The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-03-18 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING MARCH 18TH, 2002 Mtg #16 Res. #152-164 7:08 P.M. BOH #12-14 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN THEODORE TURNER COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER TOWN OFFICIALS Ronald Montesi, Warren County Supervisor-At-Large Henry Hess, Comptroller Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development Mike Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater Bill Shaw, Computer Technology Coordinator PRESS: Glens Falls Post Star Supervisor Brower called meeting to order.... PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR RESOLUTION CALLING FOR QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 152,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and enters as the Queensbury Board of Health. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE - W ARREN/W ASHINGTON ARC NOTICE SHOWN 7 :09 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The first item is a sewer variance for Warren Washington ARC. Is anyone here from Warren Washington ARC this evening or their representative? Would you please come forward please to the mic, sir. Good evening, please state your name and address for the record. MR. RAY MORRILL-My name is Ray Morrill and I'm the Facilities Director for Warren Washington ARC. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Good evening. We understand that you're looking for, well maybe, why don't you describe your situation to us. MR. MORRILL-Well, the situation is basically we received a permit to put in three of the five lines that are described in the print and the plan and the existing system is as is and as the drawing shows and we're just trying to put back the system as it existed. The septic doesn't meet the setback requirements from the residence, the right-of-way, driveway and property line. But the system was existing, is the same as what we're replacing. AUDIENCE-We can't hear you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-They can't hear, could you speak into the mic, I'd appreciate it. Well, would you repeat yourself a little bit there in the last few words, at least. MR. MORRILL-Okay, what we're proposing to do is add the SUPERVISOR BROWER-Can you hear him now? AUDIENCE-No. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Is that on, sir? MR. MORRILL-Is that better? Okay, alright, what we're proposing to do is to add two lines as what previously was existing and we've already gone ahead and permit to install three lines but two of the lines don't meet the setback requirements from the right-of-way and property line and from the residence. But the system that was existing, all we're doing is upgrading the system that was there. So, it was previously installed in 1999 and we received a permit to do that and it was inspected by the Town of Queensbury. So, we're just trying to proceed with upgrading the system that's existing. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why do you have to upgrade it? MR. MORRILL-Well, it was a stone, pipe stone leach field and it just failed. COUNCILMAN BREWER-In two years, three years? MR. MORRILL-Well three years but again, that particular area over there is known for having problems with septics and high water table and so on and so forth. But the agency is proceeding to try to install a force main all the way down to Kensington and I guess the City of Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury are into some kind of negotiations to install a regular gravity main down through there in years to come and we have some documentation from Don Colts on that. Then we previously had drawn up the force main and then with the anticipation that the municipalities were going to install that gravity feed, you know, we didn't install that force main. But this is a system, temporary system until we can install a force mam. COUNCILMAN BREWER-When do you anticipate that you might do that? MR. MORRILL-Well, we plan on putting it to bid in the spring. I mean it's been drawn and submitted to Dave Hatin. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, I guess my question would be, these three lines wouldn't last until spring or another year? MR. MORRILL-Well COUNCILMAN BREWER-Without the variance? MR. MORRILL-No, they won't. Ultimately, all we're trying to do is put back what's existing. We had two hundred and fifty feet of leach field there before. We're using high capacity infiltrators this time so that, you know, we'll be assured that the system won't fail. It's the only system we have on that house, other then the small one in the back for one small bathroom. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. Caroline, would you read the letter by Dave Hatin, please? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-I have a letter addressed to the Town Board. Dear Town Board Members: The Warren/Washington ARC is requesting to place two additional lines to a septic system which they have installed in order to meet the design criteria for the size of the system that is required for this facility. In doing so, they could not make the system fit within the constraints of the setbacks required by the Ordinance. Therefore, they are requesting the one foot property line setback and the fifteen foot setback from the foundation. I see no reason why the board could not approve this variance as proposed. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Town of Queensbury David Hatin, Direction Building and Code Enforcement (letter on file in the Clerk's Office) SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, do you have anything further to add at this moment? MR. MORRILL-I don't except that we are in anticipation of installing that force main system. You know, it's a great cost to the agency, it's going to be a forty or fifty thousand dollars to do that and we are prepared to proceed with that but in the interim we need to install the other two lines to be assured that the system doesn't fail in the meantime. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. At this time, I'd like to ask members of the public who would like to speak regarding this proposal to come forward, state your name and address for the record, please. Would anyone care to comment at this time? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:12 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'll ask board members if they have further comments or questions of the applicant. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yea, I do Dennis. How many people reside in this house? MR. MORRILL-They have eight residents and two staff. But there is another onsite system other then just that, there's a small system in the back too. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And that just serves a different unit? MR. MORRILL-That serves one bathroom and this will serve the other bathroom and the rest of the house, the kitchen, washroom. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is the system failing right now or you anticipate that it will? MR. MORRILL-Well, we've already installed the three lines so it hasn't failed. It was an engineered design from Environmental Design. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Something doesn't, to me, I'm not an engineer or anything but it just doesn't seem right that you've got three lines. How long are these lines? MR. MORRILL-Fifty feet. COUNCILMAN BREWER-There's a hundred and fifty feet plus a thousand gallon tank, plus another system, something is wrong. MR. MORRILL-No, there's not another system. There was fine lines previous, it's the same. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh, alright. MR. MORRILL-Five fifty footers and the system failed, it's just saturated. So, we put high capacity infiltrators in which can take twice the volume. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Where were those lines? MR. MORRILL-You should have two drawings there or one drawing showing proposed and what's existing. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Them are the ones they want to put in but where was the system before? MR. MORRILL-Right there exactly. Exactly the same system. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh, exactly. MR. MORRILL-The tank, the D box and everything are in the exact same location. All we want to do is take the leach field out, exactly the way it's configured on that drawing and replace it with high capacity infiltrators. COUNCILMAN BREWER-With the infiltrators, with the new infiltrators? MR. MORRILL-Yes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Now I understand, and there's no other way. MR. MORRILL-There's no areas on that designated property that will meet the setback requirements anywhere else. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And their specific request is to locate the leachfield one foot from the property line in lieu of the normal ten foot and fifteen feet from the foundation instead of the required twenty feet. MR. MORRILL-That's right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-But what if Dennis, what I'm looking at is, how far, I guess the property, I don't know, how far does the property come over here? If you ran this way, you could run seventy foot four or whatever. MR. MORRILL-You can't, it's a paved parking lot. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Okay. MR. MORRILL-And you still won't meet the setback requirements again from Jerome Avenue. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, any further questions, board members? Thank you very much. MR. MORRILL-Alright. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Further discussion? COUNCILMAN BREWER-It was an engineered system before and it failed... It just boggles my mind. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, I think that's why eventually they'd like to use a force main and connect to the city sewer. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They want to get the force main in there, it's just to prevent. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Do we have any assurance of that? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, I think the only assurance we have is that if the system fails again, they'll fix it. COUNCILMAN BOOR-In which time we wouldn't perhaps give them, allow the variance. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do I have a motion from any board member? RESOLUTION APPROVING SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF W ARREN/W ASHINGTON ARC BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 12,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Warren/Washington ARC has filed an application for variances from provisions of the Town of Queensbury On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, such application requesting that the Local Board of Health allow a leachfield to be located one foot (1 ') from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback and fifteen feet (15') from the foundation in lieu of the required twenty feet (20') setback on property located at 22 Jerome Avenue, Queensbury, 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 March 18th, 2002, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk advises that property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been du1y notified, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, a) that due to the nature of the variances, it is felt that the variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes and objectives of this Ordinance or to other adjoining properties or otherwise conflict with the purpose and objectives of any plan or policy of the Town of Queensbury; and b) that the Local Board of Health finds that the granting of the variances is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and that the variances granted are the minimum variances which would alleviate the specific unnecessary hardship found by the Local Board of Health to affect the applicant; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health hereby approves Warren/Washington ARC's application for variances from the Sewage Disposal Ordinance to locate a leachfield one foot (I ') from the property line in lieu of the required ten feet (10') setback and fifteen feet (15') from the foundation in lieu of the required twenty feet (20') setback on property located at 22 Jerome Avenue, Queensbury, New York. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF KENNETH ALDOUS BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 13,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board serves as the Town's Local Board of Health and is authorized by Town Code Chapter 136 to issues variances from the Town's On-Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance, and WHEREAS, Kenneth Aldous has applied to the Local Board of Health for six (6) variances from Chapter 136 to allow placement of a: 1. sewage disposal system 75' from Lake Sunnyside in lieu of the required 100' setback; 2. sewage disposal system I' from the property line in lieu of the required 10' setback; 3. sewage disposal system 55' from the well in lieu of the required 100' setback; 4. septic tank 40' from the well in lieu of the required 50' setback; 5. sewer line 7' from the property line in lieu of the required 10' setback; and 6. sewer line 2' from the property line in lieu of the required 10' setback; on property located at 80 Sunnyside North Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public hearing on April 1st, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Kenneth Aldous' sewage disposal variance application concerning his property situated at 80 Sunnyside North Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 279.17-2-24, 25, 26 and 27) and at that time all interested persons will be heard, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Local Board of Health authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Public Hearing presented at this meeting and send a copy of the Notice to neighbors located within 500 feet of the property as required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: None DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: COUNCILMAN BOOR-One question, on number 12 here, there's no yes or no on mine indicated. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Right, it's blank. COUNCILMAN BOOR-My only concern is that it's important that people that apply for these Eljin Systems realize that you can't, I don't think you can park on any of these things but these in particular you can't and the fact that it doesn't say that they won't be parked on, is something that I think we should check on when the applicant does show up. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, we'll clarify that on the 8th. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Dennis, I think the date should be April 1st, your meetings I thought are April I st and 15th. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Is it the 1st? Well, this resolution says the 8th. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-So, I think we should change it to the 1st. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, April 1st at 7 p.m. in the Activity Center. Thank you Bob. Resolution amended to reflect date correction, agreed by Councilman Brewer and Councilman Stec. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 14,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Board of Health hereby adjourns from session and enters Regular Session of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR SESSION DISCUSSION - NORTH QUEENSBURY SEWER PROJECT Background Update with Cost Analysis O'Brien & Gere Engineering - Stu Spiegel and Bill Lamy, Warren County Deputy Superintendent, Department of Public Works (submitted handout) MR. LAMY-We're here to bring the board up to speed on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the North Queensbury Sewer Project and where we are in the process... Warren County, as the lead agency is in charge of the project and the Town of Queensbury is a partner in that process as an involved agency. As part of the SEQRA process, both the county and the town will be required at a point in the future to make and adopt Official Statements of Findings. Late last summer, as we reactivated the SEQRA process, we held a scoping meeting at the North Queensbury Firehouse and that was sponsored by Warren County as the lead agency. As we continue, we will eventually draft a Supplemental EIS and once that is complete, it will be presented to the county board for formal acceptance. At that point, once the SEQRA document has been accepted, SEQRA does require that a public hearing be held in order to hear additional comments from the public on the report. After that report and that hearing would b held, a responsive summary to any comments or questions that would be generated, would be prepared in order to answer the issues that would have surfaced. The next step in the process after completing that, would be to prepare a Final Supplemental EIS which would also be accepted by the lead agency and at that point in the process, the county would adopt the formal Statement of Findings and it would also be at that point where the Town of Queensbury, as an involved agency would also have to adopt a Statement of Findings. As we continue down this path, it is certainly normal and should be expected that we hold progress meetings. At the completion of the SEQRA process, the next step at that point would be to actually enter into the sewer district formation process. Municipal Law requires that as part of that sewer district formation, that another public hearing be held and that would be at some point off at a later date. I'd like to do at this time is to turn the mic over to Stu Spiegel from O'Brien and Gre whose been coordinating the activities at their firm in regards to the Draft Supplemental EIS. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Before you do that Bill, I'd just like to recognize Ron Montesi, Supervisor Montesi from the Town of Queensbury. Ron, thank you for attending this evening. I invited our county supervisors this evening to this meeting and Nick Caimano called me and he was on vacation and wasn't able to attend but the other supervisors indicated that if they were able to make it, they would and I truly thank you, Ron for being here this evening. Stu, I also want to thank you for driving from the western part of the state, Syracuse, New York here on this snowy day but I think it was important that you did come and we certainly do have a decent turnout so, thank you for coming. MR. STU SPIEGEL-It's tough to have a public meeting if the public isn't here so I'm glad there is a good turnout. By way of introduction, I'm with O'Brien and Gere and have been for going on twenty-nine years. I'm an Environmental Scientist so this is one project where the Environmental Scientist are taking a lead rather then the engineering portion of our firm and I've been doing environmental impact work with the firm since SEQRA was passed back in the late 1970's. Several years ago, we started preparing a Draft Supplemental EIS for the project specifically the North Queensbury Wastewater Facilities, had done a certain amount of work evaluating alternatives at that time. We were put on hold while legal issues were addressed. More recently, as Bill Lamy just said, we held a scoping meeting late summer and at that time, the scope included a number of alternatives which we would be evaluating for the North Queensbury Wastewater Facilities. (referred to submittal) You have the nine alternatives. What wehave been doing for the last several months, is updating the data that we had compiled and put together several years ago. This includes environmental data, everything from wetlands to population and census, information that's required part of an Environmental Impact Statement. It's necessary to make sure that that data is up to date and correct so that the county can review it and evaluate it appropriately and evaluate the alternatives appropriately against that information. We also have added to the work that we had done several years ago on additional, a couple of new alternatives or essentially, variations on the old alternatives which people had brought up and merited for their review and some evaluation. Also in the EIS at this time, we need to meet the requirements of the court decision that came out of the legal challenges to part of the process. So, that's what we've been involved in to date. What you have in front of you is a bit of a progress report, it's some of our thoughts and some of the utstanding issues still on paper and that still need to be addressed. At this time, the best way to put it is that we may recommend, and O'Brien and Gere is putting the information together for the county so we don't make decisions, but we may recommend elimination of as many as six of the nine alternatives. We're still reviewing regu1atory and technical issues and what I'd like to do is take maybe a minute apiece to go through the ones that are closer to elimination as feasible alternatives then the others out of the nine. The first one would be number 3, Centralized collection and treatment, discharge to Dunham Bay wetlands. New York State DEC does not look well on the discharge of even treated wastewater to the Lake George system. The strict regulations governing that sort of prohibition have been proposed and challenged and withdrawn and have gone back and forth but as a practical matter, DEC does not approve. We have questioned them on this issue to determine whether they would accept a variance asa practical matter and the answer has basically been no. Again, as a practical matter, that's not likely to be approved here in the Lake George system. If people are aware of the fact that wetlands are used as a finishing natural treatment system for wastewater, yes they often are and it's a very good and workable idea but it won't be permitted here in the Lake George system. The next one, number 4, Centralized collection and treatment with a spray subsurface discharge at Dunham Bay site. This was evaluated in significant detail, it was found that the soil cover there is insufficient to be able to allow for the estimated daily effluent to percolate through. Basically, there just isn't the capacity there and it was something that nobody was aware of until actual field tests were conducted. So, that one I'd have to say has affectively been eliminated at this time. Centralized collection and treatment, spray subsurface discharge at Pickle Hill site, number 5, is essentially in the same situation. We're jst, again, there, double checking some additional information but we expect the same result, that our geologist are looking at some site specific information and there's a likelihood following that, that the same conclusion will be reached, there's insufficient capacity in the soil there. The next one, shall we say weak at this point, is number 7, Centralized collection of and discharge of raw wastewater to the Glens Falls Sewer system. This would involve a Great Lakes inter-basin transfer. I understand that we're only talking about two hundred and fifty thousand gallons a day but that would be a transfer out of the Great Lakes Basin. Right now, there is a new annexed to the Great Lakes Agreement between the US and Canada and the several states around the Great Lakes, they're being even stricter then they have been in the past about diversions. There is no minimal diversion so even though two hundred and fifty thousand gallons doesn't sound like much in this context. We have checked with DEC, we have chcked with people who work with Great Lakes Basin transfers on a regular basis and it would probably take two or three years to get this reviewed by every Governor of every Great Lakes state as well as Canada and it's likely that it would not be approved. Number 8 and 9, are somewhat related. Number 8, Decentralized collection and treatment, normally called community systems and there are a couple of issues. Number one, we get into the issue of finding sufficient and appropriately located sites for these community systems with adequate soil cover and that's a difficulty that we don't think can be overcome. We're looking at that issue right now and that's really the final issue that needs to be addressed for that evaluation. There's also setback requirements for the location of those systems from the lake, from wells, from other critical receptors that are liable to limit where a community system could be placed. With regard to number 9, the septic tank management district, individual treatment systems, e're running into the problem also. If we talk about two hundred foot setbacks from the lake, there are a good number of properties that don't meet that requirement. We also, right now, are looking at separations to wells, neighboring wells, surface waters. We have to talk to the Department of Health and the other jurisdictions about ordinances and requirements with regard to lot sizes. This got a little bit of a slow start, one of the reasons being that the county just received from the EP A, a letter saying that this type of a system could be funded with EP A money. It was considered umeasonable for us to move forward evaluating it if it turned out that this might not even be funded by the EP A, that would have been a decision point of it's own. The fact is that it can be funded by the EP A under certain circumstances so we will be going forward with the evaluation. We have received an electronic tax map from the county so we can look at lot sizes and setbacks and come up with some real hard informatio for the county to evaluate. The next page, what we've done is, the construction costs is, at this point is somewhat fluid because of the ongoing evaluations but I asked our engineers to give us a qualitative cost range for construction at this point so that you could at least get an idea of which of the alternatives seemed to be roughly the same range and they've ranked them in lowest to highest costs. As I said, the only alternative that we've fairly definitively ruled out at this point is number 4, I believe I said that there are six or five others that are close and we had not done our homework yet on the individual treatment system, the septic tank management district because we had just received the EP A letter. I'd have to admit that, again, as a qualitatively, that would probably be one of the lowest, if not the lowest construction cost on the same level with number 8. This second table gives you an idea as to where the cost ranges come in and the last table, just by way of giving you an idea wherewe are and I'll explain this to you. The different sections of the Draft EIS are on the left, just to give you an idea where we are in progress, in actually preparing the document. We've got a target date for this sunnner, and pardon me if I'm being a hair vague, I'll explain why in a second, we're in a position right now and are right now writing the first three introductory sections of the Environmental Impact Statement. One of the key alternatives is the possibility of using the Lake George Wastewater Treatment Plant and pumping the raw sanitary wastewater to the Lake George Plant. Rather then, spend duplicate money, CT Male right now for Lake George is evaluating expansion costs and issues for that plant for another purpose for Lake George and they'll be done with their report sometime around mid May and we'll piggy back the use of that for our EIS rather then spend the county's money to do that same or similar evaluation. So, a lot of our conclusions, recommendations to the county and the completion f the rest of the document will move fairly quickly after CT Male comes out with that evaluation. That will give us an idea as to whether the Lake George Plant can be upgraded and expanded and at roughly what cost and we plan to fold that information into to our evaluations. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Do you have a target date? MR. SPIEGEL-I told my people who are working on this that I'm looking to turn around a Draft to the county, a preliminary version of the EIS for Bill's editorial review within about forty-five to sixty days after we get the CT Male information and in terms of a formal submission to the county, I would assume that would come fairly shortly after that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Realistically, we're looking at July or August. MR. SPIEGEL-Yea, what I would like to target as a practical matter is, if we're going to have a public hearing on this project, I definitely would like to do it when the summer people are around and the property owners that are around in the summertime have the opportunity to be a part of the process. MR. LAMY -As we explore the Septic Tank Maintenance District and there are a bunch of innovative systems that have come on the market, there's been a reluctance by any of the regulatory agencies to experiment with wastewater disposal in the Lake George Drainage Basin. The things that will make those innovative systems feasible on lots in north Queensbury will be a relaxation of some of their separation distances, whether it be to the lakeshore or whether it would be to a high ground water table or to impervious lenses. If we don't get any relaxation on those distances, or if they don't allow higher application rates, that are going to allow you to put in smaller systems, then I question whether a Septic Tank Maintenance District would really work. Those are some issues that we need to get answers from the regulatory agencies on before this issue can be moved forward. We can ask the question, but we can't answer it for them. They govern the time schedule as to when they supply the information back to us an that has happened in other cases as well such as trying to get an answer on the Great Lakes water withdraw, the issue of a discharge to surface waters with the Dunhams Bay wetland. All we can do is step forward with our best effort and then we're in a waiting game sometimes while they ponder what they're going to do and we'll continue to give them all the information or ask all the questions that we feel we need to. The other issue and I'll caution all of us as we look at the Lake George Treatment Plant, we will need an Intermunicipal Agreement with the Village of Lake George and the Town of Lake George to connect to that system. What is happening since this project was underway several years ago, is there's an effort on the west shore for the commercial establishments over there to proceed with sewer district expansions without us. There's a group of commercial operators that have hired CT Male to further the work that we have started in anticipation of extending sewers on the west shore and the villageis in a position now that as they look at the capacity of their plant, they're going, the village and the town are first in line for any capacity that may exist at the Lake George Plant and as we try to advance the SEQRA work in Queensbury, I just want us all to be aware of where their priority is and if there's capacity that's available, the residents and the commercial people on the west shore are stepping up the plate and trying to extend that pipe. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Would it be fair to say that we're in a position, Warren County and Queensbury to lobby for a pilot program for some of these type modern septic systems? Don't we have the perfect opportunity here to have one of them installed, monitor it, see if it's effective? If this process is taking that long, it seems like we could be doing that in the interim and killing two birds possibly with one stone. I don't know why we don't try something like that? MR. LAMY-My understanding is that, in order to get approval of these, a lot of that work has already been done in other watersheds and they do work, it's just we've got to overcome the reluctance of the regu1atory agencies to recognize change. They're effective, we just need to push, they have an application here in the Lake George Watershed. I don't think we need to take that step, I think the work has already been done. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I don't see this as number 10 on this list. MR. LAMY-I think to add to what Stu said, on March 12th, we got the response from EPA that in certain circumstances, they would fund a Septic Tank Maintenance District and Stu made the comment that there's work for us to be done in advancing that concept with the regulatory agencies and that's a task that we need to do at this time now that we know that it can be funded. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Did you say that Lake George is going to expand their plant for other possibilities? MR. LAMY -The possibility is to accommodate the commercial interest on the west shore of the lake, up 9N. COUNCILMAN BREWER-When they proceed with that expansion or the plans, did we indicate to CT Male that they should anticipate the volume or the capacity that we plan or maybe plan, because out of the three options that you had that seemed to be feasible, two of them include that treatment facility. So, shouldn't we say to CT Male, pump it up three hundred thousand gallons of capacity per day and see what the cost is? My other question would be, who does that cost go to and how much is it? MR. LAMY-In answer to your first question, yes, we are on record as wanting capacity at the Lake George Plant. We did that several years ago, we renewed that request when we reactivated the SEQRA process last year. The ultimate governing factor at the Lake George Plant will be the ability of the percolation beds to handle treated effluent. If the area is there, based on the application rates that are permitted by DEC, if there's enough area in the leach beds to get the treated effluent in the ground, then if there's other components at the treatment plant that need to be expanded, that can be done. The study is going to evaluate the existing capacity of each component of the plant, look at the flow that comes into the plant and decide that, if they're going to have X number of gallons coming down 9N and there's going to have X number of gallons coming from 9L and the Town of Queensbury, what do you need to do at the plant to accommodate that. And Lake George has just cautioned us that, if there's a lid tat, you can't get everybody in, that the town and the village are first. The cost would be part of the project. If we, if as part of the solution to Queensbury, additional work needs to be done at Lake George, then this all goes back into the project which brings me to the next point. In looking at all the options, we know at this point that we don't have enough money to implement the solution and when I was talking with the EP A, they felt that it's appropriate for us to begin the lobbying effort to secure additional funding to solve our problem. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How much money do we have? MR. LAMY - We've got eight and a half million dollars. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We don't have enough to do anyone of these options. MR. LAMY-That's correct. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is that lobbying taking affect now? MR. LAMY-No. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Why are we even wasting the money? I mean, if we're not going to have the money to do it, it's like a big wish list. MR. LAMY -We went back to EP A a few years ago and said, we know we don't have enough money to do this project and at that time, they told us, you haven't built anything yet and you're already telling us that you need more money. Go show us some success stories, go show us that you're putting the grant to use, go build something and get a handle on what you think you're going to need and then come back and talk to us and I'm suggesting that we're at that point. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How much was set aside, was it thirteen for Queensbury? MR. LAMY -When I first got involved with the project, there was a budget with solutions that were identified at that time with cost estimates that were identified at that time and every one of the projects has turned out several years later as you would expect to cost more money then that initial budget. The county made the decision that when projects were ready to go to construction that they would be funded in full as they went to construction. What has happened, the Lake George project is paid for, the Bolton project is paid for, the Hague project will be paid for and we've rolled all of our deficits into one project with one identified sum which we're getting close to being able to quantify and we'll make one lobbying effort to go back to fund the remaining project and that has been the game plan and that's where we are. COUNCILMAN BOOR-One other question, on the approximate construction costs here, do these include actually running the lines on people's property? MR. SPIEGEL-No. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, if somebody's got a hundred yards of granite in their front yard, it's not going to pay for them but they will be required to hook up to it. MR. SPIEGEL-Yea, and that of course raises some other issues that we've got to cover... One of the things that's missing from that version also that we're still working on are the operation and maintenance costs and obviously, that's going to differ... This is still a work in progress. MR. GILBERT BOEHM-It sounds like we are several years away from any construction, if any construction ever takes place. In the interim, we are really proceeding with the no action alternative... Is the no action alternative being thoroughly evaluated right now so we no it's true impact if we do nothing? That's the lowest cost of all. MR. SPIEGEL-Yes, the no action alternative is required to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement as well these alternatives. MR. JOHN SALVADOR-Further on the no action alternative, we have two hurtles that we could expect to have to cross over. The park commission still has to promulgate it's wastewater regu1ations. The other thing I think you should include in your final draft is the likelihood that the legislature could mandate that we do something. MR. DENNIS PREVOST -Concerning option number 5, can you speak to the process that O'Brien and Gere is going to go through to evaluate the soil capacity? MR. SPIEGEL-What we're doing primarily is, we've turned over the hydrologic data to our geologist, they have said that they're looking into getting some up to date or some additional soils to groundwater data which they think may be available. As I said, in terms of elimination or recommendation for elimination on our part to the county, that's one of the alternatives that we're looking to see if there's any additional information that may sway the case one way or another. But largely, for similar reasons as at the Dunham Bay site, that one is essentially close to elimination at this point. We may not find any more information available to us and the geologist may feel comfortable enough with the information they have already. So, in other words, are we going out and planning to do additional perk tests, that sort of thing, not at this time, our geologists haven't indicated to us that they thought that was necessary. Which to me, means they think that they've got sufficient information. They would need 0 have enough information to make a conclusion in one direction or the other. SUPERVISOR BROWER-One other question, Bill, do you believe the EPA's answer that they've provided that they might fund some small community systems, do you think that would include potentially individual system upgrades for people that have the greatest problems within the area of the lake? MR. LAMY-I'm going to supply you with a copy of the letter, it's not very long, I can read it. Dear Mr. Lamy, This is in response to your letter dated November 5th, 2001 requesting clarification regarding the eligibility of two options for wastewater management for the Town of Queensbury portion of the county sewer project. I apologize for the delay in responding. Please be advised that only wastewater infrastructure facilities that are or will be owned by the county, the grantee are eligible for grant funding. For the Septic Tank Management District, the septic tanks and disposal systems must be owned by the county. For the community systems, the collection systems, septic systems or wastewater treatment systems and disposal systems must be owned by the county. The county can have ownership by either fee simple title or by the issuance of an enforceable easement with right of access and if the county does have ownership of these facilities, they would be responsible for the operations and maintenance of these facilities for the life of the facilities. In addition, the county could not transfer ownership of thefacilities to any entity without approval from the EP A. I trust the above offers clarification regarding the eligibility of the two options being considered for the Town of Queensbury portion of your sewer project. MR. LAMY-With that, I think that there's flexibility for us to pursue additional information regarding the Septic Tank Maintenance District and that's where we're headed. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I want to thank both Bill Lamy and Stu Spiegel from O'Brien and Gere for coming this evening, appreciate your report and certainly, it looks like we're a ways from a solution unfortunately but thank you. GLEN LAKE DREDGING PROJECT - Scott Cartier 8:15 P.M. MR. SCOTT CARTIER, 26 Reardon Road (submitted handout to the board members)-This project came about four years ago, in discussion phases. Back in 1998, Glen Lake Watershed Management Plan was introduced in cooperation with the Glen Lake Protective Association and the Town of Queensbury and one of the goals in the management plan is dredging... (Read the following from the management plan, 4.2, task I) A sediment dredging project should be conducted at the northern tip of Glen Lake to remove the thousand yards of silt and muck which has accumulated there preventing any recreational opportunity for lake shore landowners. Working with the Warren County Soil Water Conservation District, the shoreline owner should develop a plan of action to undertake this effort... Out of that, we came up with what you have in front of you. Originally we were going to rent a dredger from the Village of Scotia at a cost offour thousand, five hundred dollars for a month at a time. But in working with DEC, it took a lot longe getting a permit then we anticipated and by the time we did receive our permit, the Village of Scotia rented out their dredger for five years. At that time, the cost was right around twelve thousand five hundred dollars and then you've got to add in some money for cost and whatever, so we figured fifteen thousand. We had a private donation of ten thousand. Glen Lake Protective Association was willing to help out and we thought maybe the town would kick in the rest, two thousand, three thousand, whatever it was and we would have it done. But when the dredger went away, the price went up. It's up to thirty-six thousand from one quote, and I just received another quote of forty-nine thousand. Basically, that's where we're at right at the moment and we were hoping that in brining this to the board's attention, if we could work with the town and try to help out, maybe getting grants or if you know of any other ways or means of accomplishing this task that was outlined in the Watershed Management Plan. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Have you been in contact with the Lake George Association? MR. CARTIER-Yes. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Have they responded? MR. CARTIER-No. COUNCILMAN BREWER noted that the board had previously requested Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner to research whether or not there was grant funding for this type of work and found there was none... MR. CARTIER-The residents at that end of the lake feel that, we pay taxes, the situation is getting worse, why do nothing? The tax assessment on Glen Lake is twenty-two point five million... If this continues to keep filling in the lake, if our tax base on that end goes down, the rest of the lake will be affected. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand what you're saying, but where do you draw the line? Just here, the whole lake? MR. CARTIER-When this first started, it was going to be a pilot program and at that time, we were going to do it ourselves and this is what we could afford. Now, if the town would like to make this a bigger project, I'm all for it. I don't mind going back to DEC and revamping the permit application, doing the whole bay, I don't have a problem with that. That would be excellent. But I don't think we can sit back and allow this to continue to fill in... I have many articles from Warren County, I know this is not the county but we are in part of Warren County, grant money for Lake George, grant money for Lake George, grant money for Lake George, I mean the list goes on and on. What about Glen Lake? We are in Warren County. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Are we giving the grants or is Warren County? MR. CARTIER-Warren County, I know this isn't at that level. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I think that's maybe the key. MR. CARTIER-But I'm asking the board, what other avenues can we go to? COUNCILMAN BREWER-In my own opinion, that lake is in our town and it's an asset that we have then I think we should try to preserve that asset and see what we can do to help the people that live on there. MR. CARTIER-That's all we're asking, if we can get a fair slice of the pie. I would like to go on record that Dave Wick, had a previous appointment where he could not make here tonight but we did work with him and we worked with Lee York, Virginia Etu. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And you're the contact person? MR. CARTIER-Yes. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The rest of the board has to go along with me, but I don't have any problems seeing if there's something we can do to help the lake if it's deteriorating. Everybody's got a big push to save the Hudson River, why not save the lake? I don't have a problem with that... (Mr. Cartier submitted two letters and Deputy Town Clerk Barber read them into the record) Dear Queensbury Town Board Members, On behalf of Joseph Serra and his wife Anne M. Serra whom have lived at Reardon Road Ext. since 1977. They verbally expressed they are in agreement with the dredging project to me Jo Ann Curcio, their daughter. They are unable to be present at this meeting, since they are in Florida at this time and wished that I express their support of the project. Yours tru1y, Jo Ann Curcio for Joseph and Anne Serra Dear Mr. Brower & Town Board Members, I relocated to the Town of Queensbury from Staten Island, New York in 1979. I choose to live in the Town of Queensbury because of what it has to offer its residents. From the time when my children were of age they participated in the recreation program and enjoyed sports sponsored by the town and I also attended many courses offered by the town. It is a great program and thank you for all the town has done. I have lived on Hall Road, Glen Lake Road, Reardon Road Ext and just recently purchased a home on Tee Hill Road with lake rights to Glen Lake. I have enjoyed Glen Lake for swimming, fishing and boating. Over the years I have been aware of the changes in the surrounding area at Reardon Road Ext. The sediment at the bottom of the lake has now been a mu1ky brown and black, the color of the water is different from the center of the lake, the level of the water has decreased all of which effected the summer activities my family all enjoyed. I also support the dredging of the Reardon Road Ext. of Glen Lake and ask that the Town of Queensbury also support this project. Yours tru1y, Jo Ann Curcio (letters file in the Clerk's Office) MR. CARTIER - I just like to thank the board for hearing our concerns tonight, I know a lot of people came that wanted to voice their opinion. SUPERVISOR BROWER recommended that those people who wish to speak regarding this do so during Open Session Forum. MR. CARTIER-Just one other thing I'd like to add, this permit is only good for a year and from what I gathering, the board is going to try to look into a few things and I'm going to have to renew this permit which I'm willing to do. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Are there limitations on this permit? MR. CARTIER-Yes there is. COUCILMAN BOOR-No, I mean other then time, I was talking about quantity. MR. CARTIER-That would be the thing, if the board determines that a greater use of monies would be to do the entire bay, or whatever scope they deemed a responsibility they should do or we should do, we would have to resubmit out permit... The other thing I'd like to add, right now we have a spot to do the dewatering, it's vacant land but the lot is for sale, I just hope that we can some how maybe speed things along, if we can, that this lot still is available at the time, when we get ready to do the dredging. CORRESPONDENCE Deputy Town Clerk Barber noted that Building & Codes and Town Clerk Monthly Reports for February have been received and filed in the Town Clerk's Office. INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS FROM THE FLOOR COUNCILMAN TURNER-We have two resolutions, the first one is to move forward with a letter from Economic Development that references properties that were left out of the Empire Zone, those parcels being 297.8-1-8,297.8-1-9,297.8-1-10 and 297.8-1-11.... The second one, at the Landfill we have a 1981 Rex 35 Landfill Compactor Unit that we have no further use so I'm proposing to put it out to bid and dispose of this bid to the highest bidder. OPEN FORUM 8:35 P.M. MR. LEW STONE-In reference to the previous discussion regarding Glen Lake, noted that the Lake George Association does not have any money, the Lake George Association looks to get grants from various organizations for projects involving Lake George, not for other areas or other projects.... There's no question that Glen Lake is a valuable treasure, as far as the Town of Queensbury is concerned and should be preserved.... The Lake George Association has received, and this is something that may be helpful to them, some specific grants from the Department of State... We've gotten some fairly sizeable grants over the past three or four years from DOS, they're all matching, they require a fifty percent match from another organization, whether it's the town or the county or something like that. MR. ART BROWN, Glen Lake-Referred to the Glen Lake Dredging and noted that he has the problem at his end of the lake too... But I feel the problem is, it's plant matter that's decomposed and floating around in the water. It's really nasty down at the north end of the lake. I think digging it out, you're going to dig a hole which would be nice and more navigable but you're going to still end up with all that, it's not filtering out of the lake good enough. Some kind of a solution to me would be some kind of a big portable giant fish tank filter... I think it's that lose plant matter... All dams collect soil and stuff behind them and some of them you have to let the water out and plow it out of there, it makes great topsoil. MR. DICK MERRILL, Sunset Trail questioned whether there was an update regarding the negotiations with Glens Falls on the sewer agreement? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I can give you a brief update, the city came back to the town with a proposal for revised language. The positive part was the paragraph that was added that was objectionable to us was deleted and there were a couple of other changes in wording that they asked us to evaluate. We've evaluated that and we've gone back to the city with another slight variation in proposal and my general indication from the mayor, in just verbal discussion tonight was that that was acceptable to him and he believed to the council. But I have yet to brief my board on it, which I will do tonight to see if they're in concurrence and if they are, we'll be moving along hopefully. I can't get more specific at this time, we have had some discussions and it appears to be positive at this time. MR. JOHN SALVADOR referred to the Library Expansion Committee Meeting and questioned Mr. Merrill as to whether he had any updates? MR. MERRILL noted that there's a meeting this Friday morning and recommended attending the meeting to get updated. MR. SALVADOR referred to the North Queensbury Sewer discussions and noted, in considering the expansion of the Lake George Plant, there's been many concerns about odors, it's within a residential and lodging area and I think you should be aware of that, it's going to come up. The other burning question that has always been, what is the expected life of the sand beds. So, those things will have to be considered. Questioned the status of the Zoning Ordinance? MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director-I delivered a copy of the ordinance to the board last Monday, there are seven or eight items that need to be debated or discussed with amongst the board on what kind of action they want to take on it. My objective is, to do so, I think we're going to ask for workshop next Monday with the goal of having an ordinance ready for adoption April 1st. MR. SALVADOR questioned whether there would be any public participation or input? MR. ROUND, Executive Director-We did conduct a public hearing. Once the board gives me some feedback on, what we did provide them with, John, I have a copy in front of me. We did summarize all the comments that were received, written and verbally, through the public hearing process. We summarized those on what we're calling a response to comments, once the board finalizes their responses, cause it's the board's response to those comments, we'll make this document available and then we'll put them on the web and will have copies available in my office. And then we have a summary list of what changes are going to result, as a result of the board's input and that will also be available for the public. MS. MARY BETH CASEY, 46 Nacy Road spoke to the board regarding the Glen Lake Dredging project and recommended rather then using the word dredging, reclamation. It's a reclamation project. We're not asking the town to do anything but to restore the lake to the pristine lake that it once was. I understand that the town doesn't have a property tax and certainly, we all appreciate that. However, maybe we would be better off having a small property tax so that money could be in a general fund for these kinds of projects. Certainly, this could be a first project, I'm sure there are other areas throughout the entire Town of Queensbury that need some kind of reclamation. I'm absolutely in favor of this. My biggest fear is that if goes to the county, they do have a huge laundry list of obligations above and beyond one or two small projects. This is an effluent town and I think that it has an obligation to take care of it's property owners. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It would be engineering the extension of the gravity sewer to Big Bay Road, the Stewart's location and west. MR. TUCKER-Questioned whether he had a response regarding the Hatch Act? SUPERVISOR BROWER-The county attorney addressed this at the county level and his recommendation to all supervisors, if there is a question or if an individual, such as your self, is questioning a specific matter, that we should direct you to Washington, to the Special Counsel's Office that handle's that matter where you can make an inquiry and they will research the situation, as they have with the Warren County employee that you recently read about. And in her particu1ar case, they enabled her to complete her term because they felt it was an oversight and they felt there was no discussion regarding it. Paul Dusek has some information at the county that I'd be glad to provide you, or any other citizen that would ask, so that you can follow up with them. He recommended that we not do it but the individuals specifically concerned, make the inquiry with Washington and that they will indeed conduct a information gathering. MR. TUCKER-Questioned the status of Aviation Mall? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I have some great news, I went up there tonight before the meeting and witnessed the fact that part of the Blacksmith Shop is actually on the ground and part of it's in the dumpster and they had a crane working at the time. So, they are moving forward in removing the structure as they indicated they would, so I'm pleased about that. MR. TUCKER-Referred to the Library Expansion Committee Meeting and questioned the outcome? SUPERVISOR BROWER-There was some discussion about the Alstrom Building, or Andtriz now, I guess it is and there was concern that that building possibly not be considered because of the Andritz Building ishconsidered for a library, obviously, you lose the value of having a private industry in there, taking it off the rolls. So, the board is evaluating architectural services, they have an architect that's going to investigate the sites and they had three proposals. They haven't officially narrowed that down yet but they had three proposals with three different estimates, they were fairly detailed proposals, a couple inches thick. They didn't get as many proposals as they had anticipated but it looked like it was a significant effort for these firms to make the proposal. MR. TUCKER-Questioned whether the property being added to the Empire Zone is part of our Industrial Park? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Yes. MR. TUCKER-Referred to those parcels in the Empire Zone and questioned whether it was true that they do not have to pay water tax or sewer tax? SUPERVISOR-I'm not certain about that. I know many of the normal taxes that they would have to pay are paid for by the state. It's supposed to keep the local municipality being burden with the cost of economic development or incentives and that's why the Empire Zone is so critical because if you don't have it, the burden of economic, of these incentives, the pilots, falls on the community directly. We were the sixty second Empire Zone in the State of New York so without one, we're at a significant disadvantage. With one, I think it's going to be to our advantage. In the case of Queensbury and the Economic Development Zone, we are not entitled to Empire Zone designation for retail establishments, it's only for office space or light industrial use. However, the City of Glens Falls is designated for retail purposes. So, retail stores locating in the City of Glens Falls would get all the benefits of the Empire Zone which are elimination of many taxes, reduction in electrical energy costs for a period of tie and job tax credits, tax credits directly related to job growth. The whole concept of the Empire Zone is to increase employment and increase jobs in the area and that's how everything is measured against. MR. TUCKER-Questioned Councilman Brewer regarding the status of our road? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't have an answer yet, I'll call Mr. Missita in the morning, I've asked but I just haven't got an answer. MR. DAVE STRAINER, Ridge Road-Referred to the drainage problem in Queensbury Forest and questioned where the money came from to fix that problem? It was a developer's mistake, the town ended up rectifying the problem. There was no grant money involved, it did come from town funds? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I believe it came from the general fund. MR. HENRY HESS, Comptroller-It was all town funds. MR. STRAINER-What was the cost of that? COUNCILMAN BREWER-One ninety-nine, two fifty-one, can't remember the change. MR. STRAINER-So, relatively speaking, the Glen Lake project at forty thousand is really a bargain. COUNCILMAN BREWER-My only personal answer to that would be, we fixed the whole problem over there, I would like to take a look at the whole problem on Glen Lake and possibly find a solution for it. MR. STRAINER-That was a good answer, I agree with that. MR. SALVADOR-Referred to the Empire Zone and noted that he's looked into that, reading the section of the General Municipal Law that deals with Empire Zones. There's two significant things, one is that the land that's designated in the Empire Zone is supposed to be characteristic of, and these are the words in the law, severe poverty. I don't know how this land that we're putting in qualifies for that, that's one aspect of it and the other thing is it's supposed to have a characteristic of a neighborhood, like the South Bronx, forminstance. The other thing is that the law looks like the applicants who would be applying for the tax benefits, it's pitched directly to minorities. I'm going to look into it further but I hate to see somebody get mouse trapped that didn't qualify. MS. VIRGINIA ETU, Nacy Road-Referred to the issue of Glen Lake and proposed going back to the drawing board. I helped work on the Watershed Management Plan and I think the five years of working on that and the four years that Scott has taken to try to bring something to fruition, it's frustrating. We're no closer to cleaning up that end of the lake, we've got the plan, we've got the expertise, we've got the permit, we've got everything in place, we just need the money. So, not to delay this any longer, I would propose that we have another workshop quickly and I would love to be able to be a part of that. I also spoke with Dave Wick tonight from Warren County Soil and Water and he couldn't make it tonight and asked me to express to the board that his agency would be more then willing to come back and discuss the technical aspects, the feasibility aspects, the scientific aspects of doing this and if we're talking now about looking at a small scope project, we're talking about forty thousand here, what aboutcleaning up the whole bay, I think it would be worthwhile to have that expertise on hand to do that. My hope is that it wouldn't take us months to get to that point.. . In the interest of time, I would hope someone will contact Scott and we can get a workshop going. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would like to add, my concern has been, I've talked to Scott several times on the phone, I find this project too small and not a benefit to the lake. If you really want to do something that's a benefit, you get some scientific data that says, yes, this is filling in, we need to address this and then you address maybe that whole bay. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Recommended this project for the town's capital improvement plan and suggested to Scott, to come in this week and meet with him to fill out the form, a capital improvement plan project request form to get it on the town's written plan and see where we can go with this. MR. ROGER RYAN, Barber Road-I've been there roughly forty-five years and the in the forty-five years, I've seen the lake fill in substantially. At the end of my dock, forty-five years ago there was nine feet of water, today there's five feet. I agree a hundred percent with Tim when he said that there should be a study made and something done. I'm a retired engineer. All the roads basically around Glen Lake shed into Glen Lake, the runoff from Route 9, the Northway through Rush Pond. So all the water in a rainstorm washes down and enters Glen Lake, some of the dirt from cars, from sanding the road has something to do with the lake filling up. At the end of Barber Road, there's two drains put in by the town. I can take you there tomorrow and there isn't anyone of you guys that can find the drain, if you don't look at the white arrow painted on the road because roughly a foot below the level of the road. Every single year the town comes in there and spends three days cleaning that drain out with the vacum and then they flush it down with a hose and you can go out there after a heavy rainstorm and you look at that bay and it will be gray in color. So, all that sand, that salted sand is going down into the lake. Something has to be done and that's why I said, the overall picture, if you want this lake to be maintained, it has to be looked at.... The other thing I'd like to talk about is, a group of us retirees from Sandy Hill formed a corporation, Sandy Hill Heritage Association and every year we get together and have a picnic every September and it's always down at Moreau. Moreau has a beautiful park, why can't we do something with Jenkinsville? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Jenkinsville Park is on our CIP list. COUNCILMAN BOOR-It's actually number one in the Rec Dept as far as getting funding for improvements of all the parks. MR. RY AN-I hope the board will look into this problem with the total picture of Glen Lake. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTIONS 9:20 P.M. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING TOWN POLLING PLACES RESOLUTION NO.: 153,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, in accordance with New York State Election Law (4-104, the Queensbury Town Board must submit a listing of the Town's polling places for each Election District to the Warren County Board of Elections, and WHEREAS, each location is accessible to the physically handicapped in accordance with Election Law (4-104-I-a, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby designates the following locations as the Town of Queensbury's polling places for each Election District: W ARD/ELECTION DISTRICT LOCATION 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 North Queensbury Firehouse Bay Ridge Firehouse Bay Ridge Firehouse Warren County Municipal Center Bay Ridge Firehouse Warren County Municipal Center 2/1 2/2 2/3 South Queensbury Firehouse Queensbury Activities Center Queensbury Central Firehouse (Lafayette Street) W ARD/ELECTION DISTRICT LOCATION 2/4 2/5 2/6 Queensbury Activities Center Warren County Municipal Center The Glen at Hiland Meadows 3/1 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6 Queensbury Senior High Queensbury Senior High Queensbury 4-5 School Lobby Area Kensington Road School Queensbury Senior High Queensbury Senior High 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 4/6 Roads) 4/7 4/8 4/9 Roads) West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) West Glens Falls Firehouse (VanDusen/Luzerne West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) West Glens Falls Firehouse (Luzerne Road) West Glens Falls Firehouse (VanDusen/Luzerne and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Warren County Board of Elections. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BARTON & LOGUIDICE, P.C., TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAIN STREET INFRASTRUCTURE AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO.: 154,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 251.2001, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of the engineering services of Barton & Loguidice, P.c. (Barton) for the provision of engineering, planning and landscaping architecture services in connection with the proposed Main Street Infrastructure and Redevelopment Plan, and WHEREAS, such authorized engineering services included the design of a sewer line within the project boundaries of the Main Street Project, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has advised that additional engineering services related to the Main Street Project are necessary in order to extend the sanitary sewer system outside the Project's boundaries along Corinth Road west of the Northway to approximately the intersection of Corinth and Big Bay Roads, and WHEREAS, Barton has offered to provide the requested additional engineering services for an amount not to exceed $19,600 as delineated in a copy of Barton's November 26th, 2001 proposal presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of Barton & Loguidice, P.c. for the provision of the additional engineering services referenced in the preambles of this Resolution and as delineated in Barton & Loguidice, P.c.'s November 26th, 2001 proposal presented at this meeting, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that payment for these engineering services in the amount not to exceed $19,600 shall be from the Exit 18 Corridor Enhancement Capital Project, Capital Construction Account No.: 126-5020-2899, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Water Superintendent, Comptroller and/or Town Supervisor to execute any documentation and take such other and further action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR DEXTER SHOES RESOLUTION NO.: 155,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, Dexter Shoes has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Board for a Transient Merchant/Transient Merchant Market License to conduct a transient merchant market from June 3rd, 2002 through June 8th, 2002 in the parking lot located at 1499 State Route 9, Queensbury in accordance with the provisions of Town Code Chapter 160, and WHEREAS, the application is identical to applications submitted by the applicant in previous years and since the Queensbury Planning Board conducted site plan review of the prior applications, it is not necessary to again refer the application to the Planning Board for site plan review, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board also reviewed the applicant's prior applications and recommended approval of the prior applications, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with the requirements set forth in Queensbury Town Code ~ 160- 8, the Queensbury Town Board hereby grants a Transient Merchant! Transient Merchant Market License to Dexter Shoes to conduct a transient merchant market in the parking lot located at 1499 State Route 9, Queensbury, subject to the following: 1. Dexter Shoes must pay all fees as required by Town Code Chapter 160; 2. Dexter Shoes must submit a bond in the amount of $10,000 as required by Chapter 160; 3. Dexter Shoes must submit proof of authorization to do business in New York and authorization of agent to receive service of summons or other legal process in New York; 4. The License shall be valid only from June 3rd through June 8th, 2002 from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and the license shall expire immediately thereafter; 5. The Transient Merchant License shall not be assignable; and 6. Dexter Shoes must comply with all regulations specified in Town Code ~160-8. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR NORTHEAST REALITY DEVELOPMENT/NAOMI POLITO RESOLUTION NO.: 156,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Northeast Reality DevelopmentlNaomi Polito (Northeast Reality) has submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Board for a Transient Merchant!Transient Merchant Market License to conduct a transient merchant market from June 3rd, 2002 through June 9th, 2002 in the parking lot at 1652 State Route 9, Queensbury in accordance with the provisions of Town Code Chapter 160, and WHEREAS, the application is identical to applications submitted by the applicant in previous years and since the Queensbury Planning Board conducted site plan review of the prior applications, it is not necessary to again refer the application to the Planning Board for site plan review, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board also reviewed the applicant's prior applications and recommended approval of the prior applications with the condition that the applicant coordinate traffic control with the Warren County Sheriffs Department, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with the requirements set forth in Queensbury Town Code ~ 160- 8, the Town Board hereby grants a Transient Merchant! Transient Merchant Market License to Northeast Reality DevelopmentlNaomi Polito to conduct a transient merchant market in the parking lot located at 1652 State Route 9, Queensbury, subject to the following: 4. Northeast Reality must pay all fees as required by Town Code Chapter 160; 5. Northeast Reality must submit a bond in the amount of $10,000 as required by Chapter 160; 6. Northeast Reality must submit proof of authorization to do business in New York and authorization of agent to receive service of summons or other legal process in New York; 7. The License shall be valid only from June 3rd through June 9th, 2002 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the license shall expire immediately thereafter; 8. This approval is conditioned upon Northeast Reality coordinating traffic control with the Warren County Sheriffs Department; 9. The Transient Merchant License shall not be assignable; and 10. Northeast Reality must comply with all regulations specified in Town Code ~ 160-8. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.: 140,2002 REGARDING AMENDMENT TO TOWN BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 157,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 140,2002 the Queensbury Town Board authorized an amendment to the 2002 Town Budget, and WHEREAS, the Resolution should have amended the Year 200 I Budget rather than the Year 2002 Budget and so the Town Board wishes to accordingly amend Resolution No.: 140,2002, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby amends Resolution No.: 140,2002 such that the Town Board authorizes an amendment to the Year 2001 Town Budget, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to make any necessary transfers, take any necessary action and/or amend the 2001 Town Budget accordingly, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby affirms and ratifies Resolution No.: 140,2002 in all other respects. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF NOVELL ANNUAL COMPUTER MAINTENANCE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES RESOLUTION NO.: 158,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec 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's Computer Technology Coordinator has advised the Town Board that he wishes to purchase the Town's annual Novell computer maintenance software and services, and WHEREAS, New York State Bidding is not required as the purchase price for the computer maintenance software and services is in accordance with New York State Contract pricing, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Town Computer Technology Coordinator's purchase of the Town's annual Novell computer maintenance software and services from Tek Insight in accordance with New York State Contract pricing for an amount not to exceed $5,575 to be paid for from the appropriate Town account(s), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Computer Technology Coordinator, Purchasing Agent 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 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND GLENS FALLS NEWSPAPERS, INC. - PUBLISHER OF THE POST STAR RESOLUTION NO.: 159,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Purchasing Agent has advised the Town Board that she has negotiated terms for advertising rates with Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc., publisher of the Post Star, and WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has recommended that the Town Board enter into an Advertising Agreement with Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc., for 100" of advertising space per year in the Post Star at a rate of $19.86 per inch, resulting in significant savings to the Town, and WHEREAS, a proposed Advertising Agreement has been presented at this meeting, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby approves of the Advertising Agreement with Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc., publisher of the Post Star as presented at this meeting and authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to execute the Agreement, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that payment for advertising services shall be paid for from the proper Town Account(s), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Purchasing Agent to sign any other documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner NOES None ABSENT: None Discussion before vote: Town Board held discussion, Comptroller Hess recommended one hundred inches with a rate of $19.86 per inch rather then one hundred and fifty inches with a rate of $19.31 and Town Board agreed to amend resolution to reflect those changes.... (vote taken) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT IN THE MATTER OF STUMVOLL V. LUCE/LUCE V. BUSHEY, JR. AND NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD, INC. RESOLUTION NO.: 160,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 261, 2001, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley to represent the North Queensbury Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc., in the matter of Joan E. Stumvoll v. Lenore K. Luce/Lenore K. Luce v. Franklyn P. Bushey, Jr., and the North Queensbury Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc., et al., and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, the Town of Queensbury is liable to pay a portion of the aggregate settlement amount, and WHEREAS, Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley has negotiated a settlement of this matter with all parties in the aggregate amount of $50,000, and WHEREAS, Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley has negotiated the Town of Queensbury's portion of the aggregate settlement amount to be $12,500, and WHEREAS the Town's portion of the settlement is not subject to any deduction for Workers' Compensation benefits paid to Joan Stumvoll because such payments are completely and properly offset under New York State's "no-fault" law governing liability for automobile accidents, and WHEREAS, Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley has recommended and requested Town Board authorization to settle this matter on the negotiated terms, thereby avoiding further litigation, trial and expense, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, attorneys representing the North Queensbury Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc., to settle the matter of Joan E. Stumvoll v. Lenore K. Luce/Lenore K. Luce v. Franklyn P. Bushey, Jr., and the North Queensbury Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc., et al., in exchange for a full release from Joan Stumvoll of any and all claims she has or might have arising from the accident which gave rise to this litigation, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury's portion of the aggregate settlement amount shall be twelve- thousand five-hundred dollars ($12,500), and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller to issue a settlement check in the amount of twelve-thousand five-hundred dollars ($12,500) to be countersigned by the Town Supervisor, made payable to Joan Stumvoll and her attorneys, Pechenik & Curro, P.C., in satisfaction of the Town's portion of the negotiated aggregate settlement amount, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the funds for the Town's portion of the settlement shall be paid for from the Emergency Services Fund, Legal Services EMS Account No.: 005-3410-4130, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and/or Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley to sign any settlement documents and take any action necessary to settle this matter and effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: None ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED CREATION OF SOUTH QUEENSBURY - QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 161,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury, Town of Kingsbury, Warren County, Queensbury Economic Development Corporation, Washington County Sewer District #1, Warren-Washington County Industrial Development Agency and City of Glens Falls have entered into an Intermunicipal Agreement to jointly construct sewer facilities connecting the existing Washington County Sewer District #1 (WCSD#I) Wastewater Treatment Plant to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (GFWWTP), and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is acting as the coordinator of the project and will issue its municipal bonds and/or bond anticipation notes to finance a portion of the project with amounts required for debt service to be apportioned among the municipalities, municipal agencies and individual properties which will be benefited by the project, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury wishes to create a new sewer district to be known as the South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue Sewer District, and WHEREAS, a District Formation Report (Map, Plan and Report) has been prepared by Jarrett- Martin, LLP, professional engineers, concerning the proposed sewer district formation and the construction of sewer facilities involving three sewer districts and connecting the existing Washington County Sewer District #1 (WCSD#I) Wastewater Treatment Plant to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (GFWWTP) along a route following Queensbury Avenue and the Niagara Mohawk Right of Way, which area would also include 30 lots in the Warren-Washington Counties Airport Industrial Park, the Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport and several parcels along the proposed force main route to the City of Glens Falls, as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report (the "Project"), and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been filed in the Queensbury Town Clerk's Office and is available for public inspection, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report delineates the boundaries of the proposed sewer district, a general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation, and WHEREAS, the sewer district improvements in the Town of Kingsbury were discussed generally in the Map, Plan and Report as they will be included as a part of the entire Project, but subsequent to the filing of the Map, Plan and Report the Town of Kingsbury decided to create its own district to undertake such improvements, and WHEREAS, Jarrett-Martin, LLP filed a district formation report for the Kingsbury Sewer District (Kingsbury District Formation Report) in May, 2001, and WHEREAS, the Kingsbury District Formation Report included a revised Part I of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) which considered both the South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue Sewer District improvements and the Kingsbury Sewer District improvements, and WHEREAS, coordinated SEQRA review will be conducted and the Town has sent a copy of Part I of the EAF, the Map, Plan and Report and the Kingsbury District Formation Report to all potentially involved agencies including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Health together with all required documentation and a letter indicating that the Town Board will be undertaking consideration of the project identified in this Order, that coordinated SEQRA review with the Queensbury Town Board as lead agency is desired and that a lead agency must be agreed upon within 30 days, and WHEREAS, the estimated annual cost to the "typical property" has been filed with the Town Clerk and is made a part of the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue Sewer District in accordance with Town Law Article 12-A, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The boundaries of the proposed South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District are shown on the Project Location Map attached as Exhibit A to this Order. The benefited properties proposed to be a part of the Sewer District are as follows: TAX MAP NO. OWNER/USE 303.10-1-12 North Country Imports (automobile dealership) 297.16-1-1 Airron Industrial 297.16-1-2 Airron Industrial 297.20-1-2 Airron Industrial 297.20-1-3 Airron Industrial 303.12-1-9 Warren County 303.10-1-8 Forest Enterprises 303.11-1-4 Forest Enterprises 303.15-1-25 Forest Enterprises 303.15-1-18 Garden World Assoc. 303.15-1-20 Forest Enterprises 303.15-1-21 Forest Enterprises 303.15-1-22 Forest Enterprises 303.15-1-23 Glens Falls National Bank & Trust Company 303.15-1-24 Forest Enterprises 2. Four separate sewer districts, including the existing Warren County Sewer District #1 and Washington County Sewer District #1 and the proposed South Queensbury-Queensbury Avenue Sewer District and Kingsbury Sewer District, will utilize the improvements which comprise the Project. The proposed improvements will connect the existing wastewater collection system to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant by constructing a gravity sewer line along Queensbury Avenue connected to a pump station opposite the Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport which will lift wastewater through a force main to a gravity sewer manhole in Dix Avenue. Specific improvements include the construction of the pumping station, installation of approximately 1000 feet of gravity sewer to convey sewage from the existing Warren County Sewer District # I Wastewater Treatment Plant to the pumping station, installation of a force main southward along Queensbury Avenue to an existing Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. right-of-way, westward along theNIMO right -of-way to Quaker Road, under Quaker Road by directional borings, along the south shoulder of Apollo Drive and along the south edge of a NIMO parking lot to an existing City of Glens Falls municipal sewer manhole. The improvements are more fully described in the Map, Plan and Report and a list of the components of these improvements is included as Exhibit B to this Order. 3. All proposed improvements shall be installed and paid for as described in the Map, Plan and Report (including the cost payable to the City at the time of initial hook-up) and shall be constructed and installed in full accordance with the Town of Queensbury's specifications, ordinances or local laws, and any State laws or regulations, and in accordance with approved plans and specifications and under competent engineering supervision. 4. The maximum amount proposed to be expended for these improvements will be approximately $2,204,035 including a one time buy-in fee to the City of Glens Falls wastewater treatment facility which is estimated to be $.50 per gallon of average daily flow, which in this case will equal $12,500. However, as described in paragraph 7 below, existing and new District users will be responsible for only approximately $903,195. The improvement costs for various components of the proposed Sewer District are specifically described in the Map, Plan and Report. 5. Nearly all of the properties within the Sewer District are zoned for industrial or commercial use but are vacant at this time. Under Town Law Section 209-a(2), "Typical Property" is defined as a benefited property having an assessed value that approximates the assessed value of the mode of the benefited properties situated in the district or extension that will be required to finance the cost of the proposed improvements. Using this definition, the assessed value of the "Typical Property" is $50,000 and the total estimated annual cost of the District to the "Typical Property" during the first year following formation would be $340. The estimated annual cost of the District for debt service and operation and maintenance costs to a typical one or two family home during the first year following formation would be approximately $170. There would be no actual hook-up fees. The cost to retain a private contractor to install a new collection sewer system and/or sewer lateral between a building and the main Projct sewer lines vary significantly depending on the individual conditions including distance from the line and various subsurface conditions. Typical sewer lateral installation costs have been at least several thousand dollars; it is impossible to generalize the costs for collections sewer systems. 6. A detailed explanation of how the estimated cost of the District to the typical property, and, if different, the typical one or two family home was computed is included in the Map, Plan and Report which is on file with the Town Clerk and available for public inspection. 7. The proposed method of financing the total cost of the Project includes the following: a. U. S. Department of Commerce-Economic Development Administration Grant in the amount of 50% of the Project cost up to $600,000; b. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act Grant in the amount of $300,000; c. $325,000 purchase of future capacity in the sewer district; d. $76,500 total reimbursement and donation of right-of way from NIMO; and e. issuance of Bonds and/or Bond Anticipation Notes by the Town of Queensbury on behalf of the Sewer District in the amount of $903,195. Debt service on the Bonds will be paid by an annual benefit tax charge to users and annual sewer use charges will be imposed to pay the costs of operation and maintenance. 8. The Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing to hear all persons interested in the establishment of the Sewer District and consider the Map, Plan and Report and take such other and further action as may be required or authorized by law, at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 1st, 2002 at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York. 9. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to duly publish and post this Order not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days before the public hearing date, as required by Town Law ~209-d, and complete or arrange for the securing of two (2) Affidavits of Publication of Notice and two (2) Affidavits of Posting of Notice of the Public Hearing required hereby and to file a certified copy of this Order with the State Comptroller on or about the date of publication. 10. The Town of Queensbury Community Development Department is hereby requested to prepare a report on any environmental impacts that should be considered at the time a SEQRA review is conducted. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: None ACTION OF RESOLUTIONS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED FROM THE FLOOR Town Counsel Hafner proposed the following resolution for the board's consideration: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDITION OF CERTAIN TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PROPERTIES TO WARREN COUNTY EMPIRE ZONE RESOLUTION NO.: 162,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the State of New York created the Warren County Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, certain properties located within the Town of Queensbury apparently were inadvertently left out of the Empire Zone, and WHEREAS, Warren County has informed the Town of Queensbury that in order to add such properties, the Queensbury Town Board needs to adopt a concurring Resolution supporting addition of such properties, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby supports the addition of properties bearing the following tax map identification numbers to the Warren County Empire Zone: 297.8-1-8297.8-1-9297.8-1-10 297.8-1-11 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to inform the Warren County Board of Supervisors of this action and take any actions necessary to effect this Resolution. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: None Town Counsel Hafner proposed the following resolution for the board's consideration: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASING AGENT TO SEEK BIDS FOR SALE OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 163,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Theodore Turner WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury has certain surplus equipment, namely the 1981 Rex-35 Landfill Compactor Unit, and WHEREAS, Jim Coughlin, Town of Queensbury Superintendent of Solid Waste has advised that it is no longer needed for town purposes, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury would like to seek bids for purchasing such equipment, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Joann Hicks, Town of Queensbury Purchasing Agent is authorized to seek bids for this equipment and to bring back the highest bid for the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury to consider selling such equipment. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES: None ABSENT: None TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS Councilman Stec referred to the issue of the joint assessor with the city and questioned whether Supervisor Brower has heard from the Mayor. Supervisor Brower noted that he spoke with the Mayor regarding this issue and he stated that he would address it with the city council. Councilman Stec recommended the Supervisor call the Mayor to remind him to address this issue since it was due January 1st and yet it's still not resolved. Mr. Round, Executive Director gave update regarding the Route 9 decorative lighting request and noted that he would get back to the board with some alternatives for the board to consider. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN TOWN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 164,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns its Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Turner, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: None No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY