Loading...
2002-08-19 REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING AUGUST 19,2002 MTG. #38 Res. #331-3447:09 P.M. BOH #52-53 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SUPERVISOR DENNIS BROWER COUNCILMAN ROGER BOOR COUNCILMAN DANIEL STEC COUNCILMAN TIM BREWER BOARD MEMBER ABSENT THEODORE TURNER TOWN COUNSEL Bob Hafner TOWN OFFICIALS Nicholas Caimano, Warren County Board of Supervisor At Large Fred Champagne, Warren County Board of Supervisor At Large Henry Hess, Comptroller Chris Round, Executive Director of Community Development Ralph VanDusen, Water/Wastewater Superintendent Mike Shaw, Deputy Wastewater Superintendent 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.: 331, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor 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 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Turner BOARD OF HEAL TLH PUBLIC HEARING - SEWER VARIANCE - JIM WHITE NOTICE SHOWN 7: 10 P.M. MR. TOM JARRETT -I'm here representing the White family. They have a camp on Cleverdale on Russell Harris Road, it's the west side of Cleverdale and the drawing on the board shows the existing property, it's about twenty-five feet wide, two hundred and forty-four feet long. They wish to upgrade an old out-of-date septic system and we've submitted to the board a concept design for your review. Essentially, it's a raised system, we're providing three feet vertical separation for the system above seasonal groundwater to meet town code. The only standard that we can not meet is the side line setback to the fill that's part of the raised system so, we're asking for a variance tonight for that setback. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What about the drainage issue that Dave Hatin addresses in his letter. MR. JARRETT -Right now drainage follows the pattern from north to south in that area. The property itself drains from the house to the lake and then from the house easterly toward where we have shown the system and there's drainage from the north crossing the property going to the south. There are some ... drainage systems right now in that area that drain, I believe ultimately to the lake. The concern over drainage I believe is because the property we're dealing with here is somewhat of a low point and drainage ponds there during wet periods of the year. What we're proposing to do won't materially affect drainage, it won't aggravate the drainage in that we won't create any more runoff. In fact, we may improve it by being able to detain some of that water before it drains to Lake George. Our system is a raised system so any effluent that, any effluent from our system would enter that drainage course in a treated fashion, it's not untreated effluent. So, in my opinion, there won't be any adverse effects 0 drainage in the area. Now, bear in mind, this is a concept design, we need to prepare a final design drawings and we will address that drainage in a more detailed fashion for submission to the town. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, why wouldn't we see final drawings if MR. JARRETT-We, it was my recommendation that we present this in concept form to the board to see if you would entertain this variance before we prepared the final design drawings. If you, well, let me leave it to the board. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I guess I would say that we're doing a variance here and public hearing tonight, if we're going to approve this or deny it, we ought to have drawings that show what you're going to do. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Not a concept. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I would agree. I was looking through my paperwork, going, what am I missing, I didn't get any drawings on this thing and I guess MR. JARRETT-Essentially, all you're missing are construction details but if you wish to have those before you act on it, the concept we've shown you where there's a section in your package that shows how the system will be elevated and this plan view is in your package. So, essentially, all you are missing is the construction details that the contractor would need. COUNCILMAN BREWER-How wide is that property? MR. JARRETT-Twenty-four feet. Twenty-five feet. COUNCILMAN BREWER- Twenty-four feet wide, two hundred and forty feet long. How do you put a house on that? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, the only thing is it's a replacement, if it wasn't for that, it's like, it's a, don't think so but. I'd be more comfortable seeing the complete drawings, I think because this is unusually small. It's probably not going to affect how I would vote on this but I'd feel better. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, at the bear minimum we could open the public hearing and wait for the drawings the 9th, right? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Sure. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Could you do that? MR. JARRETT -Certainly. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And then approve or disapprove then. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, I think it would be nice to hear any members of the public that would like to comment for or against this since notification has gone out. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Oh, yea. MR. JARRETT -From my perspective, I would like to, if you're not going to entertain this proposal, I'd like my client to know that tonight but if you're leaning toward approving it, you know. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What are the alternatives? MR. JARRETT -Depending on the conditions, the drainage conditions, there's really no other alternative except a holding tank. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's an alternative. MR. JARRETT -It's the only other alternative we have. I don't mind giving you design details but I don't want to waste my clients money. COUNCILMAN BREWER-This is a situation where I wouldn't mind seeing two properties have one system and join together. Has that every been done? MR. JARRETT -Certainly, it's been done. It's difficult to do, it's, the logistics become tricky but it certainly has been done. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I think in an instance like this, it just makes sense because you have more land, if this back part of the people next door's not being used, I mean it's just better, it's better for the environment, in my mind instead of trying to squeeze one on a twenty-four foot piece of property and then the next guy has got fifty-four feet and try to squeeze one on there and then the other guy's got thirty-five feet, you've got three systems where you could have two or maybe even one. MR. JARRETT -In theory, I agree with you wholeheartedly. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Is that something that could be talked about? COUNCILMAN BOOR-Are any of the neighbors here? MR. JARRETT-I surmise they are, I don't know for sure. COUNCLMAN BREWER-I'm guessing they are. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I'djust, I'd like to hear from them, I think and then MR. JARRETT -Certainly. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Any more questions for Mr. Jarrett at this time? Okay, thank you, Mr. Jarrett. Yes, at this time, I'd like to open the public hearing and invite any resident that would like to comment either way on this proposal. Yes, sir. Please introduce yourself for the record, your name and address please. MR. ROBERT WHITE-My name is Robert White, I own number 50 Russell Harris Road which is two lots up from this one. We've been there since 1936, I'm a Civil Engineer by education and profession. I am a little bit disturbed from what I just heard. If anyone were to stand where that property is and look north, you'd see a fairly sizeable catching area. The snow runoff and the rain runoff is considerable at times. There was always natural drainage behind those properties to the south. In fact, behind that property and toward the three other properties further south, when I was a kid, it was sort of a marshy area, we used to catch frogs there and sell them for bait. It's always been that way but the drainage has always been south, there is a considerable drainage through there. You can not underestimate this. My backyard at times during a heavy freshet has been a foot deep in water because, and that was exasperated by the paving of the road up ahead. In other words, water runs down there so quickly. Thiscan not be underestimated, the extent of the drainage situation, the drainage requirement there. You can not dam it. I insist that it not be dammed. I own a hundred feet, I have a nice big lot and it's normally good and dry but once in a while, if we get two or three inches of rain in a day or so, you get a lot of water down through there. That's number one. Number two, my second concern is that this installation, let's face it, it's a stretch. It's about a four foot high mound, stretching the whole back of that property. There must be consideration of the aesthetics of this. I don't know what it is, I've not seen it, I can't really visualize what it'd be like but I would insist again, that the aesthetics of this be looked at with regard to how this is going to affect my quality of life and those of my family and how is it going to affect the property value of my property should this thing be put in here. I think these considerations that must be made. I realize the rights and privileges of the owne's property but we all know that the reason for these regulations, these setbacks and such, is to protect the rights and privileges of the neighbors as well, it's part of the game. Why many years ago were these setback requirements enacted? In the sixty-six years that we've lived there, I've seen a lot of changes on Harris Bay and not all of them have been to the benefit of Harris Bay, let's face it. I think largely due to the inattention of authorities many, many years ago. Such installations of the Harris Bay Marina were allowed to be put in and that has definitely not enhanced the environment of Harris Bay. It's water over the danm, let's face it but to think that that beautiful wetland was allowed to be filled in, that wildlife habitat was allowed to be destroyed and all that traffic disrupting the marine vegetation in that bay, is a sin. I think that, I just hope that as you consider this, and I realize that these people, that these neighbors, they're good neighbors, have a problem but I hope that ou consider all these other affects, the things that could happen if this is allowed to be done. Whatever your decision is, please keep these considerations that I raised in mind and I thank you very much for the time. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to address the board regarding this application at this time? MR. JOHN SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. What is precipitating the need to install this wastewater treatment facility? COUNCILMAN BOOR-It's not spelled out. MR. SALVADOR-It should be made clear why we're doing this. Fundamentally here, I think what you have is a non-build able lot and it's a classic case where you should go to a holding tank. However, that necessitates an encumbrance on seasonal use but that seems to be the only logical solution here. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. GARY SAMPSON-Good evening, my name is Gary Sampson, I live at 54 Russell Harris Road, I'm the property just below the one you see there and even though there's very little slope to the White's property, I'm the one down hill and so I have some particular concerns about what we're doing here. First of all, just let me quickly say that, almost in answer to the previous gentleman's question, Jim wants to improve the house, the structure that's on this lot and make it bigger, have more room for his family and himself and I fully support that. The previous owners of this lot, they went fifteen years with no maintenance on it and it looks it and I'd love nothing better then to see Jim and his family upgrade this thing, make it nice, make it pretty, I think we all benefit from that. But, this isn't 1950 where when you want to build more, you just grab some hammer and nails and you know, you start going. For him to increase the size of his house, even one square foot apparently, he needs an updated sewer, disosal system and I think that's really what is precipitating this. So, bottom line there is that, I have no problem with the goals and ambitions of the White family here, I fully support it. I do have some very significant problems with the proposal that has been brought forth here, though. I mean it's, I've been looking at it and I've been on the internet looking at the Town of Queensbury website in getting familiar with Chapter 136 of the code here. It's something I really didn't want to learn but I guess I had to. If you look at the design that's been submitted here, especially the next to last page, it shows a cross section of this mound and if you look at this, this is me right here, on this side and this design serves to, a couple purposes. First of all, Jim's property is now a watershed onto mine. All the rain water's coming right down, off the mound, off his path, right onto my property because, not, they aren't just filling, they're not just going within ten feet, they're going to zero here. Tey are going to fill right to the property line. So, any stormwater runoff is now right on my lot and my percolation isn't any better then his, I can't afford the water. We had an event a couple of years ago where someone compromised the existing drainage system in that area, I had six inches of water under my house and I don't want that to happen again. Other neighbors had basements flooding, septic tanks overflowing, everything and the general drainage in this whole area, if I may, is all coming down this way. It's almost all because this way, so, you're putting an eighty foot long dam right at the, total opposition to the natural drainage in the area and the back side of this dam is a watershed onto my lot, right to the property line and that concerns me greatly. Second of all, by them coming out this far on this side, if there is a pollution problem in the future, that effluent starts leaching out the bottom side which is my side of this thing, it's not leaching onto his property, it's leaching onto ine and quite frankly, I don't want a pollution problem from his sewage mound and I shouldn't be expected to have one. There must be some kind of distance between what they're doing here and the property line. In fact, I would very much want, if they go through with this, I want to see some type of impervious barrier, a curb, a six inch high curb along the entire length of it, that if there is a pollution problem from this mound, it stays on his property and he has to clean it up. I don't want it on my property where I have to get involved and deal with someone else's sewage and I don't think I should be expected to have that risk and it is a definite risk. So, I have a problem, the variance, going to zero feet on this side, I believe it's paragraph 136-A3 states that, you will only go with the minimum variance required to effect what needs to be done here. Going to zero is not minimum, that's the maximum variance required and I think it's totally inconceivable that this idea, that they thought this woul go anywhere. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me. So, I have problems with the stormwater runoff, I have problems with the pollution and if you go to the next page of this proposal, oh, I'm sorry, the previous page which is very, it's a blowup of what they show, it's a hand drawn diagram. This is a misrepresentation of what's there. Flat out, it misrepresents the facts that are important to this. If you notice in the middle, he's got a couple of trees here and he's got a little rock, about the same size as the trees. Alright. If I may, I made up a couple of copies of this and you can look at these. This is the rock. It's about four foot by six foot in size and it sits up in the air about a foot and a half, it is a big boulder and it is going to be right underneath this mound. Now, what's, what is the effluent going to do when it hits that thing? Will that section of this mound, will it go the other way towards my property? Will it try to get around it? Will you have higher concentration of effluent in certain areas? I don't know what's going to happen, I'm not a civil engineer. But it concerns me that you have this real big rock sticking right up into the middle of this mound and that's not shown on this. They show this nice little rock here and in reality, it stretches the entire distance between the two trees that you have on here. Now, a second thing that I find really egregious is that in one of the corner pictures you see, that is an open catch basin and that catch basin is right underneath this mound. That catch basin takes water from Mr. Bob White's house, two doors up who spoke first, it comes in from his, it exits down underneath my property to the Spath residence and where it goes from there, Mr. Spath can speak to. This is a fifty year old drainage system. If you compromise this drainage system, I'm going to have a flood again. So, it must be kept in tact but you can't leave an open catch basin right underneath this hill, you're going to have effluent going directly into t and eventually into the lake and e-coli is not my friend. I don't want to see it. I get my drinking water right out of this lake. I don't want to see effluent going into it. So, you're going to have to cap this thing off. Well, if you cap it off, now you have another problem. Where's all the water here going to go? So, something has to be done to handle this. How this catch basin and this existing drainage system got omitted from this diagram, I find it egregious because, I believe it was Mr. Jarrett when he stopped out, I met him out, I was outside that day and I pointed the thing out to him. I said, remember this, you can not disturb this thing and I showed him it but it didn't get onto his little drawing here and to me, I personally, I am a professional engineer, registered in the State of Florida and in my capacity when I worked down in Florida, if I ever had a subordinate do something like this, his job would be in jeopardy because professional engineers do not misrepresent like this. Now, asfar as this proposal goes, we don't have a proposal. The final page of this is a survey very similar to that. It's wrong. Okay, it's flat out wrong. If you read the bottom of there, it talks about encroachment. There is no encroachment. A fully legal right-of-way was established in December of the year 2000 and again, if the professional engineers had shown due diligence in checking this thing, as they're required to, they would have found out that there is encroachment, there's a right-of-way. So, he doesn't even have twenty-five feet to play with anymore, he's got about twenty-four cause he can't, on my side, he can't go to the property line, he can only go up to the right-of-way. He's not allowed to cover that right-of-way with one grain of sand, at all. Now, that should have been on here too. Whatever, I guess I've taken up enough of your time. Suffice it to say though, that this proposal violates Section 136-19 of the ordinances of Queensbury. They state that you will have, I believe it's a mp of the area for five hundred feet. Does that sound familiar? I don't have it, oh, here it is. Among other things, a map showing the property and all properties within a radius of five hundred feet of the exterior boundaries there of, plans and elevations necessary to fully describe the conditions for which a variance is sought and all other information reasonably considered by the local board of health. This does not have any of that and so, you don't even have a proposal yet. Not a valid one, according to the ordinances of this town and until you have a valid proposal no action can be taken on this. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Would anyone else care to address the board at this time? Yes, sir. MR. LEON SPATH -lam Leon Spath and I own the two parcels south of the parcels that you see on this map. In other words, I am twenty-five feet from the property line that we're dealing with here and you have heard statements made, we have a stormwater drainage system that runs right through there. The town hadn't really wanted to admit that we had it and you heard mention that a few years ago we had a problem. Well, we went through a hearing just like this and went for a building variance, they issued it and that hearing, Mr. White was here and I was here and we all stressed the importance of the stormwater problem. The town allowed the variance, allowed the neighbors to fill, and then we had all sorts of problems. What happened, they stopped the water. Then it proceeded to go through me, not across me, down my driveway, eroded all of that, into our septic systems and I ran into all sorts of flap. I was hoping that maybe the attorney would be here or Mr. Steves or some, but they aren't, they were involvd in this. I had a meeting with the town, with Mr. Champagne who is no longer with us, Mr. Naylor who is no longer with us and they just, they said, the drainage problem here was the town because of the town road going through there. Mr. Naylor being the man that he was, he tried. There's another, this comes in two ways, most of it comes this way, some of it comes from across the road and, but they tried to solve that, they didn't. And so now, the stormwater that comes down through and it is very, very measurable, now instead of going across the back of me, it goes through me, underground but it goes through me and it comes out on my front lawn. I can't put it in the lake but I could keep it from going through our septic systems, I could keep it from going through my cellar. My cellar had four inches of water coming out of it in the spring time simply because they had danmed it up and I don't want to see this happen again. I went through hell with the town. I had letters from the attorney and, but thy tend to ignore plus the fact that there, I believe there's a little bit of politics involved because Lloyd Demboski was involved in this, he's the next man, the other side of me is his son. So, it's a very touchy situation but I want to know that you people are listening to what is being said and not just ignoring it because I went through two years of holy terror because the town, because of their, mainly the building department failing to abide by the fact that you don't dam water up and they allowed it to happen. I don't want to see it happen again to the people that are uphill, I've got it taken care of, if it gets to me and we've got it, Bob mentioned, he used to have water that deep, he doesn't. We've been very, very fortunate but I had to do it on my own. The only thing, and my attorney wrote the town requesting information, what are they going to do and it was completely ignored. He wrote a letter three months later to the town wondering what is the town going to do so that I can protect my proerty. We never got a response. I protected my property but I don't want to see this happen again and go through the same fiasco because somebody just didn't do their job. That situation is there. I don't know what's going to happen when, if they did put this there. The water has got to go some place. Now, whether it goes out to the road and then down through me, I don't know. Or, right now, it's working but if you put a stop to it or if you do anything to it to stop it, you're going to run into problems and I just want the board to know that the situation is there, you can't sit there and ignore it and it's got to be taken into consideration. That's about all I have to say. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you very much. Anyone else care to address the board at this time? Yes, SIr. MR. MICHAEL SHEARER-My name is Michael Shearer, I'm 52 Russell Harris Road, the neighbor to the north. The biggest comment is in the back comer with the drainage system, okay. Every spring, I do have water in the back comer of my property where their drainage is now. Every year I have to clean out my drains to allow the water from Mr. White's property to run under and go on down to Mr. Spath. I have a hand dug cellar under my place, every now and then I receive water in there that I have to deal with and get rid of, alright and the other thing, the last two summers have been very dry, okay. We've had very little rain fall, there's very little water problem in the last two years. First year we got the place was when Mr. Spath was out there every day with a digging bar digging his new trench to allow the water to come out of Mr. White's property. Mr. White was flooded out and that was because of what was done to downstream of him. I was amazed that that was allowed to happen because we were starting t flood out. I had a lot of water in my basement that year that I had to deal with. I'm next door to him, I'm upstream to his dam, any water that comes up and hits will run off and run down into my cellar and then I have a water problem. We have no problems with them wanting to fix up their camp, that's not the issue. The issue here is the drainage system. Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, sir. Would anyone else care to address the board on this subject? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing portion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:40 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Jarrett, do you have any comment? MR. JARRETT -Yes, I can address those comments, a number were raised. First of all, to clarify, I believe for this variance is that the structure is proposed for upgrade. My understanding is that it will be enlarged, however, there were three bedrooms, are three bedrooms and will be three bedrooms. So, the intensity of use will not increase for sizing a septic system. As far as the drainage, I am aware of a drainage situation. I met with Mr. Sampson in the field, he described the drainage problem to me. We looked at the drainage catch basins, there are several, there's one on the White property and there's one off the property, just down stream on the south of the property. That time, actually, one of the structures was offered for use in solving this problem, that maybe off the table now, I'll have to find out during final design. We are aware that a drainage situation needs to be dealt with, we will deal with that in final design. At the board's request, we will come back with final drawings. The ctch basin on the White property will be removed, taken out of service, that won't function any longer. I will go back and reiterate that when we place fill on this property, number one, we're raising the system to meet code to get the proper treatment for effluent and we will not be increasing the amount of runoff from the property. We will be changing the drainage patterns and that's what I think most of the concerns should center around. We will pass some of the drainage beneath our system and some of it around our system but we know we need to address that situation. As far as the rock on the property and the other situations that were mentioned as being misrepresented, this is a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor. We will address any of those concerns that were raised tonight during our final design, but we did not find bedrock below the system when we did our subsurface investigation. We find bedrock during construction, we will address it and modify the system as, as we always do in every systm. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Caroline, do you have a letter from Mr. Hatin? DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Yes I do. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'd ask you to read it into the record please. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER read the following letter into the record: Dear Board Members; Mr. White is proposing to replace an existing system with a new more modem system. Unfortunately the constraints of his property do not allow a conforming system to be installed and therefore he is seeking a variance from the property line for the system. It is also my understanding that Mr. Jarrett will be at the meeting tonight to discuss the drainage issue which has been brought to my attention by the neighbors. Provided Mr. Jarrett can satisfactorily answer the drainage question, I see no reason why the Town Board cannot approve this variance. Sincerely, David Hatin, Director Building and Code Enforcement SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, thank you, Caroline. I have to tell you Mr. Jarrett that in this particular instance, a holding tank would appear to be a better solution from what I've heard tonight but I don't know how other board members feel about the situation. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Having listened to the public and getting a little bit better idea of what is actually going on here, I would agree with Dennis. Obviously, it's a very small lot so it's going to create problems for anything you do. The fact that the neighbors are here, that they have concerns and I believe they are legitimate. Really, a holding tank is the only thing I would be comfortable with having heard the discussion tonight. We are in a dry year and any kind of mounding, it's going to be inappropriate, I think and when I look at what we've got here, this drainage, from the one man's property, this is a classic case of where a holding tank is really the safest and most ideal use. I mean, it's such a substandard lot that I think it's the ideal way to approach it. I know Mr. White probably doesn't like it but I must say, you say that it's going to remain three bedrooms but I would guess that and I can only guess, that what would be happening here is he would be improving it to be a year round residene where it might not be such now which means there's a higher probability that more effluent is going to be produced. I think when you have lots this size, you have to have a conscience effort made to restrict the type of water use you have. You've got water very close to the ground, you did mention that there was no bedrock found but obviously there is rock in the area and I don't know how much else is there. So, rather then go back and do construction drawings for this system that you presented tonight, I would really only be happy with a holding tank in this situation. COUNCILMAN STEC-Tom, if we're talking about a holding tank, the first question we should be asking is it seasonal or a year round use right now? MR. JARRETT -I don't know as I can speak to that. I believe it's seasonal right now, I don't know what the future use will be. COUNCILMAN STEC-Because I do know that in the past, when we encumbered properties with the holding tanks, that we've had them stipulate that it was, it would continue to be seasonal use and so, if we're going to go that route, I think we're going to need a similar agreement or similar stipulation. MR. JARRETT-I can't speak to the use right now. COUNCILMAN BREWER-It's in the code. COUNCILMAN STEC-Well, right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I agree that a holding tank probably would be the best solution other then, if you had conversation with the neighbor and you could, two properties use one system, or three properties use one system that certainly, if I was the neighbor and had the property available and it was at your expense, I would consider and I don't know if that would be something you'd want to do or not but this doesn't look like it's going to be the best solution. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I have a question for you Mr. Jarrett, should a holding tank be considered for this application, normally we would bury it, do you have the ability to bury a tank on this property? MR. JARRETT-I believe we do, we, blasting might have to be involved if bedrock is below where our investigation depth. I don't, I can't answer that question right now. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. Chris, what's the appropriate procedure at this point in time? Just ask the applicant to come back with revised plans? MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director-Yea, I think you've given the applicant an indication that you're not going to entertain a variance and that you're SUPERVISOR BROWER-We deny the, would we actually officially deny the variance or? MR. ROUND-I defer to the applicant and that maybe that want to reconsider. MR. JARRETT -Before you vote on it, I may wish to withdraw it and go back and talk with my client and see how they wish to proceed. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-There are, you touched on one of the reasons that you can install, use a holding tank in lieu of a conventional system. There are other treatment technologies that might not require a variance, or a different variance. Holding tanks can be used for year round use if the system has been identified as a failed system and that you wouldn't have to encumber it with a seasonal use restriction and we have additional guides, we have that in a form of a letter from the Department of Health and from the Town Counsel that we can share with the applicant, what terms are appropriate for holding tanks. MR. JARRETT-We could also present a variance request to leave the system the way it is right now since it apparently is working and is not encumbering drainage as long as they stay with seasonal use of the property. As long as they don't increase the intensity. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And yet if you're increasing the size of the structure, there's potential for MR. JARRETT-I don't know the improvements, I could go back and have them submit the improvements. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I don't think we want to get into that, it's not up to us, that would be up to the Planning Board. MR. ROUND, Executive Director-That is an allowable alternative. I think the reason for the regulation, I think the intent of the regulation is to bring systems up to standards and one of the alternatives to not meeting the standard is a variance from the standard and I think that's what, but I think you probably want to investigate what exactly is in place and how significant is that relief that MR. JARRETT -Just for point of clarification, no matter what pre-treatment we provide, we still have to provide a raised leaching system so this drainage issue will not, will not go away. COUNCILMAN BOOR-And my take also, it sounds like it's pretty wet around here. Is that correct? MR. JARRETT -Alright, it's a low point and there certainly is drainage that collects on this property but it's not marshy or it's not a wetland, if that's what you mean. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, one of the gentleman had said that, I believe the first one, had said that at certain years, there was a foot of standing water and I believe somebody else here said that on occasion they get water in their cellar which would lead me to believe that water isn't that far from the surface. MR. JARRETT -I suspect it's due to the type soil that creates a perched water table in the spring and it may be the backfill around their structures that's also causing that. But they're quite a ways above the lake levels so it's not, not due to a permanent groundwater table. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, you're saying it's soil types that don't allow the rapid diffusion. MR. JARRETT -Correct, correct. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I'd say, you come back with some alternatives. MR. JARRETT-Alright, I formally request a withdrawal of the application. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Done. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you, sir. RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE APPLICATION OF PATRICK SEELYE BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 52,2002 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, Patrick Seelye has applied to the Local Board of Health for variances from Chapter 136 to allow a leach field to be located 80' from the well in lieu of the required 100' setback on property located at 28 Reardon Road, Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Local Board of Health will hold a public hearing on September 9th, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, to consider Patrick Seelye's sewage disposal variance application concerning property situated at 28 Reardon Road, Queensbury (Tax Map No.: 289.7-1-28) 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 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner RESOLUTION ADJOURNING QUEENSBURY BOARD OF HEALTH BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO.: 53,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer 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 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Turner PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW - 2002 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM NOTICE SHOWN 7:48 P.M. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Mr. Hess, would you care to address this, please. MR. HENRY HESS, Comptroller-The state is offering a targeted retirement incentive this year that is available to the town. There are approximately, thirteen full-time non-union employees that could be eligible. We, the board is considering, is presently considering a couple of department restructurings that might make a, might make it financially advantageous to offer a retirement incentive to a small number of those employees, less then a handful. There's no decision being made on this, on this resolution as to who would be offered to, or if anybody would receive it but this is the last meeting that you're holding prior to the deadline for adopting the local law that would allow you the future option to do that. The resolution calls for, I'm not sure what version is here, but it's supposed to be a sixty day window. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Sixty days, I had the old version. MR. HESS, Comptroller-Yea, the sixty day window of opportunity which would start in November which, the state allows up to a ninety day window, this provides for a sixty day window which is acceptable. The window, and it would, anybody that's offered the incentive, if they are, would have the opportunity to retire between November 2nd and December 31st and receive the incentive. The incentive is not without cost to the town. In most cases, offering the incentive to employee would cost the town around thirty-six thousand dollars. So, it's the, offering it would require some restructuring of departments in order to save that money back in gross payroll or payroll related expenses. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Thank you. Anyone questions of Henry by board members at this time? Okay, hearing none, I'll open the public hearing and ask if any members of the public would care to comment one way or another on the proposal to enable selective early retirement to be offered? Okay. MR. HESS, Comptroller-I would like to add I think that, there's been a history of the town adopting this law in past years. They haven't done it for the past two years, there was not a scenario that made it feasible but prior to that time, for several years in a row the town did adopt a local law and in fact a couple instances it did offer targeted incentives to several people and within, about three or four years ago an employee did retire using this, using the incentive. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay. Comments from board members at this time? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7:51 P.M. RESOLUTION ENACTING LOCAL LAW NO.: 4, OF 2002 TO ADOPT 2002 RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 332, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to consider enactment of a Local Law which would adopt a 2002 Retirement Incentive Program offered to eligible Town of Queensbury employees, and WHEREAS, such legislation is authorized in accordance with Chapter 69 of the Laws of 2002 of New York State, and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public hearing concerning the proposed Local Law on August 19th, 2002 and heard all interested persons, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby enacts Local Law No.: 4 of 2002 to adopt a 2002 Retirement Incentive Program offered to eligible Town of Queensbury employees, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Queensbury Town Clerk to file the Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and the Local Law shall take effect immediately and as soon as allowable under law. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner LOCAL LAW NO.: 4 OF 2002 A LOCAL LAW ELECTING A RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 69, LAWS OF 2002 BE IT ENACTED BY THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. ~ 1 The Town of Queensbury hereby elects to provide all of its eligible employees with a retirement incentive program authorized by Chapter 69, Laws of 2002. ~2. The commencement date of the retirement incentive program shall be November 2,2002. ~3. The open period during which eligible employees may retire and receive the additional retirement benefit shall be sixty (60) days in length. ~4. The actuarial present value of the additional retirement benefits payable pursuant to the provisions of this Local Law shall be paid as one lump sum, or in five annual installments. The amount of the annual payment shall be determined by the Actuary of the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System and it shall be paid by the Town of Queensbury. ~5. This act shall take effect August 19th, 2002. SECTION 2. Severability . In the event that any provision of this law should be deemed invalid or illegal by a court oflaw, the remaining portions of the law shall be read to the extent possible, as if said provision was stricken therefrom and not a part thereof. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Local Law shall take effect upon proper filing initially with the New York State Secretary of State and subsequently with the New York State and Local Retirement System in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York. CORRESPONDENCE DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER noted that the Town Clerk Monthly Report for July, 2002 has been received and filed. SUPERVISOR BROWER noted that he received a petition from homeowners in the vicinity of Warner Bay, specifically the bay near Fisher's Marina and have scheduled a discussion for next workshop Wednesday, August 28th.... OPEN FORUM 7:55 P.M. MR. PLINEY TUCKER, 41 Division Road noted that he had not heard from Supervisor Brower. SUPERVISOR BROWER noted that he would schedule the discussion for the workshop on the 28th if that would be agreeable. MR. TUCKER noted that he would be there... Thanked Tim Brewer and Mr. Hafner for their efforts and the progress at the lookout above the water plant, part of the Hudson Point project... Questioned whether the town will receive the three hundred and seventy thousand dollars that the Barbers borrowed from the town? COMPTROLLER HESS noted that the town has to wait for the Judge. MR. TUCKER questioned the town's chances of getting the money? COMPTROLLER HESS-Slim to none, there's a lot of creditors. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I'm hopeful that we get it all back so that we can have it available for business loans for the future. MR. TUCKER-Referred to resolution 6.11, Resolution Requesting and Authorizing Warren County to Retain Sales Tax Revenues and Offset Property Taxes, questioned whether the people should have a say in this? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Giving their money back, what person would say no? MR. TUCKER-Give it back to the people direct. COUNCILMAN BREWER-We can't... If the tax rate is five dollars at the county and we reduce the tax by fifty cents, the tax rate is four-fifty, no matter what they spend, that's up to them. The tax rate for the taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury will be four-fifty if it's five dollars now. COUNCILMAN STEC-Whatever the county sets, it will be fifty cents, plus or minus, less, next year. COUNCILMAN BREWER-So, regardless of what the county does, we're still reducing the tax rate for the residents of the town. MR. NICHOLAS CAIMANO, 36 Surrey Field Drive, Supervisor At Large-One of the reasons why it was different before is because the tax valuation was less then a hundred percent. Now, it's a hundred percent so you get back dollar for dollar. And you will get back your dollar if you leave this money in the county. There's a number, and I talked to Mr. Hess earlier and I talked to each of you, there's a number some where in there which allows you to keep a zero tax town rate and at the same time give back money to the taxpayers of Queensbury from the County tax. I don't know what that number is, it takes some investigation and I've invited Mr. Hess as a member of your board to come with our people at any time to go through the numbers and find out what that is. But don't forget, we're going to be giving you back a hundred percent. Any surplus now, which comes back to the county, we only get thirty-four percent as our part of the county. So, this is an opportunity to give back dollar for dollar on the tax and t follows through with something that you're already doing and that's helping the taxpayers of Queensbury with the zero town tax. So, I would hope that you would seriously do this. There is a time limit on this, I would hope that you would put a rider on it and that is to put something in the resolution that you pass that you do it this year, provided that the numbers work out for all of you properly because September one is the deadline date. It's l262C of town law that gives you the right to do this and September one is the date for next year, so if you want to give the people of the Town of Queensbury a gift for 2003, it has to be done now. I would encourage you to do this, I've been trying for years to get you to do this, you're not the lone ranger, the Towns of Bolton, Hague and Lake George currently do it and it's a dollar for dollar rebate to the Queensbury taxpayer. MR. FRED CHAMPAGNE, 1 Juniper Drive, Supervisor At Large-I'd like to discuss with you the resolution 6.11 that does authorize the town to leave sales tax money with the county. I've got some numbers here and I would hope Henry, you kind of go through this with me because if I'm in error, please correct me. By local taxes we raise about seven point seven million. Of that Queensbury's portions of that seven point seven is somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty-five percent which if you put those numbers together, you're somewhere in the neighborhood of two point seven, two point six million dollars. My argument here this evening, to be very honest with you, going back to my days, hanging around here Henry, I guess we're looking today at about a six, seven million surplus, give or take some change. COUNCILMAN BREWER-About seven two, some where near there. MR. CHAMPAGNE-And your general fund budget today is somewhere in the neighborhood of seven or eight, maybe you can help me with that Henry? MR. HESS, Comptroller-About seven million dollars. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Seven million dollars, so really you have a hundred percent surplus holding in the town's reserve for a seven million dollar budget. Now folks, that's really rich. That is really rich. If you talk to the comptroller, and I can only go back to my days in education where if you held more then twelve to fifteen percent of your budget, you were over budget, you were well over budget. So, we have to keep that in mind as I go through these numbers. I know you have a number major projects on the board that you're looking at and I think that makes good sense. However, I might also add to that, you know, as a taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury for forty-five, forty-six years, I paid for a number of projects that had been undertaken of the course of the years and in many cases, I paid for them through bonding. Now, I don't mind bonding fire houses because I'm going to be protected by the fire folks and EMS and what have you, and I'd also like to call your attention to the fact that my tax slip herefrom last year shows about county protection up about twenty-six point seven percent and EMS up about thirty-nine percent. Now, I recognize that these percentages in terms of numbers are taxing districts that you can't play around with but I also can do some things with the general fund tax that's going to save that taxpayer some dollars at the county by merely saying to the county, look, we would like to have you, Dan is talking about one year, obviously when I sat in that chair, I was looking forward to this forever and forever because it just makes good sense. If it's economical development you're talking about gentlemen, then this is the place to start. You know, an eighteen cent deal on the general fund tax, for economic development is like, you know, playing your flute. But if you really get to the heart of the issue here and you want to throw a half a million dollars back at the county, that's major dollars back to the taxpayer, back to the businesses in this county that's paying those taxes and its only Queensbury money. Queensbury's money, a way to get back to the taxpayer. When you look at your estimated tax revenue and then you look at reality in terms of tax revenue, it's no joke that you know, you figure high or you figure low and you collect high, and that's got to be at least a five to ten percent difference between what you estimate and what you receive. And I'm being very conservative, right Henry? MR. HESS, Comptroller-This year could be as high as ten percent, it won't be higher. MR. CHAMP AGNE-I don't want to go on and belabor this thing but I would like to have you seriously consider this move at this time in order to save Fred Champagne and the other taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury their dollars that they paid for over the course of time. If you want to build bigger and better, whatever, do it but it bond it and let the next generation that's going to benefit from this, enjoy it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-How come you never left any money with the county when you were in my seat? MR. CHAMP AGNE- Y ou know why, let me tell you why, cause I had two votes, just as you've got here tonight, sir. I had two votes and I was unable to get the third and I worked really, really hard at it and I was one of the two but unfortunately, we weren't able to pull that third vote. If Ted was here, he'd tell you the same thing. COUNCILMAN STEC-Fred, is it true, I had heard that Queensbury did leave money at the county at one point in a previous administration. MR. CHAMP AGNE-Oh, yes. COUNCILMAN STEC-Mike Brandt did, right? MR. CHAMP AGNE- I better not say, I don't know that. COUNCILMAN STEC-I thought it was Mike. MR. CAIMANO, Supervisor At Large-I think you're right. COUNCILMAN STEC-I thought it was a half a million. I agree with what Nick said, that somewhere there's a number that balances us and clearly, it's probably not exactly a million dollars, it may be less. MR. CHAMPAGNE-Don't put yourselves out on a shoe string but with seven million dollars that you're sitting on, you might want to at least consider it. MR. HESS, Comptroller-Fred just brought up some numbers that are fresh in everybody's mind, can I take a couple of minutes to just throw some numbers out because the debate might go on for a while and we should deal with some numbers that are very current. The current general fund balance is two point one million dollars, that's the current available fund balance in the general fund. In the Economic Assistance fund there's a hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, that's earmarked for economic development projects. There's six hundred and eight thousand dollars in the Recreation Reserve that is earmarked for specific spending plans. There's a hundred thousand dollars in the Highway Garage Reserve that was set aside over the years for work to be done on that building. There's two million five hundred and eighty-one thousand dollars in the CIP, the Capital Improvement Reserve that the Town Board had set aside last year, the eighty-one thousand being the interest earnings on that since the time that it ws put aside. There's a storage building reserve that had been set up which the money will be used for, to some degree, I would imagine the storage facility we're going to move on Sunnyside but there's a hundred and seventeen thousand dollars. There's a reserve in the Ward 1 for road and drainage for four hundred and eleven thousand dollars. Now, the sum of those numbers is six million, one thirty-seven and that's what we're talking about when we're talking about the approximate seven million dollars. It had been seven million two last year, we increased it but you also have to remember that in last year's budget, and I don't know that we'll do anything differently this year, last year's budget we appropriated two million dollars of fund balance to balance the budget last year. In other words, we underestimated sales tax to some degree but we also appropriated two million dollars of fund balance to balance the budget. Now, that's not to say that this shouldn't be considered but when you're talking about he reserve of seven point two or seven million dollars, its six point one and most of it is allocated in some way by prior action of town boards. The actual general fund balance is two million one forty-two of which I expect in this year's budget you'll appropriate two million dollars to balance next year's budget. So, that's, there just numbers you need to know when you consider this. COUNCILMAN STEC-So, Henry, you're saying at the end of last year, the un-appropriate general fund balance was four point seven million dollars? MR. HESS, Comptroller-Four point five. COUNCILMAN STEC-Alright because MR. HESS, Comptroller-Four point two four one. COUNCILMAN STEC-Alright, because I'm the one that's throwing around the seven point two million dollars based on an e-mail that I got from your office on June 21st that un-appropriate general fund balance was four point seven million dollars and the CIP fund balance was two point five million dollars in addition of the general fund balance, that's where I got my seven point two. MR. HESS, Comptroller-Okay, we have, the numbers that I was reading to you were out of the most current financial statement which has just been published within, was published last week with last year's adjustments and so I'm, we're just, we published, in fact everybody should have gotten, everybody on the board should have gotten the new and that's what I'm reading from. We're not intending to deceive anybody and I'm merely not intending to dissuade anybody from considering cause I think it should be considered, I think it should be evaluated and there's possibly a formula, I agree with Nick Caimano, I think there's a formula that could probably endure, being an enduring give back but the numbers under surface require exploration not necessarily that we have a million dollars to give away that we won't need in this year's budget process. MRS. KATHLEEN SALVADOR-Referred to the library issue and thanked Mr. Hess for forwarding the requested information to her... That information was the registration and taxation transaction statistics for the tax years 1993,2001, for the Crandall Library. It appears for the tax years 2000 and 2001 the number of registrations remained basically the same. That is for tax year 2000, there were eighty-eight hundred registrations and tax year 2001, there were eighty-eight thirty-four for the Town of Queensbury. The total registrations for all three towns and registrations outside of the taxing district for those years was thirty-one thousand three hundred and fifty-four for 2000 and thirty thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven for 2001. Basically we can see the trend in total registrations was fairly flat for the tax years between 1993 and 2001 ranging between twenty-six thousand to thirty-two thousand with a peak of thirty-two thousand in 1998 and then a tendency to drop to thirty thousand in 2001 and then mraculously registrations increased to forty-seven thousand nine hundred and fifteen per the Crandall Library 2001 annual report, a fifty-six percent increase. Of these, it's interesting to note that thirty-six percent of the total registrations report represent library users outside of the taxing district. We district residents are therefore required to pay the difference. There has been virtually no increase in registrations in the Town of Queensbury between tax year 1995 and tax year 2001 hovering in the area of eighty-eight hundred. The Crandall Library 2001 annual report shows total registrations in tax year 2002 at forty-seven thousand nine fifteen, compared to thirty thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven in the tax year 2001, again a fifty-six percent increase. However, an interesting point is, that transactions for that time period increased a mere one percent... So, as you can see the 2001 Annual Report Data of the Crandall Library reveals a quantum leap in registrations with no corresponding icrease in transactions. Is there an explanation regarding this? What justifies an operating budget? I would think it would be transactions and not registrations. Any idea when we can expect to get the operating budget for next year? Next year's operating budget should not be appreciably higher then this year since the number of transactions was only marginally increased. Mr. Supervisor, do we have a status of the RFP on the expansion? Has it been awarded? What is the cost of the expansion and when will the ballot proposition be forthcoming and is there any idea as to how this is going to be financed? In May, I asked if you were aware of the fact that the Town Board must approve all ballot propositions a fully sixty days prior to the election. In fact then, the only time Queensbury residents have a chance for any public input before the library budget amount to be levied against them is placed on the ballot for the Town Board would be during an open forum held at a Town Board meeting at least sixty ays prior to election day. That's fast approaching, probably September 1, thereabouts. Thank you. MR. JOHN SALVADOR-It sounds like the library is doing something we call registration farming. A fifty-six percent increase in the number oflibrary registrations and a one percent increase in transactions, that's doesn't equate. Is there some way we can audit this? Our tax burden, our tax share on the library is partly a function of the number of library registrations in this town as compared to the other two municipalities. We have to know the accuracy of it, and we have to know the accuracy of the relationship between us and the other two communities. It bears heavily on our tax burden... Referred to the workshop that was promised to Mr. Tucker on the Division Road issue and recommended that because of the seriousness of this subject, it warrants a special meeting, a special meeting with the people who are involved, who brought this project to the position it's in now, be available. I have looked at the record of the subdivision approval, the map that was filed, the deeds that have been cut, and I seeserious problems. COUNCILMAN BREWER-What subdivision? MR. SALVADOR-Good question. The map on file at the county is a subdivision, a map of a proposed subdivision made for Beaverkill Conservancy, Inc. They didn't even own the land when this map was made. COUNCILMAN BREWER-The Town Board doesn't do subdivisions, the Planning Board does. MR. SALVADOR -You're going to review the issue of that road connecting Division Road and Ogden Road and this is the key to it... I think the town is on it's way to accepting from the Beaverkill Conservancy who I guess now owns a portion of the land, that land. The Beaverkill Conservancy took that land in a bargain and sale deed. What are you going to accept? Are you going to accept anything less then a warrantee deed on a parcel ofland that has been known to have been a dump site? If you look at the subdivision ordinance and what's required on a plan, this is woefully inadequate, it's inaccurate. My point tonight is that I think we have some serious problems here and before we go much further and the taxpayer takes on the burden of parkland, if you will, we better know what we're doing. COUNCILMAN BREWER-And I certainly think that we will know what we're doing before we do it. MR. SALVADOR-All I'm here for tonight is to frame a workshop session, we have to have people at that workshop that can answer questions, by putting together an agenda and having the right people present. It involves your Highway Superintendent, your Community Development Director, your Recreation Director, these people should be there otherwise it's just a waste of time and we don't want to waste Mr. Tucker's time. Can we have an agenda? Can we have the proper people present? SUPERVISOR BROWER-The appropriate people will be there. MR. SALVADOR-And it's scheduled for? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Wednesday, the 28th of August. MR. JOHN STROUGH, 7 Hillcrest Drive-Referred to today's paper where it read the State okay's four hundred and fifty K for Exit 18. The plans referring to Main Street, four hundred and fifty thousand dollars grant enhancement will pay for construction of park and ride facility, bike trail connection to the Feeder Canal, and gateway plaza, signs and possibly an information kiosk to welcome new visitors. Great. Good job Chris, good job Town Board, thank you. SUPERVISOR BROWER -Yea, we're pretty excited about that T2l application having been approved. MR. CAIMANO, Supervisor at Large-Thanks for the Supervisor of the Town Board, there is now an appropriation request and it is the number one for next year for the Feds to come up with the money to bury the electrical lines. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We've requested a combination of funding, we've requested multi model funding and we've requested an appropriation from Congressman Sweeney's Office... Today, I met with Congressman Sweeney, actually relating to the T2l funding but we also did discuss the underground power situation. So, I was very pleased that we could meet with Congressman and thank you, Nick for setting that up. OPEN FORUM CLOSED RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TIM BURCH TO CARRY OVER FIVE DAYS OF UNUSED VACATION TIME RESOLUTION NO.: 333, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, Tim Burch, Water Department Maintenance Distribution Supervisor, has requested Town Board authorization to carry over five (5) days of unused vacation time beyond his September 1st, 2002 employment anniversary date, and WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has advised that Mr. Burch will be unable to use his vacation time prior to September 1st, 2002 as the Water Department is busy installing a new water main on Fifth Street Extension and therefore the Water Superintendent has recommended that the Town Board approve Mr. Burch's request to carry over such vacation time, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes Tim Burch to carry over five (5) days of vacation time past Mr. Burch's September 1st, 2002 employment anniversary date, with the condition that Mr. Burch utilize such vacation time by September 30, 2002. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HIRING OF PATRICIA VAUGHN AS TEMPORARY, PART-TIME LABORER FOR TOWN WATER DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION NO.: 334, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, the Town Water Superintendent has requested Town Board authorization to hire a temporary, part -time Laborer to make daily inspections at Shore Colony to meet New York State Department of Health requirements, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the hiring of Patricia Vaughn as a temporary, part-time Laborer to work for the Town Water Department to make daily inspections at Shore Colony to meet New York State Department of Health requirements, effective August 20th, 2002, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that Ms. Vaughn shall be paid $10.80 per hour as set forth in Town Board Resolution No.: 490,2001 to be paid from the appropriate payroll account, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Water Superintendent, Town Comptroller and/or Town Supervisor's Office to complete any forms and take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF JIM GIRARD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION FOR MOWING WORK AT TOWN LANDFILL ON RIDGE ROAD FOR YEARS 2003-2005 RESOLUTION NO.: 335, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor Town Board held discussion, questioned whether this action had already been done and agreed to pull resolution until researched to verify whether board had previously acted on this resolution. RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2002 BUDGET RESOLUTION NO.: 335, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the attached Budget Amendment Requests have been duly initiated and justified and are deemed compliant with Town operating procedures and accounting practices by the Town Comptroller, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take all action necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2002 Town Budget as follows: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-8010-4090 (Conference/Zoning Office) 01-3620-4090 ((Conference/Bldg & Codes) $ 500 01-8020-4410 (Fuel/Planning Office) 01-8010-4410 (Fuel/Zoning Office) $ 200 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-9950-9013 013-0013-5031 $150,000 (Trans To) (Trans From) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: FROM: TO: $ AMOUNT: 01-1680-1043-0002 01-1680-1042-0002 $ 1,000 (Comp. Tech. Asst. OT) 01-1680-2032 01-1680-4335 2,500 (Computer Software) (Soft Subscription) Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. STATION NO.1 LOCATED ON SUNNYSIDE ROAD, QUEENSBURY TO TOWN OF QUEENSBURY RESOLUTION NO.: 336, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury and the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company) previously contracted for fire protection services and such Agreement is in full force and effect, and WHEREAS, such Agreement provided that upon completion and occupancy of the Fire Company's new firehouse on the east side of Bay Road, the Town would have full and exclusive use of the Fire Company's Fire Station No. 1 on Sunnyside Road, and WHEREAS, construction and occupancy of the Fire Company's new facility is complete and the Fire Company wishes to transfer Fire Station No. 1 to the Town and has provided the Town with a proposed deed and title acceptable to Town Counsel, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that acceptance of Fire Station NO.1 will benefit Town residents and therefore the Board wishes to authorize acceptance of Fire Station No.1, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves and accepts for Town purposes, the transfer of Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. 's Fire Station No. 1 located on Sunnyside Road in the Town of Queensbury to the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs Town Counsel to prepare and the Town Supervisor to execute any and all documents necessary to complete this transaction including a Deed, Real Property Transfer Report and Capital Gains Affidavit in form acceptable to Town Counsel and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF EMPIRE STATE APPRAISAL CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PREPARE APPRAISAL IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE 7 ASSESSMENT CASES COMMENCED BY QUAKER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LOWES HOME CENTERS, INC.) RESOLUTION NO.: 337, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is engaged in litigation with Quaker Village Development Corporation (Lowes' Home Centers, Inc.), regarding real property tax assessments on the Lowes' Home Center property for the years 2001 and 2002, and WHEREAS, the total assessed value of the property for each of the years in question is approximately $8,729,000 and the tax amounts in dispute are substantial and could result in significant refunds to the property owners if the Petitioners prevail in the litigation, and WHEREAS, the firm of Empire State Appraisal Consultants, Inc. (ESAC) is a reputable and established appraisal company, with 27 years of experience, including extensive experience in appraising large commercial properties, and WHEREAS, ESAC has appraised other commercial property for the Town and its performance and services have been entirely satisfactory and have materially contributed to the ability of the Town to settle past tax assessment litigation without the need for trial, and WHEREAS, ESAC has proposed to prepare preliminary and final appraisals for the Town's use in settlement discussions and litigation, with its fee for the preliminary appraisal not to exceed $3,500 and its fee for a final, trial-ready appraisal, if necessary, not to exceed $3,500 (for a total of $7,000), with the costs of ESAC's work to be shared equally by the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District and WHEREAS, the attorney representing the Queensbury Union Free School District will recommend that the School Board approve retaining ESAC to perform the needed appraisal work on the stated terms, with the costs to be shared equally by the Town and the School District, and such approval by the School Board is expected, and WHEREAS the Assessor and Town Counsel recommend that ESAC be retained to provide the necessary appraisal services on the proposed terms, with the cost to be divided equally between the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes engagement of Empire State Appraisal Consultants, Inc. (ESAC) to prepare a preliminary appraisal and, if necessary, a final appraisal of the Quaker Village Development Corporation (Lowes' Home Centers, Inc.) property for the Town's use in property tax assessment litigation, with the cost for such preliminary appraisal not to exceed $3,500 and the cost of a final appraisal, if necessary, not to exceed $3,500 (for a total of $7,000), which costs shall be divided equally between the Town and the Queensbury Union Free School District, with the Town's portion to be paid from the Assessor's Department Article 7 Account No.: 001-1355-4740, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Assessor, Town Counsel and/or Town Supervisor to take any action necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT Mr. Turner RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS THROUGH NEW YORK STATE ADMINISTERED SMALL CITIES PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO.: 338,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury's Senior Planner has advised the Town Board that the New York State Governor's Office for Small Cities is accepting applications from eligible communities to compete for Community Development Technical Assistance Grants available through the New York State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Small Cities Program, and, WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to submit a Technical Assistance Grant application to address its Community Development needs in the form of a Strategic Plan, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Town Board to officially adopt and implement such plan upon its completion, and WHEREAS, funds to develop a Community Development Strategic Plan were not budgeted for Fiscal Year 2002, and WHEREAS, the Town will provide a 40% match with in-kind services, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs submission of the Town of Queensbury's application for Community Development Technical Assistance Grants available through the New York State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Small Cities Program, such technical assistance funds to be for an amount not to exceed $25,000, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary documents in connection with the submission, including all applications, certifications and forms and further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor and Community Development Department to take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REVENUE & EXPENSE ACCOUNTS CONCERNING NEW YORK STATE SMALL CITIES PROGRAM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED FROM NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR SMALL CITIES RESOLUTION NO.: 339, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHEREAS, by Town Board Resolution No.: 395,2001, the Queensbury Town Board approved of a Grant Agreement between the Town and New York State Housing Trust Fund Corporation represented by the Governor's Office for Small Cites, established CDBG Grant Fund #16 and set appropriations and estimated revenues in the amount of $400,000 for the $400,000 in New York State Small Cities Program Community Development Block Grant funds received by the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to now establish the appropriate revenue and expense accounts related to such Grant funds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take all action necessary to establish: 1. Revenue Account No.: 016-0016-4789 - Other Economic Assistance and Opportunities - $400,000; 2. Expense Account No.: 016-8668-4720 - Consultant Fees - $69,500; 3. Expense Account No.: 016-8668-4400 - Misc. Contractual- $5,000; and 4. Expense Account No.: 016-8668-4708 - Housing Revitalization - $325,500; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to transfer funds and amend the 2002 Town Budget as may be necessary and take and all action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner ORDER SETTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED EXTENSION NO.7 TO CENTRAL QUEENSBURY QUAKER ROAD SEWER DISTRICT - -SOUTHERN BAY ROAD CORRIDOR RESOLUTION NO.: 340, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board wishes to establish an extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to include the southern Bay Road Corridor to be known as Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension No.7, and WHEREAS, a Map, Plan and Report has been prepared by Thomas W. Nace, P.E., an engineer, licensed by the State of New York regarding the proposed extension to the existing Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District to serve the southern Bay Road Corridor, such area including the Baybrook Professional Park on the east side of Bay Road consisting of 12 approved office lots and 3 approved residential/professional building lots, the Baybridge Townhouse development currently comprised of 14 attached Townhouses containing 64 dwelling units and 22 detached single family structures making a total community of 86 active housing units, the 48 unit Baybrook Apartment complex on the north side of Walker Lane, one individual residence presently utilizing on-site septic and two commercial facilities presently connected to the existing sewer system as contract users, the Glens Falls Ballet Center on Bay Road and the Bay Meadows Golf Course on Cronin Road, such parcels bearing Tax Map No. 's: 296.58-1- 49, 296.11-1-28, 296.5-1-27, 296.15-1-19 and 296.16-1-2, as more specifically set forth and described in the Map, Plan and Report, and WHEREAS, the Map, Plan and Report has been accepted as the Map, Plan and Report and 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 extension, a general plan of the proposed sewer system, a report of the proposed sewer system and method of operation, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to establish the proposed sewer extension in accordance with Town Law Article l2A and consolidate the extension with the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District in accordance with Town Law ~206A, and WHEREAS, Part I of an Environmental Assessment Form has been prepared and presented at this meeting and a coordinated SEQRA review is desired, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Town Board shall hold a public hearing and consider establishing the proposed extension to the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District previously described in this Resolution and to be known as the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District Extension NO.7. The boundaries of the proposed extension and benefitted areas of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District are to be as delineated in Exhibit B of the previously described Map, Plan and Report. 3. The proposed improvements consist of construction of new gravity sewers, pump station and force main as specifically delineated in the Map, Plan and Report and the cost shall also include a buy- in to the City of Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant due at the time of initial hook-up. 4. All costs of construction, legal and engineering fees shall be shared by all users within the proposed Sewer District Extension #7 in accordance with a formula delineated in the Map, Plan and Report 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. 5. The maximum cost for the Sewer District Extension improvements will be $319,676. The Town's maximum cost for 76,000 gallons of excess capacity will be $142,293. In addition, new members of the Sewer District Extension will be charged a $1.00 per gallon fee for Glens Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity. The areas or properties that comprise the extension will be subject to the same cost for operation, maintenance and capital improvements as in the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District. 6. The estimated cost of hook-up fees to the typical property will be $0. The estimated annual cost of the extension to the typical property (which is the typical one or two family residence in the proposed District) will be $298.08 and approximately $60 for sewer rents; the total estimated annual cost for such typical property is $360. 7. In accordance with Town Law ~206-a, all future expenses of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, including all extensions included heretofore or hereafter established, shall be a charge against the entire area of the district as extended. 8. The Map, Plan and Report describing the improvements and area involved and a detailed explanation of how the hook-up fees and the cost of the District to the typical property, and, if different, the typical one or two family home was computed are on file with the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury and available for public inspection. 9. The Town Board shall meet and hold a public hearing at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road, Queensbury at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, September 9th, 2002 to consider the Map, Plan and Report and to hear all persons interested in the proposal and to take such other and further action as may be required or authorized by law. 10. The Town Board will proceed with considering the extension and hold such public hearing only if Schermerhorn Construction L.L. C. prior to such hearing executes an agreement drafted by Town Counsel concerning the extension. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Community Development Department to send a copy of this Resolution, Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form presented at this meeting and a copy of the Map, Plan and Report to all potentially involved agencies and to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of Health together with all documentation to be sent out with a letter indicating that the Town Board is about to undertake consideration of the project identified in this Resolution, that a 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. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF JARRETT -MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH SOUTH QUEENSBURY- QUEENSBURY AVENUE SEWER DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 341, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, by Resolution No.: 408,2001, the Queensbury Town Board authorized engagement of Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC for design phase services concerning creation of the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District, and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to authorize engagement of Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC for construction phase services set forth in Jarrett-Martin's August 14th, 2002 Professional Services Agreement presented at this meeting as follows: Task Projected Hours Projected Costs Bidding Administration Observation 1180 Drawings/Certification 2,000 128 $ 6,900 Technical Submittals 54,000 Construction Administration 48 2)00 Contingency 170 64 3,200 Construction 280 14,500 Record 6,500 Miscellaneous Expenses Total Estimated Fees/Expenses 1870 hours $89,400 and WHEREAS, the form of the Professional Services Agreement is presented at this meeting and is in form acceptable to Town Counsel, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby authorizes and directs engagement of Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC for construction phase services concerning the South Queensbury - Queensbury Avenue Sewer District as more specifically set forth in Jarrett-Martin's August 14th, 2002 Professional Services Agreement presented at this meeting and as follows: Task Projected Hours Projected Costs Bidding Administration Observation 1180 Drawings/Certification 2,000 128 $ 6,900 Technical Submittals 54,000 Construction Administration 48 2)00 Contingency 170 64 3,200 Construction 280 14,500 Record 6,500 Miscellaneous Expenses Total Estimated Fees/Expenses 1870 hours $89,400 and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby authorizes and directs the Town Comptroller's Office to take all actions necessary to transfer funds and amend the 2002 Town Budget by appropriating Fund Balance to cover this $89,400 expense, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs that payment for these services in a total amount not to exceed $89,400 shall be paid for from the appropriate General Fund Account, such amount to be refunded in full to the General Fund by future Sewer District users upon creation of the Sewer District, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that neither Jarrett-Martin Engineers, PLLC nor its project team shall begin work on the construction fees portion of this Project until it receives express written authorization to do so from either the Queensbury Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director and/or Wastewater Deputy Director, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor, Wastewater Director and/or Wastewater Deputy Director to execute the Professional Services Agreement and any other documentation and take such other and further action as may be necessary to effectuate the terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Brewer, Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner RESOLUTION REQUESTING AND AUTHORIZING WARREN COUNTY TO RETAIN SALES TAX REVENUES AND OFFSET PROPERTY TAXES RESOLUTION NO.: 342, 2002 DEFEATED INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Tim Brewer WHEREAS, Warren County receives sales tax revenues resulting from sales transactions that take place within the County, and WHEREAS, a substantial portion of those sales transactions take place within the Town of Queensbury, and WHEREAS, portions of the Warren County sales tax revenues are allocated to each of the towns in Warren County on an annual basis, and WHEREAS, County sales tax revenues allocated to the Town of Queensbury annually fall in the range of several million dollars, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury currently maintains a general fund balance and capital reserve fund balance totaling approximately $7.2 million dollars, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board believes that taxation of its constituents should be minimized to the extent possible, while still maintaining reasonable fund balances for long-range planning, emergency and contingency purposes, and WHEREAS, New York State Tax Law ~ 1262 authorizes the Town to request that the County withhold sales tax revenues allocated to the Town and use such revenues to offset local taxes, and WHEREAS, New York State Tax Law ~ 1262 authorizes the County to withhold such revenues for the next succeeding calendar year upon appropriate requests from the Town properly filed with the County prior to September 1st of the current year, and WHEREAS, Chapter 528 of the Laws of 2000 (in Town Law ~ 107) provides that towns may have a budget which includes a "reasonable amount" of unappropriated unreserved fund balances, and WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the current unappropriated, unreserved fund balance exceeds such "reasonable amount" and wants to take action to avoid this from occurring in the 2003 Town Budget, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Town Board has already eliminated the general Town property tax and now seeks to reduce the general County property tax in the Town of Queensbury, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Queensbury Town Board hereby requests and authorizes Warren County to retain one-million dollars ($1,000,000) of Warren County sales tax revenues allocated to the Town of Queensbury in 2003 and utilize such revenues to offset the corresponding portion of 2003 County property taxes to the residents of the Town of Queensbury, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Chief Fiscal Officer of Warren County by mailing such Resolution by registered or certified mail before September 1st, 2002 in order to take effect for the calendar year 2003, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that this request and authorization shall remain in effect for the year 2003, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Board further authorizes and directs the Town Clerk, Town Supervisor and/or Town Comptroller to provide any other required documentation to Warren County prior to September 1st, 2002 and take any and all other action necessary to effectuate all terms of this Resolution. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES Mr. Boor ABSENT: Mr. Turner ABSTAIN: Mr. Brower DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE: SUPERVISOR BROWER-I can't recall exactly when Mr. Stec brought this forward but it was a couple of weeks ago. COUNCILMAN STEC-It was July 1st, Dennis. July 1st. SUPERVISOR BROWER-And certainly, it was under councilmen's concerns. We have not had an opportunity to have a workshop session even on this proposal, a proposal that would leave a million dollars in fund balance at the county. Without having a thorough financial analysis as to the impact on the town, is disturbing to me. I think we would be remiss if we didn't have a complete financial analysis done as we would with any project that would cost a million dollars or more of taxpayer's money. We do have our capital improvement plan which we funded, to date, to the point of two point five million dollars plus interest as you're heard this evening. However, the capital improvement plan for projected expenditures over the next six years, by adding up department totals is fifteen million, six hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Certainly, all those projects will not most likely be funded by this Town Board or succeeding Town Board. However, they're important enough to managers to have placed them on their capitl improvement plan along with, of course including, including sewer and water projects which are funded by special districts within the town and the town would mainly need cash flow to finance the construction of them initially and they would eventually be paid back over time. I view the capital improvement plan the Town Board passed this past year as one of the most important things the town has done in many years, planning for the future capital needs of the town and insuring our taxpayers that we won't have, hopefully spikes in the need to raise tax in the future. One of my other concerns is that Mr. Hess in last year's budget analysis that was a public meeting right here in this building, indicated that with the current spending levels the town would need to increase it's sales tax revenue by five point three percent over the next several years to avoid re-instituting the town tax which we eliminated effective last year. Certainly, I thought that was a great thing that we were able to do and I'd hate t have to re-implement that tax in the future. In conjunction with my concerns is the continuing concern over terrorism in our country. We've been very blessed that we haven't had another attack in our country since September 11th of last year but I think we're all aware to a heightened extent that we're potentially vulnerable in our country and should we have further attacks, I don't know what effect it would have on tourism in our county and in our own community. I'm not sure what effect it would have on the nation. I can tell you that the last attack has had significant repercussions within the states, thirty states have declining sales tax revenues this year as opposed to increasing revenues. And maybe I'm a little too cautious but at this point in time, I don't believe I have enough information to make an adequate decision for letting the county retain fund balance. Do I think we should look at it, seriously? Yes, I do. But like any major expenditure, I would look at it for next year's budgeting, ot this year's budgeting and if the board believes that we can indeed reserve some money at the county to offset county taxes, I might very well be in favor of it but not before we have had an opportunity to analyze the effect of eliminating that money. Mr. Hess did point out some, some very important points regarding the existing fund balance. I believe it's one point two million dollars is reserved for the landfill closure. Now, that may seem small to some but that landfill closure money may be needed some day if we have contaminated, if we ever get contaminated wells and thank God we haven't to date, we may need to run emergency waterlines to the area, the affected area. That would cost multimillions, multimillions. Matter of fact, I don't have that specific number but I know it would be in excess of what we've reserved for the landfill closure to date. Matter of fact, that's one of the reasons why we haven't, in addition to providing for mowing services on a yearly basis, that landfill closure moneyis there more or less as a, I call it an emergency fund in case we need to utilize it for those residents that might be impacted. The storage building which we took care of tonight, which is the Bay Ridge Fire Company at Sunnyside is going to be an important addition to the town. We were going to construct a facility right here on town property and it was going to cost over two hundred thousand dollars, I believe was the projection. In any case, I'm a little bit hesitant to make a commitment this year, prior to September 1st for reserving money at the county at this time, but that's my feeling. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Alright, first of all, I did an outline some time ago when I thought this was going to come to resolution form and when it wasn't brought up in workshops, I kind of put it away thinking the votes weren't there so we weren't, it wasn't going to come to this. I was wrong and I prefer to speak off the cuff but since I have this thing written, I'll read it. I'm not that good at reading it but I think the message will be quite clear as far as where I stand. Without a doubt, discussion is needed and appropriate with regards to currently, funds currently held by the town. How much of our reserve is really surplus, how much of this reserve is prudent savings for known capital improvement projects? If we're looking for a legitimate criticism, then my take would be that as a board, we have not done a very good job of allocating the funds to already identified projects, implementing would probably be a better word. It would be easy to just give the money away, it's quite another thing to show wisdo, financial savvy and initiative. We as a board need to come to a consensus and collect appropriate revenues at appropriate rates and then spend this resource efficiently and wisely while at all times, keeping a necessary cushion for the unforeseen. With ten to fifteen million in costs associated with currently identified improvement projects an argument could be made that we in fact do not have a surplus but are lacking the necessary funding to satisfied all the projects currently identified on our capital improvement list. Now, we're certainly not going to do all these at once, we're probably not going to do them over a five year period but being in a strong financial position or having a certain reserve is appropriate. As to the specific resolution at hand, government, politicians, although not cited as often as lawyers, also make deserving subjects for many a joke but governmental bodies, are best equipped in most apt to do and fund work that benefits the masses, all the residents of the town and toursts alike. Simply giving monies collected through sales tax to property owners is not going to improve the Route 9, 254 intersection. It's not going to alleviate traffic congestion at Glen Lake Road and Route 9 and it's not going to pay for bike trails and improvements scheduled to start next year for the Main Street Corridor project. And please, let us not forget that we are a tourist based economy. The majority of our sales tax revenues are coming from people in other states and other countries. To justify this resolution before us, I and other members of this board are going to have to take a look at this resident, single mother of three in the eye, the single mother of three who is not a property owner and therefore not entitled to one dime of this so called refund. The single mother of three who may in fact have a job in the tourist industry, the very industry that generates the lion share of sales tax. This single mother of three pays as much sales tax on diapers, gasoline, family ... as their neghbor who might be fortunate enough to own real estate. How do I tell her she is just out of luck? Where is the equity in this proposal? What do we say to the countless number of renters who pay sales tax like everyone else but receive none of the bounty of this resolution? The same residents will be contending with increased traffic as recipients of the Empire Zone status like Great Escape, double their attendants and therefore create greater negative impacts to our traffic flow. As one of the largest property holders in the town, do we want to extent yet another tax break to the Great Escape? Even if this was a good idea, and I don't believe it is, how did we arrive at the one million dollar amount? I have seen or heard nothing empirical to suggest this amount would leave what would be a reasonable reserve for the town. The regressive nature of sales tax makes it an unfair source of revenue to offset property taxes, they are beast of a different color and they are not interchangeable. That's my thoghts. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, I would just say that it's not, the county's budget, as Fred pointed out, is not all generated from sales tax. How many million was generated from ? MR. CHAMPAGNE-Seven point two, county wide, two point seven is ours. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Seven point two, county wide. Two point seven of their budget is ours, I think that's a small portion of their budget. I think if we give the taxpayers a portion of the tax dollars they pay into the county, I think it's equitable. If the landlord wants to pass it on to his tenants, so be it. Maybe he wants to make improvements to the homes, that's his choice. I think, when the president did it last year he did it with taxpayers and I think that's how you have to do it. That mother that rents doesn't pay land tax or county tax. So, to give us the argument about a mother buying diapers and not entitled to any of this money is, to me, that's your opinion. My opinion is, I don't think it makes a difference. I think if people get a, whether the number is a million or a half a million, I think it should be substantial, it doesn't matter to me either way, I just think it's the right thing to do. The money you talk about that we need to save for the capital improvements, Roger, I was a bigpart of that. I was at every meeting about that and I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, we haven't done any of those projects yet and that's okay, some of them are going to be done. In my mind, I would have thought we would have started doing them in February, March, April but as Chris pointed out, it takes time to get things done and I understand that and will do them. And I think for the major part of those projects, they won't come out of that two and a half million dollars. They may be started with that money, but they'll be bonded, some of that million dollar projects or two million dollar projects, I think that's something that we'll deal. As far as having seven point two million dollars or seven million dollars or six million dollars, I don't think we need that much. I think the money is put out in different places but it's there, if we need it. I don't see any reason why we should keep their money and I say their money, I mean taxpayer's money. If we give some back, you know, everybody thought he town, some members of the Town Board thought the town was going to crumble when we gave that eighteen cents a thousand back last year. We're still here, you know. We made eighty thousand dollars on, I heard Henry say, on interest on one account. That's a third of the way from that three hundred thousand that we gave back to the people. I haven't heard anybody bitch at me yet saying, why did you stop charging me town tax? I think it's justified and I think we can afford to do it and it's not for re-election, Pliney cause that's next year. COUNCILMAN STEC-I too have written a prepared statement and hopefully, those who have spoke before me will pay attention to it because in it I address all of the points that they made because we've already had this discussion once. And I apologize cause some people are going to question my numbers of the size of the budget, I was basing it on a June 21st email I got that I, in soliciting this information from the Comptroller's Office. Taxation played a major role in the events leading to our great nation's formation and is a central function and responsibility of government from the federal down to the local level. The debate over how to spend taxpayer's money is an important one but a more important issue and the true measure as to how we look out for the taxpayer's interests is the debate concerning how much to collect from the taxpayers in the first place. Last year by the narrowest of margins Queensbury decided to eliminate the town tax which generated little more then three hundred thousand dollars pr year. At that time, the same arguments of budget conservatism and the doom and gloom projections of what spending in sales tax revenues might be in the future were used. Now, a year later, we have the benefit of hindsight to examine the actual performance over the past year, despite a year long recession and the horrific events of September 11 th, we must note that in each of the last three quarters, we have realized record sales tax revenues to Queensbury. When I first took office in January 2000, the general fund surplus stood at around five million dollars. Today, the unappropriated fund balance is over seven point two million dollars, about thirty percent of our budget and if you use Fred and Nick's math, it's almost a hundred percent of our budget, due in large part to overly conservative projections of sales tax revenue. By comparison, school districts are limited by law to a surplus of two percent. In no time, since 1997 have we underestimated sales tax receipts by less then six hundred and thiry thousand dollars and in 1999, that year's underestimate was a whopping one point seven million dollars. Only two years of the past fourteen have seen receipts fall short of budget. Some may argue that the general fund balance is only four point seven million dollars since last year we moved two and a half million into a capital reserve fund, and I recall in that discussion at that time, a comment was made, that an auditor might frown on a large general fund reserve and that the establishment of a capital projects fund would mitigate any criticism. Now, in mid August, we have yet to use a nickel of the capital project's fund. Some may also argue that the town has many millions of dollars of project to perform and so needs a large reserve. To that I say, for most of these projects, they are special district projects which can not be funded from the general fund. For those that can be, I remind all that has been policy, that we finance a major capital investment over years so that those who benefit by th use of the capital improvement over the years finance it over it's life, a policy that I agree with. Some have argued that it is not fair to pass back a rebate on property taxes only to property owners and not renters. This is a very weak argument and of course, a landlord must pay property taxes and that comes from the rent payments. Perhaps, the landlord will choose to pass on savings to his tenants or if not, perhaps this avoids a rent increase or an improvement to the property might be made. In fact, the law provides for this very rebate on property taxes cause it's the fairest way to do so. I'd ask board members to consider three questions before we vote tonight. First, consider who we were elected to represent and serve. Of course, this is the residents and taxpayers of Queensbury. Second, what is the will of these people? I have talked to many dozens of people in the public including most of the current Queensbury Warren County Supervisors and many past Town Supervisors and Council Members. Without exception, without exception every one of these people were supportive of using one million dollars of our seven million dollar surplus to rebate against Queensbury resident's county property taxes. In fact, many of them asked why not a two or three million dollar rebate. It seems that the only handful of people in Queensbury that don't think this is a good idea are in the room to my left tonight. Third, I'd ask you to consider the most important question, whose money are we talking about? To vote against this modest and conservative rebate is a kin to saying that the taxpayers are children and can not be trusted with their own money and that government is a better custodian of their hard earned dollars then they are. I don't believe there's ever been much evidence that, at any level of government, that that's true. The worst case scenario would be that the surplus would fall to six point two million dollars. If in the future, the town determines it needs more money, then at that time, it shoul present it's case to the people and ask for the funding. If there's truly a need, the people will understand and support the collection. In the meantime, while we have a seven point two million dollar surplus, let's do the right thing and give back some of those to whom it belongs, our taxpayers. Furthermore, for the record, in rebuttal, this was brought up at the July 1st Regular Town Board Meeting. I have an email back and forth from late July that there was concern that maybe some analysis was needed and I said, I endorsed performing the analysis. But I think it's incumbent on all the board members, if they have questions, to go and do their homework. I've done my homework and I'm comfortable with my vote tonight. I think this is ridiculous, this is a no brainer. And further more, I view that the opening statements that were made about it not being appropriate because an adequate analysis has not been done, although, a five year old could do the math, is that this is a convenient attempt to avoid n embarrassing vote tonight. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan, on a calmer note, your fourth paragraph, you understand it is sales tax not property taxes what we're talking about here. COUNCILMAN STEC-Yes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You say, some have argued that it's not fair to pass back a rebate on property taxes only to property owners, we're talking about sales tax to property owners. COUNCILMAN STEC-On their property taxes. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know but we're talking about sales tax which, if we were to actually return it, we'd be sending it to forty-nine states and other countries. Okay? COUNCILMAN STEC-Roger, part of the benefit of collecting a sales tax though, is that that offsets the burden of the local residents from the traffic and all the other inconveniences that we have. COUNCILMAN BOOR-That's how I would like to use it is to improve the general public, the renters and the property owners alike. COUNCILMAN STEC-We had the attorney do the, I had the attorney do the research and thank you Bob, for acting on less then a consensus of the board, that I'd like this researched and this is what their legal research turned up, that this is the way to do this. If we want to do it in New York State, this is how you do this. I don't deny that would be nice to cut everyone an equal size check. There would be people that would argue that that's not fair. So, I'm going to go on what the laws of the State of New York say and this is how they say to do this. COUNCILMAN BOOR-This is a way to do this legally. It's not the way to do it. This is your choice of how to deal with what you consider to be a surplus. Is that correct? COUNCILMAN STEC- This is what the attorneys came back with when I said, we have a surplus, I'd like to give it back to the people, how do we do it? This was the answer to the question. COUNCILMAN BOOR-So, they would not recommend capital improvement? Is that what you're saying? COUNCILMAN STEC-I said TOWN COUNSEL BOB HAFNER-We were not involved in your policy decision. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I know, I apologize, I apologize. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-We answered the question that was put before us and you got a copy of the memo. COUNCILMAN STEC-But Roger, you and I exchanged an email on, well, I sent you an email on this where I pointed out, I did the math and if Dennis wants to lend me the capital balance sheet, I can do the math and tell you how much are fundable by the general fund and it is far less then a couple million dollars, far less. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dan, I'm not arguing the math, I'm arguing the method. I'm not talking about, I'm talking about what is really fair to the entire population of the Town of Queensbury. How do we, as a government body, give back to the public at large, and I don't think just taking sales tax dollars and giving it to property owners, whether it's the Great Escape or anybody else is the best way to do it. The hard work is for us to sit here and go, let's get these danm jobs done, let's fund this thing, let's get it moving, let's just not set up a program and then just sit there and watch it. Let's do the hard work. It's easy to give money away when it's not yours. COUNCILMAN STEC-It's not ours. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Exactly. So, I mean, I could come up with that idea but what good does it do? I mean, we're not doing COUNCILMAN STEC-It puts the money back where it came from, Roger. COUNCILMAN BOOR-But how does it, how does it improve the infrastructure? How does it help the citizens? COUNCILMAN STEC-Roger, no one is saying that we're not going to do any capital improvements. What we're saying is that we've got an obscene surplus. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, why aren't we doing something with it? COUNCILMAN STEC-By law, schools are limited to two percent. By some people's math, we're almost at a hundred percent. When do you say, we've got too much? COUNCILMAN BOOR-When you don't do anything with it, you've got too much. Why aren't we doing what we're supposed to be doing as government people? Why aren't we serving the public? COUNCILMAN STEC-But if we funded, tomorrow, everything that's on the capital list that we can fund from the general fund, which is what we're talking about, you've got two million dollars worth of projects, if you've got two million. You don't have fifteen million dollars, you've got two because most of them are wastewater and water. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Well, I would argue that math. I would argue that math but I don't think it's appropriate now. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, if! can, I'll argue there right now, the connector road is a project that's going to be over a million dollars. COUNCILMAN STEC- That should be funded over time. Right? You won't talk about that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The relocation of EMS. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ditto, right? SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's probably a million dollars. COUNCILMAN STEC-Ditto. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I mean COUNCILMAN BOOR-But I mean, seriously, come on, it's more then two million. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, anybody can sit here and think of things that we could do. COUNCILMAN STEC-Right. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I mean, if! gave my wife a wish list COUNCILMAN BOOR-What are we here for? What is our job. COUNCILMAN BREWER-of what things we could do to our house, Christ, I'd be in debt for thirty million dollars. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Is, that's our job for God's sake. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well, the bottom line is COUNCILMAN BREWER-Well, do them Roger, I mean COUNCILMAN BOOR-I'm trying to get a consensus, it takes five of us to get something done. SUPERVISOR BROWER-The one thing, the one thing I will say is that I think COUNCILMAN BREWER-It doesn't take five of us. COUNCILMAN STEC-It's three. SUPERVISOR BROWER-the proper, if indeed, after an analysis is done COUNCILMAN BOOR-I'd like it to be five. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I understand that. SUPERVISOR BROWER-this is the right way to do it, the right way is to leave money with the county, I firmly believe. However, I'm not, we're just starting the budget process now, matter of fact, I'll have, Henry will have the budget to me Friday for my perusal and work and we're just starting the budget process for this coming year and my suggestion would be that we get into it this coming year, if board members would like to sincerely analyze this and I think we should. Henry, do you have any comment at all? I don't know if you do or not? MR. HESS, Comptroller-I don't really, in fact, it's probably been apparent that there's a debate going on here about whether this should be done or whether it shouldn't, I don't really want to enter that. I really support, go back to what Fred Champagne, he just left, Fred did look at this several years ago and was a supporter of doing this. At the time, the town had a town tax rate and you shouldn't give money back to the county as long as you have a town tax rate. We don't have that situation now. So, I'm supportive of doing the leg work to get this done but that hasn't been done. We have not done the analysis that needs to know how, the timing, how large and is this sustainable if you want to sustain it? And sustainability I think is an important issue because tax stabilization should be an important issue for the Town Board. So I, I'm not speaking against doing this, I am speaking in favor of doing it in an orderly way and including it as part of the budget process and when you vote on it, know wha the long term impact will be. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, thank you. Any further comment from board members? COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would just say that if we leave a million dollars, the long term impact is, next year, we can go through the budget process or this year, or the end of this year and beginning of next year and decide whether we want to do a half million dollars a year or if we ever want to do it again. But the long term impact of doing this one time this year, I don't think is going to affect this town and I think it's going to be something beneficial for our taxpayers. COUNCILMAN STEC-And I'd like to add, on a calmer note, to address a concern ofPlineys, that if this was about politics, we'd be doing this next year but I specifically brought it to the forefront this year, in addition to the fact that it's now getting up there around seven million dollars, that this year it's not a political issue. Next year, everyone would be saying, you're doing this about election time. This is, and on a two year cycle, it's one year or the other, it's either an election year or a not an election year and if you want to avoid politics, this is the year to do it. SUPERVISOR BROWER-So, if you don't want it, if you don't want to, you want to do it to avoid politics, to do it now? COUNCILMAN STEC-I want to do it and I want it to be done cleanly so that people can say it was done for it's own sake, for it being the right thing. COUNCILMAN BREWER-For the purpose of the right, being the right thing to do. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Without analysis. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I think it's our decision to make. COUNCILMAN STEC-And Tim's right, you do the analysis, I don't think a million dollars is going to crush anybody and I think that next year or next month or whenever we want to do that analysis, you know, and maybe we'll say, huh, well a million dollars was a little steep so you know what, if we want to do this perpetuity, instead of being able to do three hundred thousand a year, since Dan and Tim got a little rambunctious and pushed for a million dollars, instead of doing three hundred thousand a year, we can only do two hundred and fifty thousand in perpetuity. Okay, I mean, where's the, where is the danger in that? There is no danger. There's no risk. No risk. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Okay, with that, I'll ask Caroline to call the vote, please. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Mr. Brower? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Abstain. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Abstain? SUPERVISOR BROWER-Abstain. COUNCILMAN BREWER-That's the weakest. What kind of a vote is that? Either be a man and say yes or be a man and say no, don't abstain. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Nope, I'm abstaining and if you don't like it, I'm sorry. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Mr. Boor? COUNCILMAN BOOR-No. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Mr. Stec? COUNCILMAN STEC-Yes. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Mr. Brewer? COUNCILMAN BREWER-Yes. (Councilman Brewer left meeting room) RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSIENT MERCHANT/TRANSIENT MERCHANT MARKET LICENSE FOR HFD #55 D/B/A J CREW RESOLUTION NO.: 343, 2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor WHEREAS, HFD #55 d/b/a 1. Crew previously submitted an application to the Queensbury Town Board for a Transient Merchant/Transient Merchant Market License to conduct a transient merchant market from August 26th through September 2nd, 2002 for retail sale of clothing, shoes and accessories at 1471 State Route 9, Queensbury next to the Basketville factory outlet store in accordance with the provisions of Town Code Chapter 160, and WHEREAS, the Town Board previously forwarded the application to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for recommendation and site plan review, and WHEREAS, the Queensbury Planning Board considered the site plan for this Transient Merchant and/or Transient Merchant Market License application at its August 15th, 2002 meeting and recommended approval, and WHEREAS, the Warren County Planning Board also considered the site plan application at its August 14th, 2002 meeting and also recommended approval, 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 HFD #55 d/b/a J Crew to conduct a transient merchant market located at 1471 State Route 9, Queensbury, subject to the following: 1. J Crew must pay all fees as required by Town Code Chapter 160; 2. J Crew must submit a bond in the amount of $10,000 as required by Chapter 160; 3. J Crew 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 August 26th through September 2nd, 2002 from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and the license shall expire immediately thereafter; 5. This approval is conditioned upon J Crew coordinating traffic control with the Warren County Sheriffs Department; 6. The Transient Merchant License shall not be assignable; and 7. J Crew must comply with all regulations specified in Town Code ~160-8. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brower NOES None ABSENT: Mr. Turner, Mr. Brewer TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS (Councilman Brewer re-entered meeting room) SUPERVISOR BROWER-We did receive the four hundred fifty thousand, the T2l funds the Main Street project, I want to thank Chris Round and your staff for compiling the application for that. I'm very pleased that we received that... The speed wagon, I was on West Mountain Road this weekend, you may have noticed, I was surprised by it myself, I hit it at forty-three miles an hour, so I was real pleased I was under the limit... COUNCILMAN BOOR-This came up before and I think I asked it, I don't remember if I got a good answer but under what circumstances can somebody abstain on a vote? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-You did ask us that question and it is up to each of your decisions whether or not to abstain or not, any vote you can vote SUPERVISOR BROWER-And I'd like to, I'm going to clarify my abstention. I wanted to see a financial, a complete financial analysis of not only the sales tax revenue projections but our spending projections and what impact this is going to have on taxes. I don't believe I've got enough information that's presented to me by Mr. Stec to make such a decision and until I can, until I can, I wouldn't say yes or no. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Dennis, understand, it's not a criticism. It wasn't a criticism. SUPERVISOR BROWER-No, I know but you wanted to know. COUNCILMAN STEC-I'll criticize it, it was a cop-out. SUPERVISOR BROWER-You can criticize anything you want, Dan. COUNCILMAN STEC-It was a cop-out. You're whole behavior on this has been a cop-out. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Let's not get personal. I just wanted to know COUNCILMAN STEC- That's not personal, Roger, he dodged the question. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It's very personal. It's very personal Dan. COUNCILMAN STEC-You, it was, you've had seven weeks notice, Dennis. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Well COUNCILMAN STEC-Seven weeks to think about this, that's something, something you could do in an hour. SUPERVISOR BROWER-Dan, at our last, at our last board meeting, you didn't even mention it... COUNCILMAN STEC-And the board meeting before that, you said it was going to be on the agenda for the workshop. I remember that, we can listen to the tape, you said it will be on the workshop and it wasn't. SUPERVISOR BROWER-It was not on the agenda, Mr. Hess was shorthanded in his department, he hasn't had an opportunity to do it. We're entering the budget, the budget period for the Town of Queensbury. If you want to seriously consider this for the following year, you just participate in the budget thing and we will look at it. COUNCILMAN STEC-Oh, we'll do it next year. SUPERVISOR BROWER-in the budget thing and we'll look at it. COUNCILMAN STEC-Yea, we'll do it next year and we'll be two mil, SUPERVISOR BROWER-That's right. COUNCILMAN STEC-And we'll be talking about two million. SUPERVISOR BROWER-We may do it next year, a lot depends on what the projection show and then each board member will make an analysis and a decision as to whether or not they feel it's in the best interest of the Town of Queensbury to do that. COUNCILMAN STEC-A status update on our discussions with the City of Glens Falls and the joint assessor issue? SUPERVISOR BROWER-I spoke to the Mayor, he indicated that he had spoken to the council, they support it, they haven't taken action yet but they intend to. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I met with the Glen Lake individuals who are spearheading this ad hock committee to dredge, they are going to, early next week, submit their, in writing, their plan and they had preferred to have Mark Schachner because he was a resident of the lake. I talked to Mark and he said he would relay to you, he thought it would be more appropriate that you handle it. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Yes, he needs to stay out of because he has a property on Glen Lake and we don't want to have any appearance of anything improper and I did call Dave Wick today but I called to late to reach him. COUNCILMAN BOOR-I told them that. There is a time frame here that's very critical and that has to do with locking up the dredge should, and they were, and also I think they are now looking at the town being lead agent, not just supplying some funding. So, I think there's a lot oflegal issues and liability issues. COUNCILMAN BREWER-I would prefer, this is my own opinion, they do the test to find out if it's appropriate to dredge before we lock up the dredge because I don't want to be tied into a contract for a year and have the test come out negative. COUNCILMAN BOOR-They're aware of that, that's why they're not locking up the dredge with the fifteen thousand they already have which would cover the total cost of the dredge because they don't know... I believe that, if it's not being done right away it will be tomorrow or the next day because I told them, we need to see this in writing and that the lawyer would have to review everything. COUNCILMAN BREWER-Just to update you, the resolutions we passed tonight about the grant money, September 3rd I think it is, they're going to do the lead base paint test on the homes. I was at one of the homes yesterday, the lady is ecstatic about the work that's going to be done and hopefully, we'll start mid September and get some of that work done this year, on some of the homes anyway and carry over to next year. SUPERVISOR BROWER-I have some good and bad news. The good news is Mr. Turner, Ted is home from the hospital, he had triple bypass surgery. DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BARBER-Quad. SUPERVISOR BROWER-In any case, he's recovery at home. On a sad note, Bill Thomas's wife, Chairman of the Board of Warren County, died this weekend, Carol Thomas. MR. RALPH VANDUSEN, Water/Wastewater Superintendent-I just have one thing, I think most everybody up there received a copy of a letter from the mayor regarding the water project. It raises some issues that the Town Board may be concerned about. It raised some that certainly, at the Water Department and I'm sure Chris has some concerns. The final sentence, it says, the town's comments with regard to the city's plans are welcomed. I would think that it would make sense for us to get together as a group and have one set of comments, as opposed to several and I just wanted to get the board's wishes on that... Town Board held discussion, counsel agreed to research some issues for the board and it was agreed to discuss further at the board meeting on the 28th. MR. CHRIS ROUND, Executive Director of Community Development spoke to the board regarding preliminary cost estimates for Route 9, million dollar mile... Need to discuss existing lighting policy, there's some issues, there's some alternatives that we've got to spell out... It's not a small project, four hundred thousand dollars, you're talking about fifty fixtures and there's an annual cost as well... TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I had two things related to the Queensbury Avenue Sewer District. I got a letter today, one of the things that we have asked for with that project is an access easement, just during construction over some property owned by Forest Enterprises and we've been working back and forth. We have told them that we would envision that they would let us have this as a temporary easement, that we would put the property back as is, there'd be no harm, there'd be no charge. We got our third letter which is says, well this one says, all is acceptable but there's no mention to compensation for Forest Enterprises for this temporary easement. I need to be able to get back to them and I think the Town Board, if you guys could think about whether or not it's worth, and I think you're going to need some input from Ralph and Mike. COUNCILMAN BREWER-No, we're not going to pay for it. TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-Okay, and I think that we don't technically need it, it would just make things easier is what I've understood from talking with Tom, Mike and Ralph. We have tried twice, you guys have gotten the letters where we've said, this is a public thing, it's a benefit, we'll put your property the way it is, we don't envision it. On a related thing, we've been talking with the attorneys for the people who own Apollo Drive. Remember, the last meeting the Town Board had passed a resolution authorizing seventy- five hundred dollars for legal fees. He got back to us today saying that his estimate of the total legal fees will be ten thousand dollars. We also put in the resolution that they don't get paid until we get the easement and he, for some reason, took offense at that. We described that you guys are a public entity and you can only use public funds for public projects but he has asked me to come back and ask the Town Board to consider revising your resolution to provide that the legal fees inolved with considering the project would be paid whether or not you get the easement. COUNCILMAN BOOR-You would advise against that, wouldn't you? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-I think as a public thing, you pay for a public benefit and the thing is that I think we're very close and I'm hoping that we get to a stage where, well, you've got permission, you get it to me, we'll go this final bit that you ask. COUNCILMAN BOOR-Isn't a matter off act thing, though? TOWN COUNSEL HAFNER-They have some very complicated financing that has really made this a lot more complex of a project then I would have ever envisioned but, it sounds like we're close but we still haven't seen anything. So, I wanted to report back and be able to get back to him with comments. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN BOARD MEETING RESOLUTION NO.: 344,2002 INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Daniel Stec WHO MOVED FOR IT'S ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Mr. Roger Boor RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns it's Regular Town Board Meeting. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brower, Mr. Boor, Mr. Stec, Mr. Brewer NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Turner No further action taken. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DARLEEN M. DOUGHER TOWN CLERK TOWN OF QUEENSBURY