shows it on the wetland. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-At one time there probably was a jurisdictional wetland there, but due to the filling of the wetland by neighboring property owners over the course of the years it fell under an acre in size and by the time the AP A got up there they said they had no jurisdiction here. BILL STAPLETON, 183 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, PART TIME RESIDENT-Thanked Rick Missita and Chris Round for coming out to inspect the road noting it was a quick response. Noted his concern for the road that the largest portion of the road that is failing is immediately in front of his property. When two vehicles have to pass they are hitting that portion that is down at the outer edge where there is no embankment to catch the cars, noted his concern for a car going into the lake asked that this spot be taken care of right now. Asked that the board do a feasibility study on all of the alternatives. MRS. SALVADOR-Spoke to the board regarding her concern for the safety of the children riding the school bus on this road. MR. SALVADOR-Read to the board a section of the Highway Law regarding laying out a Town highway noting there is only one person allowed in the law to enter onto private property to do the survey. MRS. MONAHAN-Spoke to the board regarding Resolution Referring Application for Montray Heights Mobile Home Park Modification to Town Planning Board. Read Section 113-11 regarding preexisting mobile home courts. Noted she thinks they are diminishing the land that is going with the mobile home court, asked if the lots comply with the new rules and regulations? If it is making them smaller it would be less in compliance than what was put into place asked if this mobile home court would have to go for a variance, recommended the board look into this. Spoke to the board regarding the Mega Store noting as a member of the Town Board that put the regulations for site plan review in effect that the board that night used those regulations as they were intended to be used and thinks they did a very good job. Spoke to the board regarding the need for more jails. Asked if Washington County and Warren County could regionalize a jail and look at a jail that would fit both of their needs. Spoke to the board regarding holding tanks. Read Section 136-11 noting they added this 7/11/89, doesn't know when the Public Health Law that Mr. Salvador is quoting about holding was put into effect. If it was prior to this did we do it under Home Rule noting the Town Attorney must have researched this well? Also the company that codified these laws is suppose to make sure we are in compliance. If there is a conflict with the Public Health Law need to know why, what the dates were, are we in full compliance? Spoke to the board regarding neighbors signing off their rights noting you cannot sign off minor rights. If what you do causes somebody's well to be contaminated and a child is involved believes you have you look at your liability. Spoke to the board regarding the City of Glens Falls and sewer rates. Asked if the Mayor has authority or the Water and Sewer Board? SUPERVISOR BROWER-It is the Water and Sewer Board, but he is in charge of the Water and Sewer Board and they do tend to follow his lead. MRS. MONAHAN-Asked the board to think of in the future if they privatize both their water system and sewer system where do we come into play? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Noted this is one of the reasons we wanted to get an agreement before it was privatized. COUNCILMAN STEC-Recommended setting up meeting with the Common Council and the Town Board instead of individuals meeting to talk about this problem. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Disagreed. MR. ABESS-Spoke to the board regarding his concern for the wording in the resolution for Lake Sunnyside Association noting other associations may come before the board. OPEN FORUM CLOSED 10: 15 P.M. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE ORDER FOR MINIMAILER 2 FOLDING/INSERTING MACHINE RESOLUTION NO.: 295, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board previously adopted purchasing procedures which require that the Town Board must approve any purchase in an amount of $5,000 or greater up to New York State bidding limits, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has recommended that the Town Board authorize the purchase of one (1) Minimailer 2 Folding/Inserting Machine for the purpose of folding and inserting the Town's water/sewer bills each quarter and for annual reports and for other Town Departments to use as needed, and WHEREAS, the Town's Purchasing Agent has reviewed the proposals and bids solicited by the Water Superintendent and concurs with his vendor selection, and WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase is under New York State Contract No.: PC54867, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the purchase of one (1) Minimailer 2 Folding/Inserting Machine from Central Business Equipment for an amount not to exceed $5,867 with an annual service contract of $586, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the transfer of funds from Contingency Account No.: 001-1990-4400 to the General Fund Central Mailing Account (Dept. 1670) to fund the purchase, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent, Purchasing Agent, Town Comptroller and/or Town Supervisor to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENTNone: RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2000 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 296, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Comptroller, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2000 Town Budget as follows: FIRE SAFETY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1990-4400 01-3410-1480 13,250. (Contingency Contractual) (Deputy Fire Marshal) 01-1990-4400 01-3410-4090 700. (Contingency Contractual) (Fire Safety-Conference Expense) 01-1990-4400 01-3410-4820 500. (Contingency Contractual) (Deputy Fire Marshal) 01-1990-4400 01-3410-4180 100. (Contingency Contractual) (Dry Cleaning) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1990-4400 (Contingency Contractual) 01-8020-4711 (Planning Dept-Reimb. Eng. Serv.) 7,000 QUEENSBURY WATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 40-8340-2899 (Misc. Capital Construction) 40-9950-9000 (Transfer to Capital Projects) 44,350. WASTEWATER: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 32-8130-4425 (Sewer Charges, G.F.) 32-8120-4400 5,000. (Quaker Road Misc. Contractual) 32-8130-4425 (Sewer Charges, G.F.) 32-8110-1910-0002 350. (Senior Typist -Overtime) Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AFFIRMING CONSISTENCY OF W A VERL Y PLACE WITH HILAND PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESOLUTION NO. : 297. 2000 INTRODUCED BY : Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, The Michaels Group is seeking approval from the Town of Queensbury to construct the Waverly Place (Waverly Place) on Meadowbrook Road in the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, The Michaels Group has requested that the Queensbury Town Board affirm that this proposed project is consistent with the Hiland Park Planned Unit Development as approved by the previous Town Board on January 14, 1987 by Resolution No. 212.87, and WHEREAS, at its June 20th, 2000 regular meeting, the Town of Queensbury's Planning Board reviewed the proposed project to confirm its compliance with the PUD Ordinance and Hiland Park PUD and has recommended that the Town Board adopt a Resolution affirming that the proposed project is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD so that the proposal will be able to progress through the subdivision and site plan review processes as administered by the Queensbury Planning Board, and WHEREAS, the Town Board recognizes that this project may undergo modifications as part of the Queensbury Planning Board's subdivision and site plan review processes, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby affirms that the proposal by The Michaels Group to construct the Waverly Place on Meadowbrook Road in the Town of Queensbury is consistent with the Hiland Park PUD as approved by Town Board Resolution 212.87, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Senior Planner to present a copy of this Resolution to The Michaels Group and Town Planning Board and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT:None ABSTAIN:Mr. Martin (Went to the back of the room during presentation of resolution returned for vote) DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE ATTORNEY JOHN LAPPER-Noted the wording in the resolution is not correct requested that the word retirement village be stricken from the resolution. Spoke to the board regarding the speed limit on Meadowbrook Road noting he is in favor of reducing the speed to the 45 m.p.h. RESOLUTION REFERRING APPLICATION FOR MONTRA Y HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK MODIFICATION TO TOWN PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION NO.: 298, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY : Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, in 1964 the Queensbury Town Board approved the Montray Heights Mobile Home Park (Park) located on Montray Road, Queensbury for 17 lots and in 1976, the Town Board approved four (4) additional lots, for a total of 21 lots in the Park, and WHEREAS, George Kouba, owner of the Park (Owner), has applied for a modification to the Park's existing plan as the Owner is proposing a boundary line adjustment to his residential lot, Tax Map Parcel No.: 70.-3-8.2, which adjustment would increase the residential lot size and reduce the Mobile Home Park Tax Map Parcel No.: 70.-3-7, and WHEREAS, the proposed modification would not interfere with the location of the mobile homes or septic system, and WHEREAS, in accordance with Town Code ~ 113-23, any modification to an existing Mobile Home Park first requires referral by the Town Board to the Town Planning Board for site plan review and recommendation before the Town Board may approve the modification, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to submit the application for modification to the Montray Heights Mobile Home Park to the Queensbury Planning Board for review and recommendation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby determines that this proposed action is subject to SEQRA review and the Town Board wishes to be lead agency for SEQRA review purposes, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes the Executive Director of Community Development to forward copies of the application, environmental assessment form and the Town Board's intent to serve as SEQRA Lead Agency to any agencies that may be involved for SEQRA purposes. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT:None DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE: GEORGE KOUBA-Asked the board the procedure for going to the Planning Board. Explained to the board that he would like to extend the lot line residents over the full two hundred feet so that in no future time can any driveway be put in to the park in that area. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Explained the process for going to the Planning Board to Mr. Kouba. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED LOCAL LAW REGULATING SIDEWALKS RESOLUTION NO.: 299,2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, there are currently sidewalks at various locations in the Town of Queensbury and additional sidewalks will continue to be built in the future, and WHEREAS, having sidewalks in good repair and free and clear of snow, ice, dirt and other obstructions is important to the safety of pedestrians who use the sidewalks, and WHEREAS, the Town Board is concerned about public safety and wants to ensure that all existing sidewalks and future sidewalks are properly constructed and maintained, and WHEREAS, the Town Highway Law places some duty upon the Town to maintain sidewalks along County and State Highways, and WHEREAS, there is no similar statute concerning sidewalks along Town highways, and WHEREAS, as a matter of fiscal responsibility, the Town Board wishes to limit its expenses in maintaining sidewalks and only wishes to maintain those sidewalks required to be maintained under State Law, and WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act, a Federal law, mandates that places of public accommodation be made accessible to persons with disabilities, and WHEREAS, the Town Board may, after a public hearing upon at least ten (10) days public notice, enact a Local Law regulating the construction, repair and maintenance of sidewalks, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m. on August 7th, 2000 to consider the proposed Local Law Regulating Construction, Repair and Maintenance of Sidewalks and hear all interested persons and take such action as required or authorized by law, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish and post the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHRIS HUNSINGER AS REGULAR MEMBER OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 300. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town's Planning Board in accordance with applicable New York State law, and WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 120.2000, the Town Board appointed Chris Hunsinger as an alternate member on the Town's Planning Board, and WHEREAS, Robert Paling recently resigned from the Planning Board and the Town Board wishes to appoint Chris Hunsinger as Mr. Paling's replacement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Chris Hunsinger to serve as a regular member of the Queensbury Planning Board until the term expires on December 31, 2000. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION REQUESTING SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION FOR CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD, QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 301. 2000 INTRODUCED BY : Mr. James Martin SECONDED BY : Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has received a request from several Town citizens to adopt a Resolution requesting that the speed limit be lowered on Chestnut Ridge Road, Queensbury, and the Town Board concurs with this request, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby requests that the maximum speed limit on Chestnut Ridge Road be lowered from the current 40 mile per hour speed limit for safety reasons, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, in accordance with Vehicle and Traffic Law ~ 1622, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor's Office to forward a certified copy of this Resolution and any other necessary documentation to the Warren County Department of Public Works and/or New York State Department of Transportation for the purposes of studying and establishing a lower maximum speed limit on Chestnut Ridge Road, Queensbury. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES: None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CASE COMMENCED BY DECOGLEN, L.P. RESOLUTION NO.: 302, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Decoglen, L.P. has commenced Article 7 Real Property Assessment Review cases against the Town of Queensbury for the 1997 and 1998 assessment years, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended a settlement proposal to the Town Board and the Town Board has reviewed this case with Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Union Free School District has been informed of the proposed settlement and the School District has advised that it has no objection, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of settlement of the pending Article 7 cases against the Town of Queensbury by Decoglen, L.P. for the 1997 and 1998 tax years in accordance with the following revised assessment values: Parcel - Tax Map No.: Tax Years: Revised Assessment Victory Lane Retail Store And Restaurant 730 State Route 9 Queensbury, New York 12804 103-1-23 1997, 1998 $ 433,850 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that any refunds paid to Decoglen, L.P. as a result of this settlement shall be without interest so long as the refunds are paid to Decoglen, L.P. within 90 days of service of the Order of Settlement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Assessor and/or Town Counsel to execute settlement documents and take any additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES : Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES : None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PENDING ARTICLE 7 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CASE COMMENCED BY NMM GLENS FALLS ASSOCIATES RESOLUTION NO.: 303, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, NMM Glens Falls Associates (NMM) has commenced Article 7 Real Property Assessment Review cases against the Town of Queensbury for the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 assessment years, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended a settlement proposal to the Town Board and the Town Board has reviewed this case with Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Union Free School District has been informed of the proposed settlement and the School District has advised that it has no objection, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of settlement of the pending Article 7 cases against the Town of Queensbury by NMM Glens Falls Associates (NMM) for the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 tax years in accordance with the following revised assessment values: Parcel - Tax Map No.: Tax Years: Revised Assessment Regency Park Apartments Meadowbrook Road Queensbury, New York 12804 59-3-1.22 1997, 1998 $5,000,000 1999 $5,400,000 2000 $6,000,000 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that any refunds paid to NMM a result of this settlement shall be without interest so long as the refunds are paid to NMM within 90 days of service of the Order of Settlement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Town Assessor and/or Town Counsel to execute settlement documents and take any additional steps necessary to effectuate the proposed settlement in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF ALVEY AND COTE, LTD., TO PROVIDE APPRAISAL IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 7 TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS - NORTHWAY SELF-STORAGE RESOLUTION NO.: 304.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, Northway Self Storage has commenced Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Proceeding(s) against the Town of Queensbury concerning property located at 32 Northway Lane, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 116-1-1) for the 1999 tax year, and WHEREAS, the Town is required to file an appraisal with the Warren County Supreme Court, and WHEREAS, the Town Assessor has recommended that the Town Board engage the services of Alvey and Cote, Ltd., to provide the appraisal for an amount not to exceed $2,000, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the engagement of Alvey and Cote, Ltd., to furnish a Court-ready appraisal in connection with Article 7 Real Property Tax Assessment Proceedings commenced by Northway Self Storage concerning property located at 32 Northway Lane, Queensbury for the 1999 tax year for an amount not to exceed $2,000 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Assessor and/or Town Counsel to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPOINTING GORDON OSTRANDER TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ETHICS BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 305, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury previously established the Town of Queensbury Ethics Board, and WHEREAS, there is presently a vacancy on the Ethics Board and the Town Board wishes to appoint Gordon Ostrander to a four (4) year term on the Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby appoints Gordon Ostrander to serve as a member of the Queensbury Ethics Board until his term expires on July 24th, 2004. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT:None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.c. TO CONDUCT ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD RESOLUTION NO.: 306, 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. James Martin WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Community Development has advised the Town Board that he has received a proposal from C.T. Male Associates, P.C. to provide an analysis and engineering services concerning issues surrounding Assembly Point Road, Queensbury, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has recommended that the Town Board engage the engineering services of C.T. Male Associates, P.c., for an amount not to exceed $9,500.00 as delineated in C.T. Male's Proposal dated July 24th, 2000 presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of the engineering services of C. T. Male Associates, P. C. to conduct an analysis and provide engineering services concerning possible improvements along Assembly Point Road, Queensbury as delineated in C.T. Male's July 24th, 2000 proposal presented at this meeting, for an amount not to exceed $ 9,500.00 to be paid for from the appropriate account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Executive Director of Community Development and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR THE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION FOR LAKE SUNNYSIDE RESOLUTION NO. 307.2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Protective Association for Lake Sunnyside discussed the grave damage from milfoil occurring in Lake Sunnyside, and WHEREAS, the Protective Association for Lake Sunnyside has done a lot of research concerning the best way to combat this serious problem, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has great concern about the serious environmental damage occurring due to milfoil in the public waters of Lake Sunnyside, and WHEREAS, this will improve the water quality of Lake Sunnyside and improve the recreational activities occurring in Lake Sunnyside, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes the Town Supervisor to execute an agreement with the Protective Association of Lake Sunnyside in a form approved by Town Counsel where the Town will pay $5,000.00 so such Association can attempt to remove the milfoil from Lake Sunnyside and where the Association will pay all remaining costs, and RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the payment of these funds from the appropriate fund as determined by the Town Comptroller, and RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and the Town Comptroller to take such other and further actions including the transfer of the contingency, if appropriate, as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this resolution. Duly adopted this 24th, day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Brower Noes: None Absent:None TOWN COUNCILMEN'S CONCERNS SUPERVISOR BROWER-Spoke to the board regarding the status of Morgan Combs Junkyard. Spoke with Mr. Hatin noting Mr. Combs was given to today to remediate the problem has begun remediation but had not completed it. Noted he has obtained an Attorney, Mr. Hatin has a meeting setup with Mr. Combs and his Attorney to discuss this further. Mr. Hatin to report back to the Supervisor regarding the results of the meeting no action is required at this time. COUNCILMEN STEC-Requested a resolution be prepared for the next meeting taking full punitive measures regarding this matter. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Spoke to the board regarding the sound analysis in Twicwood. Spoke with John Collins noting they have done exactly the same thing it will be coming out in their EIS, doesn't see the need to do it again. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Has spoken to everyone involved they object to the timing of the analysis they are two different studies not duplicating work. The problem areas are the go-carts, motorcycles operations that we have no control over, highway noise, and traffic noise. COUNCILMAN MARTIN-Spoke to the board regarding sewer negotiations. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Updated the board regarding the South Queensbury Sewer District. Warren County is putting in seventy five thousand dollars toward the project. Town of Queensbury seventy five thousand dollars. QEDC seventy five thousand dollars towards the project. The Town of Kingsbury one hundred thousand dollars for the project to make this a viable project. Have had a number of meetings have a lot of agreement among the players. One of the parcels that is along the Dix Avenue corridor could be a potential site for the Washington County Jail, eighty percent of it is in Washington County, 20 percent is in Queensbury. A great deal of work and effort has been going into this Queensbury is the lead agent on this. Have made a lot of pricing to date including the Mayor's pricing. We asked for a dollar a gallon buy- in he came back with a dollar twenty-five with the buy-in. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR. ROUND-Updated the board regarding Burke Drive sidewalks. Jim Miller would like to present alternatives to the board can be ready for July 31st, workshop. ATTORNEY MATTERS NONE RESOLUTION ENTERING EXECUTIVE SESSION RESOLUTION NO. 308. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters into Executive Session to discuss litigation. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower Noes: None Absent:None RESOLUTION ADJOURNING EXECUTIVE SESSION AND TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO. 309. 2000 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. James Martin WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session and moves back into Regular Session, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2000, by the following vote: Ayes: Mr. Martin, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin Noes: None Absent:None No further action taken. On motion, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Darleen M. Dougher Town Clerk Town of Queensbury